• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are we about to attack Iran???

webfusion said:
Let me ask you, merko, do you know of any Israeli who has come out publicly and said that an air strike against Iranian nuclear centrifuges is not an option?
Click to expand...
Sure, but no one important. I think you missed my point, which is that they would not support such a strike today, but that they may well change their mind within the coming year. I agree very much that it is considered an option by the Israeli.
 
Azure said:
Again, Ritter is full of it.

I don't see how you can believe someone who changes their stance so quickly, and without reason. One year Saddam had WMD and it was the US' fault for not making him get rid of them, and the next year he doesn't have them?

Rrrright.
Click to expand...
I have noticed you have a particular interest in Ritter. I have heard him speak on TV and on the radio and read some of what he has written. He sounds pretty convincing and rational to me.
 
billydkid said:
I have noticed you have a particular interest in Ritter. I have heard him speak on TV and on the radio and read some of what he has written. He sounds pretty convincing and rational to me.
Click to expand...

Who gives a crap what he says on TV, or writes.

His viewpoint is meaningless....there is no way he has any idea what was going on in Iraq after he left the UN.

And lets just avoid the 360 turnaround, even though Saddam had made no changes, and still defied UN inspectors. :rolleyes:

I say it again, Ritter is full of it. His hypocrisy stands out above anything else he has said.
 
Polaris said:
I don't think Americans are quite as oppressed as Iraqis and Iranians.
Click to expand...

But Iranians aren't quite as oppressed as some Middle-Eastern societies, and in those areas they are, they are increasingly tired of it and more open to rebelling against it. Just check out the footage of all the hair and lipstick visible on Iranian women today. Such things would have been out of the question 15 years ago.

Darth Rotor said:
The point wasn't oppression, the point is parochialism or chauvinism.

"It's a family problem, we keep it in our family. You outsiders piss off."
Click to expand...

A very salient point. Nothing tends to unify disparate groups in a polyglot society like nationalism when facing a foreign agressor. Look at the Japanese and German soldiers who enlisted for WWII, or the Tuskegee Airmen and Navajo Code Talkers for that matter... Nationalism can transcend internal politics and unlike the U.S. or Iraq, Iran is mostly Shia Persians and even minorities like the B'hai and Zoroastrians feel a strong Persian identity.
 
Few, I rushed the thread to check, and thankfully both the JREF and forum members are indeed not about to attach Iran.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
But Iranians aren't quite as oppressed as some Middle-Eastern societies, and in those areas they are, they are increasingly tired of it and more open to rebelling against it. Just check out the footage of all the hair and lipstick visible on Iranian women today. Such things would have been out of the question 15 years ago.
Click to expand...

But those societies are are "allies". I'm very aware of the state of Iranian women - I talk to them all the time. Yes they are tired of it, but it's really nothing but talk. In 27 more years they'll still be saying "we'll just suck it up, it can't last much longer." And when those Mullah swine snap their fingers and say "those Americans and Jews want your land" they'll line up in droves for their plastic keys again.

And Strathmeyer - attacking Iran I don't think is in the works, beyond a contingency plan. But I do take a little comfort in that Basiji and Revolutionary **** stains will be meeting Allah in Iraq now. Not surprisingly, I haven't heard anything but support for that move by the Iranians I know.
 
pagan said:
Yes, absolutly. Bush, as usual is lying about it. The corporate media is silent.

According to this Russian general the attack will probably happen in late april.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=IVA20070124&articleId=4581
Click to expand...
Attacking Iran, the US will mostly use air delivery of the nuclear munitions. Cruise missiles (carried by the US aircrafts as well as ships and submarines) and, possibly, ballistic missiles will be used. Probably, nuclear strikes will be followed by air raids from aircraft carriers and by other means of attack.
Click to expand...
Nope.

1. The "tactical nuke bunker buster" isn't fielded yet, and with any luck at all, Congress will still keep fighting it. It's a bad idea, more silver bullet mumbo jumbo that ignores the political reality of nukes being used.

2. If an attack happens, cruise missiles will most likely be used for hitting C2 networks, and supressing Iranian Air Defenses. A conventional strike by Cruise Missiles would probably precede a conventional air strike. (See Serbia 1995 for an example. USS Normandy.)

3. Ballistic missiles? Nope. MIRV (nuke tips) are not the appropriate (political and tactical) weapon for a raid on an Iraq nuke facility. MIRV from an ICBM are a deterrent, not a first strike tool, and the general BLOODY WELL KNOWS THAT . . . unless he's been hitting the vodka too hard.

4. Nuclear strikes would not be followed by conventional raids from ships, as
There Would Be No Need to if nukes were so used . . . which they won't be any time soon.

Pagan, your source sucks.

Any attack, if there is to be one, will be conventional. I found his timing assessment interesting.

A few things I draw on to trash his less than rigorously researched article:

Political considerations of first strike nuke use.

My own experience: Air Command and Control experience. Strike warfare experience. TBM defense planning, capability, networking, and integration. TBM employment training and education. I worked on a number of Contingency Op Plans, both conventional and Nuclear. On the latter, I had to review a whole host (and got a few of them cancelled, yay me) of NATO supporting Op plans that referenced nuclear options.

Edit:

The US tactics will be the same as usual: first, to neutralize the air defense and radars, and then to attack aircrafts in the air and on land, the control installations, and the infrastructure, while taking no risks.

Within weeks from now, we will see the informational warfare machine start working. The public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new information leaks, disinformation, etc.
Click to expand...
At least he got that part right. :) He also raises the question of Congress "authorizing the war" so perhaps he's not as drunk as I first thought.

DR
 
Last edited:
Will any of these buffoon stick a full date in?

For years now, it's been in April, or some other month, we'll attack Iran. Ah, but which April I wondered 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010? They'll never say.

If, and mean if, George Bush and Dick Cheney decide to invade Iran then we will see the same exact events we saw leading up to the Iraq war. First the administration will begin building its case by finding real and imagined justifications against Iran and presenting those in the media over the year. Next year, January 2008, Bush will announce in the State Of The Union address to Congress his intent to bring sanctions against Iran. He will then go to the United Nations and persuade them into bringing sanctions against Iran. After that he will begin coalition building for the enforcement of those sanctions. In January 2009 he will pass the whole shebang over to the next president for the final execution of his plans, if it ever reaches that state.

Bush has no need for a nuclear strike. In his mind, he, not 911, made the case for war in Iraq. And he will repeat said actions again.

pagan said:
Yes, of course. Especially, as I am myself a 9-11 truther.:cool:
Click to expand...

Oh, wait. I'm debunking garbage. Never mind. :cool:
 
I"m sure many of you have noticed how much more frequently talk of Iran and it's role in contributing to the Iraq problem and general instability is coming from the administration. When we do go into Iran I hope the usual suspects won't dissappoint me by not coming in here and saying Scott Ritter and the rest didn't know anything and were just lucky when they got it right. It will be such a let down if the people who poo poo the notion that we will attack Iran don't come in here and claim, some how, some way that they were still right and those of us concerned about this war expanding were still full of it.
 
Azure said:
Scott Ritter is an idiot.

How many times do I have to say it?
Click to expand...

Wow, great post. Has nothing to do with whether or not we attack Iran, but great post. You don't like Scott Ritter and think he is an idiot. Got it. Trust me, you don't have to say it again. Can if you want to of course, but it's not really adding much.
 
Interesting tidbit from Thomas Friedman found it's way into the DMN's "Balance of Opinion" column.

BoO said:
But Iran's former ambassador to London, Mohammed Hossein Adeli, tells Thomas Friedman "when people say, 'The most important thing America could do today to stabilize the Middle East is to solve the Israeli-Palentine conflict,' they are wrong. It's second. The most important thing would be to resolve the Iran-U.S. conflict."
Negotiations with Iran, Mr. Friedman conjectures, "would change the whole Middle East and open up the way to solving the Israel-Palestine conflict, because Iran is the key backer of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Syria. Iran's active help could also be critical for stabilizing Iraq.
"This is why," the New York Times columnist adds, "I oppose war with Iran."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom