Iran

[s0nny80y]

Taken from drudgereport.com:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1135696369601

US planning strike against Iran'
By JPOST.COM STAFF
[Print this Article] [EMail this Article] [Subscribe] [SMS Alerts] [JPost Toolbar] [JPost ePaper]

Talkbacks for this article: 200

The United States government reportedly began coordinating with NATO its plans for a possible military attack against Iran.

The German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel collected various reports from the German media indicating that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are examining the prospects of such a strike.

According to the report, CIA Director Porter Goss, in his last visit to Turkey on December 12, requested Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide military bases to the United States in 2006 from where they would be able to launch an assault.

The German news agency DDP also noted that countries neighboring Iran, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, and Pakistan were also updated regarding the supposed plan. American sources sent to those countries apparently mentioned an aerial attack as a possibility, but did not provide a time frame for the operation.

Although Der Spiegel could not say that these plans were concrete, they did note that according to a January 2005 New Yorker report American forces had entered Iran in 2005 in order to mark possible targets for an aerial assault.

Well, the US does have an overwhelming prescence in the Middle East, guess Bush wants to take advantage of this...

 

[Kylehnat]

*digs up passport, looks north towards the Canadian border*

 

[Joey D]

I doubt it will happen with the US, there really isn't a point to go into Iran at the present time. However if NATO goes in, it will be a lot more countries then just the US. But there are always military talks, I don't think we will attack Iran right now. Not saying it will never happen, I just don't think it will happen now.

 

[a6m5]

I was against the invasion of Iraq, but with Iran, it really depends. If NATO is involved, Allied Forces will not go into Iran, unless there is a justification for such a action. Not saying that NATO can't do no wrong, but there will be more nations putting their heads together with the involvement of NATO.

U.S. looking into invading Iran is old news. They've been running recon mission into Iran territory, while they were still fighting the Iraqi's. Anti-Bush crowd has been freaking out over this for while now.

 

[Kylehnat]

In terms of fighting terrorism, which was Bush's goal all along, Iran is a more relevant target than Iraq. However, because of the mess in Iraq, very few people will be receptive to another war in Iran.

 

[OGLE B]

Yea, Iran is more of a target now, especially since they are bent on the destruction of Israel. Iran or Israel may force the issue by attacking the other.
I agree kylehnat, nobody wants another war.

 

[Zardoz]

Those who think this is possible have no idea of how tapped-out the U.S. military is at the moment. We do not have the capability to do such a thing right now. Iraq has worn the Army and the Marine Corps out.

Even if we started a rapid withdrawal from Iraq right now, it would take years to rebuild to the point where we could consider taking on Iran.

And don't kid yourselves that such an operation would be anything other than another almost-all-American affair. What, you actually think the other NATO nations would provide anything more than token contributions?

There is no chance of this happening. Forget it.

 

[Diego440]

Yea, Iran is more of a target now

Iraq was more of a target than Viet Nam seemed been in the 60s, and look what has happened there. The US should stay in the US 💡

 

[ledhed]

The first time the US or any other country detects an Iranian nuke being made....bye bye Iran . Also those that read too much into planning...thats what good military organizations do..they plan ahead for such a time when a strike or a war or an operation may be needed at a moments notice. Iran just happens to have painted a huge bulls eye on itself .
Zardoz you have no idea of what you are talking about when it comes to the state of the military . Nato forces..those forces reserved for Nato are not deployed in Iraq. Google the US force structure and order of battle . we have enough laying around to deal with Iran tomorrow if needed . In fact this very same scenario was considered when the forces in Iraq were deployed..what do we do about Iran if ...??? etc. dont sell the military short .

 

[Solid Fro]

It's about damn time.

This Mahmoud Ahmadinejad criminal needs to be taken out, as he is part of the Axis of Evil. He has called for the destruction of Israel and like Saddam Hussein before him, has Weapons of Mass Destruction and supports Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Any military strike would be air attacks against Iran's nuclear weapon sites.

 

[James2097]

I bought my popcorn for this years ago.

 

[KaffeinE 86]

*sigh* Can't Israel do this for us? Why do WE have to send over bombers? Israel's already over there, and oil's expensive, and we could just owe them a strike. Preferably in the Western Hemisphere.

 

[Zardoz]

...Any military strike would be air attacks against Iran's nuclear weapon sites...

...contingent, of course, upon our figuring out where they actually are.

 

[Solid Fro]

*sigh* Can't Israel do this for us? Why do WE have to send over bombers? Israel's already over there, and oil's expensive, and we could just owe them a strike. Preferably in the Western Hemisphere.

Israel will and has done it before. If Israel is threatened by Iran, make no mistake about it, they will strike.

 

[K_Speed]

Well I gotta say that Iran is, I think we can just call it "****ing it up". Those verbal atacks on Israel, oh man...

As far as Irans military goes-->what military? Technology--> No.

As someone else said, I dont think US will attack now, only if Iran really starts to threaten israel.

As far as attacking goes? Your already boycotting them, why attack? Your just hurting the citizens not the damn goverment. Good Germany (who else?) didnt go that far.

I just hope this will work out well.

 

[niky]

Much as I disagree to using force to decide this issue, I'd say the action would be much more justifiable than Iraq.... but not by much, as Iraq is not a very big threat in conventional military terms... right now, they're using the nuclear button as a bargaining point, much like NoKor does... though there is no doubt that they are very aggressive and hostile to Western interests.

But this would be a very tough action to sell... especially at this point.

 

[Solid Fro]

Much as I disagree to using force to decide this issue, I'd say the action would be much more justifiable than Iraq.... but not by much,

America is damned if it doesn't, damned if it does, right?

But this would be a very tough action to sell... especially at this point.

No, it will be easy.

Maybe a hard sell to those who believe there is no "War on Terror" and believe 9/11 was created by the government to control oil assets and make Halliburton the richest company in the world.

Roll and Eyes.

 

[Zardoz]

...No, it will be easy...

We try anything in Iran and you'll see protest marches in D.C. that will have hundreds of thousands of participants. Senators or members of the House that vote for it will be committing political suicide.

If the Executive Branch tries to order it without Congressional approval they'll face a mutiny by the Joint Chiefs. You'll have generals resigning the military rather than take part in it.

By the way, is everybody aware that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was democratically elected by the Iranian people? They voted him in. He's The People's Choice. He's their kind of guy, I'm afraid.

We're not going to do a thing in Iran. This will never happen. Drudge has been ingesting big doses of hallucinogens.

 

[niky]

America is damned if it doesn't, damned if it does, right?

Quite true, uneasy rests the head... but it's always been that way. Even more so now, as America is the sole remaining superpower.

No, it will be easy.

Maybe a hard sell to those who believe there is no "War on Terror" and believe 9/11 was created by the government to control oil assets and make Halliburton the richest company in the world.

Roll and Eyes.

I meant due to: A.) Upcoming elections and posturing. B.) Budget. C.) Popular opinion. Whether you like it or not, there are a good number of people who don't favor any more military action.

And can we NOT bring 9/11 Conspiracy Theory into this? Please.

 

[Solid Fro]

We try anything in Iran and you'll see protest marches in D.C. that will have hundreds of thousands of participants. Senators or members of the House that vote for it will be committing political suicide...

Liberal's fancy.

If Iran threatens any country with it's nuclear weapons, I see no waiver in the American people to support military action.

I'll keep 9/11 conspiracies out as long as the other side stops believing in them as fact.

 

[Tornado]

This will never happen. While Iran is a far more justifiable target than Iraq ever was, the United States does not have enough manpower to fight three wars at once (Afghanistan, Iraq and iran is too much). In addition, by now Bush would have to circumvent Congress to get this started, because there is no way Congress would support it. They would also be forced to bring back the draft, and that would send more shockwaves through the country than Vietnam ever did. If Iran threatens military action against the United States (as it is confirmed that Iran at least has WMD's), than definately. But Iran is not stupid enough to do so. Why do you think the Cold War never had any real battles from our point of view? Because Russia had nukes, but so did we. We will not attack Iran for the sake of attacking Iran. That would literally be suicide for the whole country.

@ Viper Zero: Do people honestly believe that? Granted, I believe the "War on Terror" should have ended with the Taliban, but do people really think the government staged all of 9/11? That's pretty stupid. But why do you think all Liberals believe that? I don't. The thought never even crossed my mind.

 

[ledhed]

This will never happen. While Iran is a far more justifiable target than Iraq ever was, the United States does not have enough manpower to fight three wars at once (Afghanistan, Iraq and iran is too much). In addition, by now Bush would have to circumvent Congress to get this started, because there is no way Congress would support it. They would also be forced to bring back the draft, and that would send more shockwaves through the country than Vietnam ever did. If Iran threatens military action against the United States (as it is confirmed that Iran at least has WMD's), than definately. But Iran is not stupid enough to do so. Why do you think the Cold War never had any real battles from our point of view? Because Russia had nukes, but so did we. We will not attack Iran for the sake of attacking Iran. That would literally be suicide for the whole country.

@ Viper Zero: Do people honestly believe that? Granted, I believe the "War on Terror" should have ended with the Taliban, but do people really think the government staged all of 9/11? That's pretty stupid. But why do you think all Liberals believe that? I don't. The thought never even crossed my mind.

Wake up and read the news once in a while ..

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=221380

news.yahoo.com
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's hard-line president called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks will destroy the Jewish state, state-run media reported Wednesday.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also denounced attempts to recognize Israel or normalize relations with it.

"There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad told students Wednesday during a Tehran conference called "The World without Zionism."

he also believes the holocaust is a myth,,,,,

Genocide aim of Europe, says Iran's president


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's hard-line president who has said the Holocaust was a myth, now has charged that European countries sought to complete the genocide by establishing a Jewish state in the midst of Muslim countries.

"Don't you think that continuation of genocide by expelling Jews from Europe was one of their aims in creating a regime of occupiers of Al-Quds [Jerusalem]?" the official Islamic Republic News agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying Sunday. "Isn't that an important question?"

Ahmadinejad said Europeans had decided to create a "Jewish camp" as the best means for ridding the continent of Jews. He said the camp, Israel, now enjoyed support from the United States and Europe in the slaughter of Muslims.

He said anti-Semitism had a long history in Europe, while Jews had lived peacefully among Muslims for centuries.

The US wont let this crazy bastard get nukes...if it means war...better now than later .

You get worried about how many troops it takes...just like the fools that said you needed 500,000 troops to invade iraq...

 

[Joey D]

An attack on Iran wouldn't be to hard. Pretty much an air campaingn using F-1117A's adn the B2. Fly in, bomb the nuclear sites, fly out.

This will not be a war fought over political policy, because like was stated Iran is a "democracy" so people who think we force our views on the world need to realize we don't. And if it has to do with nuclear weapons there will be a lot of countries on board. NATO seems like the logical way to go, if not them then the UN.

 

[Zardoz]

...If Iran threatens any country with it's nuclear weapons, I see no waiver in the American people to support military action...

Neocon fantasy. Iraq has taught us our lesson. We're out of the Middle East intervention business, for good.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

Iran will be attacked for the very same golden reson Iraq was invaded ; It is militarily expedient to do so .
It is not Israel-taunting but THIS, something far more down home and direct a reason than a wonky warhead .

 

[DuckRacer]

Neocon fantasy. Iraq has taught us our lesson. We're out of the Middle East intervention business, for good.

O RLY? How do you know?

Honestly, unless Iran's going to nuke the crap out of Israel, we should leave them alone.

 

[Diego440]

I can see where this is going and it should probably be made part of the America thread....

 

[FoolKiller]

Iran will be attacked for the very same golden reson Iraq was invaded ; It is militarily expedient to do so .
It is not Israel-taunting but THIS, something far more down home and direct a reason than a wonky warhead .

I thought we were leaving conspiracy theories out of this. Even my brother who hates President Bush with a passion has agreed this is obviously not the reason because his actions are heading in the wrong directions for that.



The title of the article is "US Planning Strikes Against Iran" not "US Planning Invasion of Iran." There is a big difference between strikes and invasion. Strikes are what Bill Clinton did to Iraq to destroy their WMD sites and Invasions are what Bush did to remove Saddam from power. Plus planning a strike doesn't mean it will happen. Shoot I plan a cruise at least once a month but still have yet to take one. I also plan to be rich.

Based on the language of the article I would guess that this is something to be prepared for in the event that Iran develops the nukes and appears to be preparing to use them. Considering the language and tone coming from Iran nowadays that doesn't seem too far fetched. I just don't see it being another war based on this article.

 

[s0nny80y]

By the way, is everybody aware that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was democratically elected by the Iranian people? They voted him in. He's The People's Choice. He's their kind of guy, I'm afraid.

Well, since Iran did democratically elect their president, if we do strike, there should be more justifiable cause to invade communist North Korea instead.

But since Iran is in close proximity to the US troops stationed in Iraq, trouble to our Jewish allies in the Mid East, and has oi...............

It is not Israel-taunting but THIS, something far more down home and direct a reason than a wonky warhead .

It's a great way to secure access to oil and have a dominant presence in the Middle East to sway foreign policy for Middle Eastern countries when the inevitable (oil shortage) comes about.

It's a perfectly good reason to do so in the event of an ever-nearing oil shortage, just not in the disguise to fight terrorism although there would be no other acceptable way to impose such an influence without international retaliation, hence the war on terrorism on whole countries rather than individual terrorist organizations.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

Based on the language of the article I would guess that this is something to be prepared for in the event that Iran develops the nukes and appears to be preparing to use them. Considering the language and tone coming from Iran nowadays that doesn't seem too far fetched. I just don't see it being another war based on this article.

That link is a bit off , but there is a major truth ; Iran has much Oil & Gas , if it trades that in euros it will hurt the dollar . Saddam was up to something similar and this would have been far more damaging than a puny WMD threat . It is a truth behind the surface of what's happening in the middle east ; if oil gets traded in another currency , the dollar , by it's nature , will suffer and that is what is perceived in Washington as a Direct attack .