Thread: Iran - the next US target?

Right, that should hit the few who deserve it amongst the millions who live there.
With comments like this, it's no surprise US civilians are regarded as enemies and targeted...

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

The iranian weapons and iranian trained terrorists in Iraq aren't imaginary.

even if there is iranian involvement in iraq, the US surely has agents in iran working against the govt.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

The anti-american rhetoric coming out of Tehran also seems real enough.

yeah...next thing you know, they'll be saying the US is part of an 'axis of evil'.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

The nuclear ambitions of Iran also seem pretty clear.

do they? then i'm sure you wouldn't mind presenting some evidence to make it clear for the rest of us. you might also want to forward it to the IAEA, because they don't have anything indictable.

Originally Posted by Milkman

And the sites that are not dummies, and that are known, are fortified, buried deep under ground. Maybe the U.S. could get them, maybe not.

It isn't that easy.

And, the U.S. is not really one to be point fingers, right now.

That's why we should just turn the lights out. The US military has the capability to cripple their municipal infrastructure so severely they would be too busy just trying to get water and wouldn't be building nukes. Since the US has little to loose now as far as public opinion go. Maybe the gloves should come off.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Since the US has little to loose now as far as public opinion go. Maybe the gloves should come off.

Yes, and the true, barbaric nature be revealed beyond any doubt? Make use of the military machine as intended, and don't pretend to care for any casualties, human concerns or anything other then your own interests?

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

That's why we should just turn the lights out. The US military has the capability to cripple their municipal infrastructure so severely they would be too busy just trying to get water and wouldn't be building nukes. Since the US has little to loose now as far as public opinion go. Maybe the gloves should come off.

I just read the latest news rags this morning and as you likely know, Gates denies there are any plans, but 3 retired Generals just publicly states how destabilizing it would be if the U.S. does something.

I suppose we'll wait and see....

Here's an article:

The Sunday Times February 04, 2007
Iranian nuclear scientist ‘assassinated by Mossad’

Sarah Baxter, Washington

A PRIZE-WINNING Iranian nuclear scientist has died in mysterious circumstances, according to Radio Farda, which is funded by the US State Department and broadcasts to Iran. An intelligence source suggested that Ardeshire Hassanpour, 44, a nuclear physicist, had been assassinated by Mossad, the Israeli security service.

NI_MPU('middle');
Hassanpour worked at a plant in Isfahan where uranium hexafluoride gas is produced. The gas is needed to enrich uranium in another plant at Natanz which has become the focus of concerns that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons.
According to Radio Farda, Iranian reports of Hassanpour’s death emerged on January 21 after a delay of six days, giving the cause as “gas poisoning”. The Iranian reports did not say how or where Hassanpour was poisoned but his death was said to have been announced at a conference on nuclear safety.
Rheva Bhalla of Stratfor, the US intelligence company, claimed on Friday that Hassanpour had been targeted by Mossad and that there was “very strong intelligence” to suggest that he had been assassinated by the Israelis, who have repeatedly threatened to prevent Iran acquiring the bomb.
Hassanpour won Iran’s leading military research prize in 2004 and was awarded top prize at the Kharazmi international science festival in Iran last year.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected to announce next Sunday — the 28th anniversary of the Islamic revolution — that 3,000 centrifuges have been installed at Natanz, enabling Iran to move closer to industrial scale uranium enrichment.
Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency say that hundreds of technicians and labourers have been “working feverishly” to assemble equipment at the plant.

Link: Iranian nuclear scientist ‘assassinated by Mossad’ - Sunday Times - Times Online

Working with nuclear radiation can be dangerous.
An american scientist die of radiation poisoning during the Manhattan project.
The US didn't blame the Nazis though. It was an accident.
Given Tehran's propensity for anti-Israel rhetoric it's possible this guy just had an accident and they are blaming mossad to cover their screwup.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Working with nuclear radiation can be dangerous.
An american scientist die of radiation poisoning during the Manhattan project.
The US didn't blame the Nazis though. It was an accident.
Given Tehran's propensity for anti-Israel rhetoric it's possible this guy just had an accident and they are blaming mossad to cover their screwup.

I hear your point, Mr Earl.

I am a bit circumspect over articles like this.

There's 'planning' and there are 'plans'. I love playing with words, the English language is so good for it.

Originally Posted by Wallace

There's 'planning' and there are 'plans'. I love playing with words, the English language is so good for it.

These are also called "contingency plans."

Every country has them.

For example, Canada has a contingency plan to attack the U.S.


Meaning if Canada was going to launch a military strike, how would it be done. Where would it begin? What forces used? What strategy.


Of course....some contingency plans are planned on being carried out, others not.

Yeah, these military 'game plans' are common everywhere.
The US military was actually exercising building improvised bridges across the Rhine at the proposed frontline battleground against invading Russian troops where I grew up.
Gonna be forever grateful to our 'liberators'.

Originally Posted by stroller

Yeah, these military 'game plans' are common everywhere.
The US military was actually exercising building improvised bridges across the Rhine at the proposed frontline battleground against invading Russian troops where I grew up.
Gonna be forever grateful to our 'liberators'.

This is what I have been wondering lately, Stroll.

Was there a serious or real threat to Western Europe from the USSR?

Or, was the USSR not really interested in expansion, but just concerned with itself (using the Eastern European nations as buffer states).

One could argue the heavy US military presence helped make the Soviets "uninterested" in Western expansion. Others, like myself, were thinking there was a good deal of communism phobia and fear-mongering involved. The Soviets were just as threatened by 'us' as we were by 'them'.
It just so happened that the frontier of US influence was right in the middle of Germany, with preventive nuclear strikes on parts of Germany openly considered and 'planned' (by our 'friends', the US, thank you very much).

Opinions vary, also the exact time period is important. With tanks rolling into Czechoslovakia the danger seemed real enough. Later it became increasingly clear that the UDSSR wasn't up for further action.

Lots of different views on the subject, including the one that US bases throughout parts of Europe, specially their nuclear missile bases, made 'us' a target for potential Soviet strikes - this applies to the UK in particular.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Instead of bombing Iran with explosives we should just spray the entire country with pig feces.

Shades of the Indian Mutiny where the Limeys used cartridges wrapped in pig grease...?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Instead of bombing Iran with explosives we should just spray the entire country with pig feces.

Shades of the Indian Mutiny where the Limeys used cartridges wrapped in pig grease...?

Bacon is good

It's really too bad pigs offend the muslim community. The are missing out on some tasty eating.

I am going to stick my neck out on Feb. 9, and say that I think the U.S. is going to do something.

exclusive commentaryBy Michael Hirsh
Newsweek
Updated: 12:16 p.m. PT Feb 8, 2007

Feb. 8, 2007 - Did the Bush administration pass up a chance for meaningful diplomacy with Iran before its radical president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, took over? The question has taken on particular urgency in recent days, as the Bush administration has appeared to lay the legal groundwork for war, even while denying it has any intention of attacking Iran. On Jan. 10, in his speech to the nation announcing his “surge” plan for Iraq, Bush declared that “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops.” Such a statement is considered a traditional justification for war under international law. And The Washington Post story recently reported that the president has given orders allowing U.S. troops in Iraq to capture or kill suspect Iranian operatives. Then, last week, Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, speaking on National Public Radio, invoked Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which has been used by member states in the past to justify unilateral military action. At the same time the president is moving more U.S. naval forces to the Persian Gulf.

In the view of some critics, who include former senior members of the administration, the Bush team may believe that war with a clerical regime they consider to be illegitimate and dangerous is still likely, or even inevitable. But Bush and his senior aides, recognizing they have little public or allied support, seem to be putting in place a policy that incites the Iranians to act first....

Entire: A Failed Shot at Peace With Iran? - Newsweek Michael Hirsh - MSNBC.com

This administration is going to push us to WWIII before January 20, 2009 arrives.

I think there is a strong possibility of a conflict, be it minor, medium, or major.

Originally Posted by Wallace

Can't remember the exact words but you get the idea.
Bolton has also said that the US want to stop Iran using oil revenues to sponsor terrorism, so they have a duty to curtail their oil supplies. So what will they do for energy then?

They want regime change. Heard these words before?

Stop knocking the US. So demanding are they that oil money not be used to sponsor terrorism that they sent over 363 tons of crispy new bucks. Brilliant move!

Originally Posted by raycarey

IMHFO the US can........but it will inevitably come back and bite them in ass just like it has in iraq.


i'm really beginning to think that either the US or israel is going to bomb iran before jan 2009.

Agreed, but as with Osirak the Israelis will do it because they have less to lose. I guess being reviled by most of the world makes one the logical contender to take these things on.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by Milkman

And the sites that are not dummies, and that are known, are fortified, buried deep under ground. Maybe the U.S. could get them, maybe not.

It isn't that easy.

And, the U.S. is not really one to be point fingers, right now.

That's why we should just turn the lights out. The US military has the capability to cripple their municipal infrastructure so severely they would be too busy just trying to get water and wouldn't be building nukes. Since the US has little to loose now as far as public opinion go. Maybe the gloves should come off.

Within forum constraints of course we cannot cover everything in the finest detail, but let's try a few points and see where they go.

There's no easy solution within the niceties of democratic values and principles. Sure, bomb them to where their leaders wish to go anyway, but can that be achieved without infringing the basic rights of the innocents, and of course within international law? Can't be, and you know what, their leaders know that too.

Sure the gloves should come off and some argue should have a long time ago. They probably will eventually, but in line with high falutin democratic rules it may need some serious provocation rather than the trivial act relative to Western civilisation of taking out two buildings and a mere 3k lives.

When the Islamists do manage to take out a city or otherwise do away with millions of lives, or disable our infrastucture in such a way as to render our way of life unworkable, our gutless leaders will have little choice but to wake up to the reality of radical religious compulsion to doom in a high-tech age, and even some of the democratically bred lib/left/looneys might awaken from their deep slumber, if only to yawn.

If or when the gloves do come off, and we can see the results of the Coalition's unconsidered attempt in Iraq, the catalogue of blunders we witness daily will probably pale into insignificance against those to come. At least part of this happens, as we can see, not just due to logistics and social and political disunity but because we are dealing with a precedent, with no prior experience and no textbooks to learn from, and not even historical lessons to absorb because the world has never before been confronted by a religious fervour that will not negotiate short of global conversion or destruction, and to boot self-handicapped by legislated and social demands to protect the civil and human and other rights of those believing they have been called upon to do so by no less authority than a God.

The arguments that we lose the moment we stoop to their level, and where this may lead to, are valid, though when faced with a gunman we either set aside those of our principles that prevent us from defending ourselves, and regardless of the consequences, before the gun is fired, or hope to be able to do so after. Does this make 'us' no better than 'them'? Could be, though I think often of the 911 recording of an hysterical woman screaming that she cannot breathe because of the smoke, and would it be ok if she broke a window.

One critical error in perception, is that our laws have evolved as a set of civil and criminal codes, of course with the usual blunders and exceptions, which we are reluctant to set aside in dealing with terrorists, believing they are no worse than regular criminals and must therefore enjoy the same protocols, rights and benefit of doubt. Yet doing it any other way sets us off on a dozen murky paths at the same time, not one of which could satisfy billions of free thinking individuals.

There is also the matter of complaceny born of progress and affluence to contend with, and of course a host of other influences, but we must learn if not now then later that as it stands we are doing remarkably well to come a distant second, but that's only because there are two runners.

Hope this turns out to be wrong and if so expect it to be long after all those reading this are gone, but flame away regardless.

Originally Posted by mad_dog

It is a ludicrous idea to claim that neither the US, UK or Israel has planned a military attack on Iran. They all clearly have but can easily claim that any plans that do surface are merely academic studies and not official policy. This is a duplicitous falacy.A nyone who claims that the three fore mentioned countries have not at least outlined a military strategy to be used in the event of hostilties with Iran IS A FUCKING LIAR. Today Tony Blair said " 'Nobody planning' attack on Iran".

I hate that grinning fool with a passion untold.



(BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | 'Nobody planning' attack on Iran)

Do you expect him to say don't be a focking twat of course we're making plans?