Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/31/2005 2:00:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 2:02:42 PM EDT
since the topic author is a lazy bastard.....


NUCLEAR WAR-FEAR
Reports: U.S. preparing
military strike on Iran
German press speculates dispatch of officials
to Turkey, Pakistan meant to prepare allies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 31, 2005
5:25 p.m. Eastern



© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

While the U.S. has always refused to take the military option off the table in dealing with Iran, the German press is reporting new developments that indicate the U.S. has gone from acknowledging the possibility of action against Tehran's suspected clandestine nuclear weapons program to preparing its allies for a strike.

According to Der Spiegel, the German daily, reports of a pending strike escalated following Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent statements that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map and his calls for Israelis to be relocated to Europe.


On Dec. 23, a journalist for the German news agency DDP, who is also an intelligence expert, cited "western security sources" in a report claiming CIA Director Porter Goss asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide full intelligence cooperation and exchange for a possible air strike on Iran's nuclear and military facilities.

Goss reportedly provided Turkey with three dossiers at the Dec. 12 meeting containing evidence Tehran is cooperating with the Islamic terror network al-Qaida, as well as information about the current status of Iran's weapons program. German security sources, it is reported, say Goss assured Erdogan Turkey would be alerted to any air strikes, should they occur, a few hours before they were launched. Goss also gave the Turkish government the "green light" to strike the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran if the U.S. proceeds.

The governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan were also informed in recent weeks that air strikes are a "possible option," but no timeline was provided

Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic speeches and claim the Holocaust is a "myth," it is speculated, have cemented the view in Washington that Iran would not back down in a nuclear showdown and Tehran is simply trying to buy time by continuing its talks with the Europeans.

"I would be very surprised if the Americans, in the mid-term, didn't take advantage of the opportunity delivered by Tehran," said a high-ranking German military official. "The Americans have to attack Iran before the country can develop nuclear weapons. After that would be too late."

In the January 2005 New Yorker, journalist Seymour Hersh reported that clandestine American commando groups were already on the ground in Iran, marking likely targets – a report the Bush administration attempted to play down as containing inaccurate statements but did not dispute.

In recent weeks, the number of visits to Ankara by American and NATO security officials has increased significantly. The head of the FBI, NATO General Secretary Jaap De Hoop Scheffer and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have made stops in the Turkish capital.


Joining the speculation in the German press, the left-nationalist Turkish newspaper Cumhuriyet, though unable to discover the substance of their talks, noted the unusually long meeting Goss and Erdogan held with, "Now it's Iran's turn."

As reported by WorldNetDaily, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has ordered his defense forces to plan for a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities by the end of March – the time intelligence sources say Tehran will be able to begin producing nuclear weapons.


Link Posted: 12/31/2005 2:02:44 PM EDT
I am not a fan of WND... I'll wait for some more sources.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 2:03:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/31/2005 2:05:13 PM EDT by killingmachine123]
Edit: TRH beat me to it.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 2:07:24 PM EDT
When 911 happened, I predicted that the US would start in Afghanistan and the Israelis would start in Syria, and we would meet up in the middle.

I still think I just got the timetable / order wrong.....but the crux of it right.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 2:12:20 PM EDT
I figured i'd see it in my lifetime.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 2:15:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Triumph955i:
I figured i'd see it in my lifetime.



Can I assume you mean Nucs?
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 2:16:22 PM EDT
Consider the source......World Net Daily is about as reliable as the National Enquirer.....
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 2:19:22 PM EDT
OF COURSE preparations are being made. Same with NK, Syria, probably even France . I'd be shocked if there HAVEN'T been preperations in light of their nuclear program and crazy-ass "president".

That being said, it's WND.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 2:25:27 PM EDT
In other news, my ass stinks.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 2:29:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CSM:

Originally Posted By Triumph955i:
I figured i'd see it in my lifetime.



Can I assume you mean Nucs?



na, just a skirmish with Iran.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 2:35:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/31/2005 2:37:16 PM EDT by KC-130 FLT ENG]
WND....

Nuff said



But I do hope we break bad on Iran.


Shitstains have had it comming to them for 25 years now.....

Link Posted: 12/31/2005 3:00:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By texas1138:
Consider the source......World Net Daily is about as reliable as the National Enquirer.....



Or ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN.....
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 3:05:33 PM EDT
Ok since Jimmy Carter these asshats have thought we are weak.
GWB comes in and now we are strong. The make noise that they can be Nuke. Try to scare us we back down we are wimps. We set the stage for an implosion with Iraq. they still wish to boast. Any question whats next?
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 3:20:23 PM EDT
I don't know how credible this report is, but if it is correct then I hope that we limit our attacks on Iran to a short, intense bombing campaign with maybe a few special ops assassinations (scientists and such). We don't need to invade Iran.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 3:22:04 PM EDT
I find it very convienient that we sit on both Iran's Western border (Iraq) and their Eastern border (Asscrackistan).




-K
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 3:25:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Special-K:
I find it very convienient that we sit on both Iran's Western border (Iraq) and their Eastern border (Asscrackistan).




-K



I have a sneaking suspicion that didn't happen by accident.
Matt
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 3:28:38 PM EDT
We need to whip they ass in a hurry before billary and sillary and all of e'm get back up in there.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 3:30:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
I don't know how credible this report is, but if it is correct then I hope that we limit our attacks on Iran to a short, intense bombing campaign with maybe a few special ops assassinations (scientists and such). We don't need to invade Iran.



We may need to put people on the ground to insure their nuclear capabilities are neutralized.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 3:33:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
I don't know how credible this report is, but if it is correct then I hope that we limit our attacks on Iran to a short, intense bombing campaign with maybe a few special ops assassinations (scientists and such). We don't need to invade Iran.



We may need to put people on the ground to insure their nuclear capabilities are neutralized.



Not if we hit Iran's nuclear sites with our tactical nukes. I wouldn't bat an eye if we did!
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 3:51:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
I don't know how credible this report is, but if it is correct then I hope that we limit our attacks on Iran to a short, intense bombing campaign with maybe a few special ops assassinations (scientists and such). We don't need to invade Iran.



We may need to put people on the ground to insure their nuclear capabilities are neutralized.



Not if we hit Iran's nuclear sites with our tactical nukes. I wouldn't bat an eye if we did!



Seems like a lot of people/ countries down wind wouldn't be too happy with this plan and the ROPer's would probably come together in one united pissed off mass from something like that. What's with bombing the Kurds?
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 3:56:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pcsutton:
When 911 happened, I predicted that the US would start in Afghanistan and the Israelis would start in Syria, and we would meet up in the middle.

I still think I just got the timetable / order wrong.....but the crux of it right.



Yeah, that is the genius of GWB operations to date. Afghanistan and Iraq couldn't be more perfectly placed for launching points into other countries in the region.

You and GW are on the same wavelength, I just don't think he is planning on help from Israel.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 3:58:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/31/2005 3:59:25 PM EDT by TacticalMan]

Originally Posted By Kihn:

What's with bombing the Kurds?



The Kurds are a major thorn in the side of the Turks.

The Kurds want to break away from Turkey and form an independant Kurdish nation. They are currently spread out from Turkey into Iraq and apparently have some people who either live in Iran or are taking refuge there.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 3:59:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
I don't know how credible this report is, but if it is correct then I hope that we limit our attacks on Iran to a short, intense bombing campaign with maybe a few special ops assassinations (scientists and such). We don't need to invade Iran.




But we will invade...GW2 started over less than what Iran actually has in progress right now. If Bush could make the WMD issue justification to invade Iraq, think of what he can do if there really are WMD in Iran.



Z
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 4:01:24 PM EDT
Bring it bitches! Im gonna be a well decorated bastard when I retire.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 4:04:59 PM EDT
As much as I hate the idea of that crazy bastard running things over there having nukes at his disposal.... America doesn't have the stomach for it. It will take another catastrophe for us to finally take action, and then it will be too late.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 4:08:23 PM EDT
ideology is secondary

the next world war will be fought over diminishing resources
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 4:10:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 4:11:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TacticalMan:

Originally Posted By Kihn:

What's with bombing the Kurds?



The Kurds are a major thorn in the side of the Turks.

The Kurds want to break away from Turkey and form an independant Kurdish nation. They are currently spread out from Turkey into Iraq and apparently have some people who either live in Iran or are taking refuge there.



Yeah but they are our buds in Iraq (refer to TV commercials). What's wrong with the Iranian Kurds?
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 4:13:22 PM EDT
If we invade Iran, then fine...

..But let's just forget about this nation building BS and fight a war, not drive around policing all day...
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 4:15:41 PM EDT
I know WND is alittle wacky but this is definatly true that Iran WILL go nuclear by at least Semtember of this new year. It's not a matter of IF but when. Second it's all up to the US and the Isrealis, IF they are willing to deal with a nuclear Iran. IF the answer is no then an attack is only a matter of when and how. I predict because of Iran's mountainous geography that it will be a partial ground operation. A get in, get out strike. No tanks or heavy artillary just tight air cover. Those Bozos the Iranians could'nt fight their way out of a paper bag. So there will be special engineer regiments required to actually go into the mountain bases and blow it all to hell and get the Uranium out of there. Someone good will hold the perimeters, and some secondaries will probably be airstrikes only. Isreal will assist us with air cover and probably take some of the bases themselves. Once the mission is achieved it's Iran response that will be the dangerous period. Will they strike at Isreal with rockets? Will they engage with American troops in Iraq??
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 4:23:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/31/2005 4:51:58 PM EDT by glockguy40]

Originally Posted By t-stox:
I know WND is alittle wacky but this is definatly true that Iran WILL go nuclear by at least Semtember of this new year. It's not a matter of IF but when. Second it's all up to the US and the Isrealis, IF they are willing to deal with a nuclear Iran. IF the answer is no then an attack is only a matter of when and how. I predict because of Iran's mountainous geography that it will be a partial ground operation. A get in, get out strike. No tanks or heavy artillary just tight air cover. Those Bozos the Iranians could'nt fight their way out of a paper bag. So there will be special engineer regiments required to actually go into the mountain bases and blow it all to hell and get the Uranium out of there. Someone good will hold the perimeters, and some secondaries will probably be airstrikes only. Isreal will assist us with air cover and probably take some of the bases themselves. Once the mission is achieved it's Iran response that will be the dangerous period. Will they strike at Isreal with rockets? Will they engage with American troops in Iraq??



Again your lack of reality shows through. You couldnt be more wrong. If we attack Iran (and that is a big if),US troops, other than a few SPEC OPS for target designation, will never step foot in Iran. We will not send ground units in to hold terrority; we will not send in an Engineering unit to blow up fortified bunkers! You are a moron and are talking out your ass!
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 4:28:28 PM EDT
This is what will happen in the coming months:

Diplomacy will not end Iran's nuclear programme

Author: Ray Takeyh

December 21, 2005
Financial Times

www.cfr.org/publication/9469/diplomacy_will_not_end_irans_nuclear_programme.html

As the international community reels from the incendiary denials of the Holocaust by Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran’s president, the rituals of diplomacy persist. After a long period of suspension, the EU-3 of France, Britain and Germany today resume their negotiations with Iran over its contested nuclear programme.

The additional twist this time is the offer of conducting part of Iran’s enrichment activities on Russian territory. However, much of the prevailing diplomacy disregards the remarkable changes that Iran’s nuclear calculations have undergone since the election of Mr Ahmadi-Nejad. Iran’s nuclear policy is increasingly predicated on a mixture of ideological imperatives and nationalistic determinations that are largely immune to threats of sanctions or dangled rewards. Given this stark reality, the latest round of European negotiations is likely to meet the fate of the previous ones.

After 26 years in power, the Iranian regime is changing complexion as a new generation of austere ideologues assumes the mantle of leadership. For Mr Ahmadi-Nejad and his allies, it is their experience in the war with Iraq that defines their strategic outlook. Iraq’s indiscriminate use of chemical weapons against Iranian civilians and combatants has scarred the returning war veterans, making them suspicious of the motives of the international community that was largely indifferent to Iran’s plight.

An examination of Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s speeches reveals that for him the war is far from a faded memory, as its sacrifices and struggles lace his pronouncements. The bitter experience of the war has led to cries of “never again”, uniting the veterans-turned-politicians behind the desire to achieve not just a credible posture of deterrence but potentially a convincing retaliatory capability. It will be very difficult for Iran’s suspicious leaders to relinquish critical components of their nuclear programme for pledges of European goodwill.

After nearly three decades of acrimony and tension, Iran’s reactionaries perceive that conflict with the US is inevitable and that the only manner of preserving the regime’s security and Iran’s territorial integrity is through possession of the “strategic weapon”. Although, today, the US may seem entangled in an Iraqi quagmire that tempers its ambitions, for Iran’s rulers, it is still an aggressive state whose power cannot be discounted and whose intentions must not be trusted.

The final pillar of the new regime’s approach to the nuclear issue is its sense of aggrieved nationalism. Western demands that Iran relinquish fuel cycle rights granted by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty as a confidence-building measure have aroused intense nationalistic hostility. As a country that has historically been subject to foreign intervention and onerous capitulation treaties, Iran is inordinately sensitive to its national prerogatives and sovereign rights.

For Iran’s new rulers, they are being challenged by the international community not because of their provocations and previous treaty violations, but because of superpower machinations. The nuclear programme and Iran’s national identity have become fused in the imagination of its leaders. To stand against impudent western demands is to validate one’s revolutionary ardour and nationalistic fidelity. Thus, the notion of acquiescence has a limited utility to Iran’s nationalists.

As such, for Tehran, its nuclear programme is not one to be bartered away for European investments. Nor is the Russian offer likely to entice a regime that views its nuclear rights through a nationalistic prism. The populist appeal of Iran’s uncompromising stance, the inherent value of nuclear deterrence to a beleaguered regime and Iran’s suspicions of the international community militate against Tehran accepting the latest European mandates.

All this is not to suggest that Iran will brashly dispense with the negotiations and embark on a provocative course that may lead other powers to embrace America’s punitive approach. For the new masters of Tehran, the negotiations are valuable in terms of potentially fracturing western unity and preventing Iran’s nuclear portfolio from being referred to the UN Security Council. However, it is the process not the results of diplomacy that appeals to Mr Ahmadi-Nejad and his cohort.

In the coming months, diplomats will debate and international organisations will issue their periodic rebukes and contemplate their sanctions. And, all along, Iran will inexorably edge closer to the nuclear threshold.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 4:33:00 PM EDT
More likely than noit, Iran will have some ill-timed nuclear 'accidents'...

Iran is a job for the CIA, not the regular Army...
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 4:39:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/31/2005 5:15:38 PM EDT by glockguy40]

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
More likely than noit, Iran will have some ill-timed nuclear 'accidents'...

Iran is a job for the CIA, not the regular Army...



More likely than not... Iran will have nuclear weapons within two years. But that is just my opinion (backed up by Israeli estimates.... they usually over exaggerate, but I think they are right this time )

ETA: FWIW, The CIA has a very bad track record in Iran. Everything they have ever done or tried to do there has come back to bite them in the ass.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 4:42:44 PM EDT
I call B.S. If things had gone better in Iraq after the real war ended, I might agree with this, but attacking Iran would be political suicide for the Republicans. Also, the lack of WMDs in Iraq would raise a lot of questions about the reliability of information on Iran's nuclear program.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 4:46:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/31/2005 4:47:09 PM EDT by glockguy40]
Why Iran's president engages in his crazy rhetoric:

Behind Iran's hard-line on Israel

Author: Karim Sadjadpour, Ray Takeyh

December 23, 2005
The Boston Globe

Iran’s belligerent foreign policy toward Israel is among the more puzzling issues in international relations. At a time when most Arab governments, including the elected Palestinian leadership, have come to accept Israel’s existence as an unalterable fact, non-Arab Iran continues to call for eradication of the Jewish state. Over the course of the last several weeks President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran attacked Israel as a “tumor” that should be “wiped off the map of the world” and asserted that the holocaust was a “myth." Despite widespread international criticism, the Iranian president has been unrepentant, saying, “Western reactions are invalid....My words are the Iranian nation’s words.” In actuality, however, the Middle-Eastern country where Ahmadinejad’s declarations resonate least is Iran.

There are contending explanations why he chose such a sensitive time in Iran’s nuclear negotiations to engage in such inflammatory rhetoric. Since his surprise election in June, there has been a subtle attempt by the elders of the revolution to curb Ahmadinejad’s powers, with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei even giving his rival, former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, an expanded role in setting the national course. What’s more, contrary to the recommendations of the president’s more hard-line followers, Iran has decided to resume its long-suspended nuclear negotiations with the Europeans. By provoking a crisis, Ahmadinejad may be seeking to not only scuttle such negotiations, but to reassert his control over the state machinery and regain the political influence he has steadily lost over the past few months.

In the past, Iranian factions have often provoked international crises to advance domestic political agendas. The hostage crisis of 1979 was not just a strike against America, but an attempt by Ayatollah Khomeini to radicalize the population and firmly implant the foundations of Islamic rule. Beyond such domestic political considerations, Ahmadinejad and the hard-liners have long bemoaned the loss of revolutionary fervor and Iran’s seeming abandonment of the pan-Islamic dimension of Khomeini’s vision. A persistent slogan of Ahmadinejad’s campaign was the need to return to the “roots of the revolution,” and rejuvenate its grandiose ambitions. By pressing a dogmatic position on Israel, Ahmadinejad may perceive an opportunity to rekindle the long-extinguished revolutionary fires and reclaim Iran’s leadership of radical Islam.

Whatever the calculations of Iran’s new president, throughout nearly three decades of calls for the “liberation of Jerusalem,” Iran’s revolutionary regime has never come to terms with an essential reality: There exists no inherent reason why the Israeli-Palestinian struggle should be an overriding concern to the average Iranian. Iran has no territorial disputes with Israel, no Palestinian refugee problem, a long history of contentious relations with the Arab world, and an even longer history of tolerance vis-à-vis the Jewish people. To this day, the Jewish community in Iran is the largest in the Middle East outside of Israel.

Beset by practical concerns such as double-digit inflation and unemployment, Iran’s youthful population is well aware of the fact that the ideological hubris of their parents’ generation—often a half-baked hodgepodge of anti-imperialism, anti-Zionism, Islamism, and Marxism—has borne the country little fruit apart from a soiled international reputation and political and economic isolation. During the 2003 summer student protests, one popular slogan, delivered in lilting Persian, was “forget about Palestine, think about us!”

Much of Iran’s political elite has also come to terms with the fact that the regime’s rhetoric toward Israel is self-defeating. As revolutionary-cum-reformist leader Ali Reza Alavi-Tabar told us a few months back, “We need to reinvent ourselves. We shouldn’t be chanting ’death to Israel’; we should be saying ’long live Palestine.’ We needn’t be more Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves.” The popular reformist party, the Islamic Participation Front, quickly criticized his comments, saying, “When the country is facing an international crisis, such expressions impose a heavy burden on the country’s political, security, and economic interests.” In a surprising convergence of views, even the conservative lawmaker, Heshmatollah Falahatzadeh, similarly claimed, “Our officials should realize that there are many facts in the world that we should not pass judgment on in a way that the world finds fault with.”

Increasingly isolated abroad and beleaguered at home, Ahmadinejad would be wise to remember that his electoral mandate was not to fight Israel, but rather to alleviate an economic situation that, for many Iranians, teeters between subsistence and poverty. In making blusterous statements that only increase Iran’s isolation, however, Ahmadinejad’s impact will likely tip that balance toward greater poverty. In their relentless calls for justice and democracy in the holy land, Iran’s leaders incorrectly assume that the Iranian population wants more for the Palestinians than they want for themselves.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 4:49:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/31/2005 5:10:58 PM EDT by glockguy40]

Originally Posted By Midnight-Sniper:
I call B.S. If things had gone better in Iraq after the real war ended, I might agree with this, but attacking Iran would be political suicide for the Republicans. Also, the lack of WMDs in Iraq would raise a lot of questions about the reliability of information on Iran's nuclear program.



Not to mention the fact that if we attacked Iran the price of oil would shoot through the fucking roof to never seen before prices.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 4:52:37 PM EDT
I'm not buying it. We heard the same shit last year, and nothing happened. Same with Syria...
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 4:58:14 PM EDT
It would take at least four divisions to invade Iran, six would be better. We just don't have the strength and the SecDef is looking to cut more from each of the services.



Link Posted: 12/31/2005 5:19:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By VooDoo3dfx:
I am not a fan of WND... I'll wait for some more sources.



Yeah- let's see if it's on debkafiles. If so, then it's fer reeeeal, maaan....






Link Posted: 12/31/2005 6:19:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

Originally Posted By t-stox:
I know WND is alittle wacky but this is definatly true that Iran WILL go nuclear by at least Semtember of this new year. It's not a matter of IF but when. Second it's all up to the US and the Isrealis, IF they are willing to deal with a nuclear Iran. IF the answer is no then an attack is only a matter of when and how. I predict because of Iran's mountainous geography that it will be a partial ground operation. A get in, get out strike. No tanks or heavy artillary just tight air cover. Those Bozos the Iranians could'nt fight their way out of a paper bag. So there will be special engineer regiments required to actually go into the mountain bases and blow it all to hell and get the Uranium out of there. Someone good will hold the perimeters, and some secondaries will probably be airstrikes only. Isreal will assist us with air cover and probably take some of the bases themselves. Once the mission is achieved it's Iran response that will be the dangerous period. Will they strike at Isreal with rockets? Will they engage with American troops in Iraq??



Again your lack of reality shows through. You couldnt be more wrong. If we attack Iran (and that is a big if),US troops, other than a few SPEC OPS for target designation, will never step foot in Iran. We will not send ground units in to hold terrority; we will not send in an Engineering unit to blow up fortified bunkers! You are a moron and are talking out your ass!



First off i dont work for the DoD this is just a prediction, but i'm usually 85% right on my predictions. Secondly, why don't you just admit it, you want Iran to go nuclear! That country comes before this one as far as you're concerned. Then you and your comrades can finally get some "respect" on the world scene and the Evil jews of Tel-aviv will have to take you seriously. You say they will never step one foot in Iran, how do you know? and why not? cause they're afraid of a bunch of chumps that could'nt even defeat Iraq after 8 years??? HA! I know for a fact that every Arab was secretly hoping that the US would get defeated as it went up against the "great iraqi" forces and now are happy that things are not going well for the US there. So it is with Iranians, they finally wanna give the US a bloody nose. Ain't gonna happen. I'm sure if i said that even if the US did'nt get involved and that it would be isreal that bitch smacks Iran you'd basically take the same BS line as your comrades! "oh the wicked jews will find a grave here!", "allah akbar" "oh the Jews can't hurt us allah prtects us" or some such shit. They always say that just before Isreal tears tham a new asshole but rather than blame themselves or praise how great the "wicked pig, jew" is at fighting they'll just blame America. Too bad they kicked all the jews and zoastrians out of Iran, maybe the "stupid jews" could've helped them build a bomb the way they did for America in WWII.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 10:22:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/31/2005 10:26:54 PM EDT by PeteCO]

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

Again your lack of reality shows through. You couldnt be more wrong. If we attack Iran (and that is a big if),US troops, other than a few SPEC OPS for target designation, will never step foot in Iran. We will not send ground units in to hold terrority; we will not send in an Engineering unit to blow up fortified bunkers! You are a moron and are talking out your ass!



Sand in your mangina? Someone in this thread has definitely shown himself to be a moron, but I'll give you a hint: It wasn't T-Stox.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 10:25:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By steve-oh:
It will take another catastrophe for us to finally take action, and then it will be too late.

Dumbya can arrange that.

Link Posted: 12/31/2005 10:41:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TrollAccount:

Originally Posted By steve-oh:
It will take another catastrophe for us to finally take action, and then it will be too late.

Dumbya can arrange that.





Please enlighten us.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 11:06:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By valheru21:

Originally Posted By Special-K:
I find it very convienient that we sit on both Iran's Western border (Iraq) and their Eastern border (Asscrackistan).




-K



I have a sneaking suspicion that didn't happen by accident.
Matt



Yeah, it didn't.
I try to explain this shit to the libs but they don't want to hear it even after they clearly understand the strategy behind it.

We may hit their nuke sites but we will not start full scale war with them. There is a complete lack of will by the people of this country to go to that extreme IMO.

I would also submit that if we do so we will have to also take on Syria. If we are going to go that route it would be better to deal with Syria first and then Iran but there would be even less political will for that option.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 11:33:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:
I know WND is alittle wacky but this is definatly true that Iran WILL go nuclear by at least Semtember of this new year. It's not a matter of IF but when. Second it's all up to the US and the Isrealis, IF they are willing to deal with a nuclear Iran. IF the answer is no then an attack is only a matter of when and how. I predict because of Iran's mountainous geography that it will be a partial ground operation. A get in, get out strike. No tanks or heavy artillary just tight air cover. Those Bozos the Iranians could'nt fight their way out of a paper bag. So there will be special engineer regiments required to actually go into the mountain bases and blow it all to hell and get the Uranium out of there. Someone good will hold the perimeters, and some secondaries will probably be airstrikes only. Isreal will assist us with air cover and probably take some of the bases themselves. Once the mission is achieved it's Iran response that will be the dangerous period. Will they strike at Isreal with rockets? Will they engage with American troops in Iraq??



Not surprised that it's you with all these ideas that are completely incorrect. First off, the Iranians aren't normal Arabs, which means that they're not fuckups in the traditional Arab sense. They're Persians, and while My Peoples done been kickn' they ass for about 2300 years (I'm a Greek), it don't mean they no slouches. Ok, I'll lay off the Ebonics for a sec and tells ya the res'!

DON'T expect us to ask for, or in a welcome fashion, receive any help from our Yiddishe cousins. Shlomo will have to keep the F16 and the Mirage in the Garage, I'm afraid. If we are seen operating in a joint capacity with our Fellow Brothers of the Book, the Ay-Rab World will go all to shit in one New York Minute. No, the Hebrew will hang back, as it were, and we would have an unpleasant, but not unsuccessful time of it in the hills. We'd blow up a bunch of facilities, and there'd be no nukes used in the process (we have recently decommissioned some nuclear bunker busters in exchange for some conventional weapons that are aparrently bad-assed enough to do the job).

The Iranians, not being the fucktards that the Iraqi Islamists are, won't go charging at armored vehicles with Toyotas; they will instead mount a resistance that will be 1000% more effective (in other words, merely ineffective instead of as utterly ineffective as a 9 y.o. with a rock) than the Iraqis were. Some U.S. Servicemen will perish (well under 1,000 men, in my inexpert opinion ), but any units endangered by any moderately flaccid response that comes from our Islamist enemy will immediately be subjected to the unwelcome attentions of the United States Air Force, flying out of Baghram and four or five other bases a hop, skip, and a jump away from Iranistan. From there, things will go very poorly for the Mullahs, and the population, largely untroubled by the bombing, will be emboldened to seek their freedom from these Islamofascist terror-mongerers at point of gun. Iran will change virtually overnight from a land of very smart people oppressed by a weak, centralized, ruthless government into one that is far superior to the corrupt retards still seeming to hold the reigns of power in Iraq.

Or at least that's how I hope it goes. It could turn into another slush-fest, like the shithole that is Iraq.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 11:51:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/31/2005 11:53:27 PM EDT by No-Worries]

There's NO need to use nukes (tactical or otherwise) on the reactors or ANY or their research sites. It'll all be done conventionally and will be just as effective WITHOUT the blowback.

There are MANY sites that'll have to be smoked. I would also be a good idea to destabilize them from within before a proper smoking begins to make the job (and the future of the country) that much easier to unscrew afterwards or else it'll just be another headache ten years down the road (like Iraq became). I hope we learn from our mistakes and do it right.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 1:14:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/1/2006 1:28:37 AM EDT by glockguy40]

Originally Posted By t-stox:

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

Originally Posted By t-stox:
I know WND is alittle wacky but this is definatly true that Iran WILL go nuclear by at least Semtember of this new year. It's not a matter of IF but when. Second it's all up to the US and the Isrealis, IF they are willing to deal with a nuclear Iran. IF the answer is no then an attack is only a matter of when and how. I predict because of Iran's mountainous geography that it will be a partial ground operation. A get in, get out strike. No tanks or heavy artillary just tight air cover. Those Bozos the Iranians could'nt fight their way out of a paper bag. So there will be special engineer regiments required to actually go into the mountain bases and blow it all to hell and get the Uranium out of there. Someone good will hold the perimeters, and some secondaries will probably be airstrikes only. Isreal will assist us with air cover and probably take some of the bases themselves. Once the mission is achieved it's Iran response that will be the dangerous period. Will they strike at Isreal with rockets? Will they engage with American troops in Iraq??



Again your lack of reality shows through. You couldnt be more wrong. If we attack Iran (and that is a big if),US troops, other than a few SPEC OPS for target designation, will never step foot in Iran. We will not send ground units in to hold terrority; we will not send in an Engineering unit to blow up fortified bunkers! You are a moron and are talking out your ass!



First off i dont work for the DoD this is just a prediction, but i'm usually 85% right on my predictions. Secondly, why don't you just admit it, you want Iran to go nuclear! That country comes before this one as far as you're concerned. Then you and your comrades can finally get some "respect" on the world scene and the Evil jews of Tel-aviv will have to take you seriously. You say they will never step one foot in Iran, how do you know? and why not? cause they're afraid of a bunch of chumps that could'nt even defeat Iraq after 8 years??? HA! I know for a fact that every Arab was secretly hoping that the US would get defeated as it went up against the "great iraqi" forces and now are happy that things are not going well for the US there. So it is with Iranians, they finally wanna give the US a bloody nose. Ain't gonna happen. I'm sure if i said that even if the US did'nt get involved and that it would be isreal that bitch smacks Iran you'd basically take the same BS line as your comrades! "oh the wicked jews will find a grave here!", "allah akbar" "oh the Jews can't hurt us allah prtects us" or some such shit. They always say that just before Isreal tears tham a new asshole but rather than blame themselves or praise how great the "wicked pig, jew" is at fighting they'll just blame America. Too bad they kicked all the jews and zoastrians out of Iran, maybe the "stupid jews" could've helped them build a bomb the way they did for America in WWII.



LOL. Yea... I want them to get the bomb. Bullshit. If you read my past posts.... I said we should have bombed them 2 years ago long before they had started uranium conversion. Now that they have their conversion facility at Isfahan up and running, and have now produced several batches of uranium hexafluoride (UF6, the precursor gas which goes into centrifuges), they now know too much to be stopped. We should have blown that plant up a long time ago as far as I'm concerned... which I have stated on several occasion. I was advocating setting their program back through military action long before Iran ever even showed up as an issue on this board. So you need to get your damn facts straight.

Secondly... who the fuck are my supposed comrades? The fact that I am now pessemistic and believe that we can no longer stop them does not mean I support the Iranian regime and their horrible treatment of their people. Nor does it mean that I support their anti-semetic agenda. But leave it to the Israel supporters to throw out the "anti-semite card" as soon as they are made to look like idiots.`

Your strategic predictions might as well be written on toliet paper because alls they're good for is wiping my ass with. You have no notion of military tactics or the battle-space the US military would have to operate in while engaging in a mission in Iran.

More to the point, the fact that they now have everything they need in place.... in addition to redundant capabilities that no one is likely to know about (including us and the Israelis) leaves a great doubt as to whether military action at this point would do any good. We are at a point now that Iran has become so advanced in their nuclear program we have to weight the costs associated with action against the benefit it will provide.

Is setting their nuclear program back a year worth the Iranian retaliation we will face in Iraq, their increased support for terrorism against Israel, in addition to the risk of a large scale flare up in the middle east? I doubt we have the stones for it, and I doubt that if we did carry out such a mission, that it would credibly set back their program. Why? Because we would need perfect intelligence to know how much of their program we destroyed.... and there is no way to ever really be sure. Some might say that any damage we do to their program is a plus.... that any delay we cause is a good thing.

But then you have to think.... after bombing them, if they get nukes two years later anyway.... then you have pissed off Ayatollahs with nukes who want some damn payback. Doesn't give me that warm fuzzy feeling, I don't know about you.

I don't want them to get the bomb you moron. I just don't have my rosy colored glasses on like you do. Just because we have the most powerful military in the world, doesn't mean we can stop them. You have to know where to direct that power in order to destroy your target. Iran has learned the Osirak lesson well. Disperse your facilities, dig them deep, create redundant facilities, repeat as necessary.

Think about it... when they were keeping their nuclear facilities secret from the IAEA, they were enriching uranium in a watch factory. For all we know, they could have enrichment facilities under schools and holy sites throughout the country that no one is aware of.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 1:16:45 AM EDT
Invading Iran is a good idea to everyone but those who are properly informed on what it would be like, and what the proper course of action actually is.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 1:17:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By steve-oh:
As much as I hate the idea of that crazy bastard running things over there having nukes at his disposal.... America doesn't have the stomach for it. It will take another catastrophe for us to finally take action, and then it will be too late.



This is the problem with so much of this stuff- are you aware that the president has ZERO, NADA, ZILCH power over the military there?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top