Attack on Iran

[Broken Promise Land]

Bush Administration Source: "There will be an attack on Iran."

[uda_man]

Ha Ha, thats pretty funny...I like it.

Incendently George Bush is actually pretty healthy for a guy his age...even his doctors are surprised.

Too bad his global diplomacy isn't as healthy as he is.

[Moobies]

Too bad his global diplomacy isn't as healthy as he is.

Git ma gun! Ther's a bush-chidin liberal here!





Just teasing.

[donpaulo]

if bush is going to move on Iran he is going to have to do it relatively quickly. Waiting much longer could spell doom for the next GOP candidate for the white house. (if he hasn't done that already)

[Single Salaryman]

At the end of the day, does anyone here really care if the U.S. attacks Iran? Of course not. It's not like anyone has plans to go spend vacation there.

Let them drop!

[donpaulo]

the issue is what happens after the US attacks Iran.

Iran will certainly respond. Question is how...

[Single Salaryman]

the issue is what happens after the US attacks Iran.

Iran will certainly respond. Question is how...

They'll respond like any country that's had its butt kicked. What can they do? Throw sand at the U.S.? They don't have nukes, they don't have missles that can reach U.S. soil--who cares what they do?

[Derukugi]

the issue is what happens after the US attacks Iran.

Iran will certainly respond. Question is how...

Crock. It won`t happen.
Firstly, the issue was never to "attack Iran". The issue was always to take out Iran`s nuclear facilties.

Secondly, neither Isreal nor the US have either the political balls nor the military ability to do this.

So the question remains: What will happen after Ahmedinejad comes true on nuking an Israli city (Tel Aviv being the obvious choice).

[uda_man]

Crock. It won`t happen.
Firstly, the issue was never to "attack Iran". The issue was always to take out Iran`s nuclear facilties.

Uh...like that is attacking Iran!

Secondly, neither Isreal nor the US have either the political balls nor the military ability to do this.

TRUE! They won't do it the right way, they'll probably miss like 30% or more of there intended targets.
Plus Iran is not stupid those underground facilities are deep deep deep underground, we'd have to bomb the same target multiple times...

So the question remains: What will happen after Ahmedinejad comes true on nuking an Israli city (Tel Aviv being the obvious choice).

We'll instead of focusing all of our energy on sending high tech missiles that probably won't do anything anyway....we should be focusing on anti-missile defenses.

That to me makes a heck of a lot more sense.

And if Iran does attack Israel or whomever then we'd be justified and so will Israel.

Don't get me wrong I know these muzzies are evil, but we are incurably stupid...everything we do is STUPID!

It's like were putting out fire with gasoline.

We need real brains in the White House.

As I said before both parties are ignorant morons.

Democrats try to resolve things by throwing money at the issue.

Republicans try to resolve things by throwing Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Morons I tell ya!!

[stillnosheep]

if bush is going to move on Iran he is going to have to do it relatively quickly. Waiting much longer could spell doom for the next GOP candidate for the white house. (if he hasn't done that already)

Losing the next Presidential election is already factored in to Republican strategy. The refusal to withdraw from Iraq is central to the next neo-com wheeze of leaving the mess for the democrats so that they can be blamed for the chaos that will follow; thus paving the way for another halliburton presidency in 2012.

[donpaulo]

actually its fairly easy to "take out" the nuclear facility, just like the israeli air force did to Saddam back in the day.

throwing sand comments aside (basically because they are moronic) the persians hold what the americans want... oil. Alot of oil. In fact more oil than just about any other country in the world at present. The issue for the Iranians is that refining is basically nil and that Sunni gulf states are pumping enough oil to keep western democracies well lubed.

Of even more significance should the Saud family ever suffer a coup, which any neocon will tell is a not only likely but a distinct possibility.

If the Wahabists ever take the oil offline from the Arabian peninsular then persia become paramount in the world oil game. Unless you want to dance with Venezuela, Libya or African sources.

In fact the Japanese are already in persia in a big big way.

and before someone comments on how the US gets minimal oil from the gulf I will point out the obvious that just cause things happen to be that way currently has nothing to do with how things will turn out in the future.

just the facts

[Derukugi]

actually its fairly easy to "take out" the nuclear facility, just like the israeli air force did to Saddam back in the day. (snip)

Only if you have been spending the last twenty years reading NOTHING about the topic.

Iran`s nuclear facilities were designed precisely with the example of Saddams Ozirak reactor in mind. They are spread out and protected; they can NOT be taken out the way Ozirak was.

[donpaulo]

wrong as usual deru.

your lack of due diligence exposes you as a hack.

so the facilities are spread out, gee that makes it "impossible" to use more missles. or those bunker busters the neocons love to spend tax money on.

lots of things are "impossible" until proven otherwise.

The Pearl Harbor attack was thought to be "impossible" too. So was Hannibals crossing of the Alps. Or the Red Army's victory at Stalingrad (at least according to the nazi's)

a big big difference between impossible and difficult. The issue is that the US has no human assets in the persian region they can utilize to compromise the nuclear network.

[金正日]

Iraq has turned into a quagmire, unsurprisingly. It's not time for America to be starting new wars.

[donpaulo]

here is a link for you hackboy

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm

unless you are maintaining the "impossible" position.

[uda_man]

Iraq has turned into a quagmire, unsurprisingly. It's not time for America to be starting new wars.

Quagmire??? Whats he doing in Iraq?

[donpaulo]

"God, Guns and Guts made America free" ?

hardly.

here is an example of WHO helped to liberate america

François Joseph Paul de Grasse

don't know him ? look it up...

here is another

Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette

and

Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben

I hope you enjoy your education

[uda_man]

"God, Guns and Guts made America free" ?

hardly.

here is an example of WHO helped to liberate america

François Joseph Paul de Grasse

don't know him ? look it up...

here is another

Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette

and

Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben

I hope you enjoy your education

Of course they had their roles to play in helping our country and thats all within the confines of GOD, GUNS A GUTS.

Read up on the Patriots and Militia..thats where the three G's come into play also.

Here's a trivia, who was the first victim of the Revolutionary war massacre?

You got one minute to respond.....no googling

It's Sunday 1202 pm tokyo time ...
...
go

[donpaulo]

without degrasse and the french fleet there is no surrender of the British army. I would say they played more than a role, they were the main player.

It was german training, french leadership and money that saved the day for the colonies. Not to mention englishmen living in america who helped America gain independence.

there were no americans, except the natives of course.

as far as who was the first casualty you would have to define which "massacre" you are talking about.

[Derukugi]

wrong as usual deru.

your lack of due diligence exposes you as a hack.

so the facilities are spread out, gee that makes it "impossible" to use more missles. or those bunker busters the neocons love to spend tax money on.

*Nuclear* bunker busters, yes. But that is another pandora`s box, and Bush is not going to touch that.

With conventional weapons, almost impossible, according to all expert commentaries one can find. But I take it they failed to ask Donpaulo on the Gaijinpot.

[zilch]

Well it sounds like a diplomatic approach has more chance of success then.

Doesn't make you feel so macho of course.

[Derukugi]

Well it sounds like a diplomatic approach has more chance of success then.

Sure, as long as "diplomatic approach" means collectively converting to islam.

"There is no way for salvation of mankind but rule of Islam over mankind."

http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/men...2013173859.htm

[zilch]

Makes you wonder about those Jews in Iran doesn't it. 3000 years and counting.

In 2000, a group of 13 Orthodox Jews in the southern city of Shiraz were accused of spying for Israel. The case prompted an international outcry that led to the eventual release of the Jewish prisoners after years of quiet diplomacy. In 2006, a false story in the National Post of Canada claimed that the Iranian parliament was considering requiring a yellow insignia for Jews in Iran. The story was confirmed by the associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. AIPAC sent out an "e-mail blast" to reporters on the story, which became a major press event in the United States. The false story turned out to originate with Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri from the Benador Associates speakers bureau.

Goddam the "d" word again.

We've all seen the total success of the military option in Iraq, a secular country turned into a hotbed of fundamentalism, or so we are led to believe. But hey, why stop banging your head off a wall when there is nothing in it worth looking after ?

[ruserious]

any attacks on Iran by the U.S. will be done so very quietly. I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. is already doing some small-scale operations inside Iran. The U.S. simply wants to stop the flow of arms into Iraq. They don't want a full-scale war with Iran.

[BillyT]

Bomb Bomb Bomb... Bomb Bomb Iran!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6eVMkd9GHQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu29F8NfRvI

[Kisame]

Yeah I read the article. This administration would be very foolish if they chose to carry out an actual attack. We are already stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan as it is.

[Derukugi]

any attacks on Iran by the U.S. will be done so very quietly.

And how do you blow up massive underground facilities with 10 m thick armoured concrete walls "very quietly"?
LOL

[Derukugi]

Yeah I read the article. This administration would be very foolish if they chose to carry out an actual attack. We are already stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan as it is.

They are also very foolish if they stand by and let Ahmedinejad build Allahs bomb and proceed to cleanse Israel off the map.

But as you correctly say, they are caught with two bad choices and an overstretched military.

[Broken Promise Land]

They are also very foolish if they stand by and let Ahmedinejad build Allahs bomb and proceed to cleanse Israel off the map.

But as you correctly say, they are caught with two bad choices and an overstretched military.

They are not standing by anymore, the admin. has recently begun talking to Iran as means to end of the violence in Iraq. Perhaps if the Admin would up the pragmatism W. could secure a legacy of being the President who reengaged Iran and brought about the end of the Iranian chemistry set experiments.
Also, Iran Is 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb.

But then again, gays were responsible for 9/11, and Saddam had WMD and Bin laden was his Best Friend Forever BFF!

Nothing phases you does it Deru?

[donpaulo]

well hackboy, if I have to choose between the monterey institute or you and your complete lack of due diligence, thats a no brainer.

provide a legit source saying its "impossible".

I have already provided the source saying that not only is it possible, but that the pentagon has the option considered and planned.

not only does the monterey institute agree with me but the PNAC does as well. So does richard perle.

[Kisame]

Ten years? Wow the Bush Administration said like 2. If we really have ten years we have plenty of time to halt their nuclear program peacefully.

[Broken Promise Land]

Ten years? Wow the Bush Administration said like 2. If we really have ten years we have plenty of time to halt their nuclear program peacefully.

All presidents have lied, but George W. Bush has relentlessly abused the truth. Among the doozies:

"I have been very candid about my past."

"I’m a uniter not a divider."

"My plan unlocks the door to the middle class of millions of hard-working Americans."

"This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research."

"We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th."

"[We are] taking every possible step to protect our country from danger."

"I first got to know Ken [Lay in 1994]."

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." And, "[Saddam Hussein is] a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda."

"We found the weapons of mass destruction."

"It’s time to restore honor and dignity to the White House"

[Derukugi]

well hackboy, if I have to choose between the monterey institute or you and your complete lack of due diligence, thats a no brainer.

provide a legit source saying its "impossible".

Playing with words. It is probably also technically "possible" to build that 3-km tall scyscraper in Tokyo. That does not mean it is realistically possible.

That the military is "planning for" something means nothing. They have to plan for all sorts of eventualities.

And save your name-calling.

[Broken Promise Land]

Playing with words. It is probably also technically "possible" to build that 3-km tall scyscraper in Tokyo. That does not mean it is realistically possible.

That the military is "planning for" something means nothing. They have to plan for all sorts of eventualities.

And save your name-calling.

Have you lost your mind?

[Broken Promise Land]

That the military is "planning for" something means nothing. They have to plan for all sorts of eventualities.

[donpaulo]

Playing with words. It is probably also technically "possible" to build that 3-km tall scyscraper in Tokyo. That does not mean it is realistically possible.

That the military is "planning for" something means nothing. They have to plan for all sorts of eventualities.

And save your name-calling.

no source I see...

well the jury is still out, but since you have no source or are choosing not to provide one, I will give you another supporting my position

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm

also since it appears you have no interest in anything which challenges your position I will take one quote from the above story

"Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground."

sounds pretty possible, indeed probable if you support the neocon position

[donpaulo]

also a CNN link

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/hersh.iran/

so I guess hack hits a bit close to the heart eh ?

how about dilettante instead ?

[donpaulo]

yet more food for the fire.

the family values president himself saying Iran is in his sights...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUewCCu_D7U

or if you prefer the other position, which has yet to provide a source, its "impossible" to take out Iran's nuclear capacity.

[Jacque_S]

Well? Still waiting...

[Jacque_S]

I guess if it happens moveon.org will call for Obama's impeachment?