US plans for war with Iran are ready

[bush_cheney2004]

Nor do I. Initially, yes, I did see him that way; but I feel as if he's proven otherwise.

Hillary Clinton's "3AM Phone Call" attack ad in 2008 got Obama's attention. And I'm betting as Sec'y of State, Hillary tells the president that if he doesn't kick some ass, she will kick his.

[Guest American Woman]

Hillary Clinton's "3AM Phone Call" attack ad in 2008 got Obama's attention. And I'm betting as Sec'y of State, Hillary tells the president that if he doesn't kick some ass, she will kick his.

I love it! This sums up my thoughts exactly.

[Signals.Cpl]

not to disrupt the warmongering circle jerk, but an attack by israel is not going to stop the nuclear program. in fact, it will speed up the process from thoughts of a nuclear weapons program to actually pursuing it. this is not my opinion, but the opinion of experts both in israel and the u.s.

israel couldn't even get rid of hezbollah, a militant group, with their assault on lebanon. hezbollah is still in southern lebanon and they've upgraded their weapons. you expect an attack on iran by israel is going to help the situation?

the israeli experts, (this doesn't include natanyahu), say that an attack on iran by israel would be a mistake:

ex-moassad chief, dagan:

said Iran has “dozens” of fortified covert nuclear sites and successfully hitting all the targets would be nearly impossible, he said.

“The regime in Iran is a very rational regime,” Dagan claimed.

ex shinbet chief, diskin:

Diskin said it was possible that "one of the results of an Israel attack on Iran could be a dramatic acceleration of the Iran program. ... They will have legitimacy to do it more quickly and in a shorter timeframe."

these two are known to be hawks and they're against an attack on iran.

an attack on iran is not in the interest of anyone. not u.s.' interest, not israel's interest and not in iran's interest.

an attack will not only start and accelerate the nuclear weapons program but it could unleash hezbollah to attack israel and for iraqi shiat militias (like the powerful mehdi army) to scrap their deals with the u.s. and attack u.s. bases from within iraq.

an attack on iran is a stupid idea all around.

1)How many of us expressed desire to go to war? None, all the people who posted here want peace but not at all costs.

2)Thats the same rhetoric that was present between 1933-1938 where most "experts" downplayed the German threat and the Allies missed a golden chance to take down the Nazi's with minimal casualties. If Iran does not want to give up their weapons program the US and Israel are not obligated to wait until its too late.

3)The Iranian economy is down the drain and I doubt that they can speed up their research mainly because if the US acts, I guarantee you the Iranians will be in big trouble. Imagine the problems the Iranians had over the last few years plus whatever the US adds to that.

[bud]

1)How many of us expressed desire to go to war? None, all the people who posted here want peace but not at all costs.

heh... yes and american woman is a leftist.

2)Thats the same rhetoric that was present between 1933-1938 where most "experts" downplayed the German threat and the Allies missed a golden chance to take down the Nazi's with minimal casualties. If Iran does not want to give up their weapons program the US and Israel are not obligated to wait until its too late.

ridiculous rhetoric and comparisons do not warrant a response.

3)The Iranian economy is down the drain and I doubt that they can speed up their research mainly because if the US acts, I guarantee you the Iranians will be in big trouble. Imagine the problems the Iranians had over the last few years plus whatever the US adds to that.

look at the north korean economy and remind me about their nuclear program.

[Guest American Woman]

heh... yes and american woman is a leftist.

Doesn't matter what you think; only matters what I do politically.

[bud]

Doesn't matter what you think; only matters what I do politically.

sure thing, 'leftist'.

[Guest American Woman]

sure thing, 'leftist'.

Do you honestly think I care about what label you or anyone else puts on me? Label. Actions. You figure out which matters.

[bush_cheney2004]

There's also the matter of, oh, you know, the possibility of lots of dead Iranians....hopefully it's not some kind of blasphemy to suggest that this, too, might be a bad thing.

Not in this case....as some of the dead Iranians would be scientists, engineers, and technicians....this would be a desired result from such a specific attack.

You're being too generous.

Dumber things have happened for a lot less.

[Signals.Cpl]

ridiculous rhetoric and comparisons do not warrant a response.

Are you saying that if it doesn't fit your position it is ridiculous? Ever heard of the saying "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"? We don't study history for the sake of studying history, we study history to learn from mistakes made in the past and avoid making the same mistakes in the future. If you cannot see the comparison between 1936 and now thats not my problem. In 1936 the Nazi's were gambling that the western allies will not intervene in their plans. If the allies had moved in, the most likely outcome would have been a hasty german withdrawal and the collapse of the Nazi Party according to the Nazi Leadership. What happened was that the allies ignored the German threat when it was manageable and then fought them when it was too late. Iran is making a gamble, if the west does nothing it can blackmail the world simply by being in possession of a Nuclear Weapon, should the west avoid action when it is appropriate, then acting when it is too late could result in a nuclear exchange.

[Signals.Cpl]

double post.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[Guest Derek L]

Ultimately, I believe Iran knows what the result of war would be. I think Iran feels the need to show some prowess too, however; to 'fluff their own feathers.' I'm sure Iran is testing the waters, too, to see what kind of response it does get from the U.S./western world.

I don't think it's a forgone conclusion - at least I believe it would be a last resort, and even at that, I don't see an initial all out "shock and awe" attack. I'm sure such a war is something both sides would rather avoid.

I beg to differ, the very first burning oil tanker in the Gulf, and you’ll see “Shock & Awe” that will make Baghdad look like a fireworks show put on by the local volunteer fire department…….

In the end, can you see Israel and the United States living with a nuclear Iran? Probably not………Can you see Iran stopping it’s nuclear program…….that’s the million dollar question?

[bleeding heart]

1)How many of us expressed desire to go to war? None, all the people who posted here want peace but not at all costs.

No, you, personally, have stated plainly that you hope it doesn't come down to a war. You make a mistake if you take it for granted that everyone else is as rational and humane as you are.

2)Thats the same rhetoric that was present between 1933-1938 where most "experts" downplayed the German threat and the Allies missed a golden chance to take down the Nazi's with minimal casualties.

But Iran is not 1930s Germany. Not even close. Domestic horrors aside, internationally they have behaved as minor thugs....certainly not at the virulent level of their primary antagonists of the moment.

Edited May 19, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

Not in this case....as some of the dead Iranians would be scientists, engineers, and technicians....this would be a desired result from such a specific attack.

And an undesired result--or, morte accurately, a "we couldn't care less aside from bad PR" result--would be plenty of Iranians whose grand sin is...well, roughly speaking, nothing at all.

Dumber things have happened for a lot less.

I hear that, brother.

[Signals.Cpl]

But Iran is not 1930s Germany. Not even close. Domestic horrors aside, internationally they have behaved as minor thugs....certainly not at the virulent level of their primary antagonists of the moment.

The Comparison is on their gamble, in 1936 Hitler staked his leadership on the remilitarization of the Rhineland, if the French had shown even the slightest desire to act the end result would have meant a quick withdrawal from the Rhineland and the end of the Nazi Party, this is according to the Nazi's themselves. Iran is attempting to become a nuclear power, there are many reasons that could be motivating the Iranian Leadership, anything like the desire to destroy Israel, desire to join the big boys club of nuclear powers or just blackmail the world in to preferential treatment economicaly and everything in between. Iran is relatively weak now just like Germany was in 1936, if we the world lets Iran get nuclear capabilities then removing the threat would be much more costly in terms of lives.

My personal belief is that sanctions can work if they are applied properly and supported by all UN member states, but sanctions cannot work if China is trading with Iran and is therefore providing a leak through the sanctions. The Sanctions are not putting the desired pressure on Iran because they are still able to import/export a lot of their needs but should that hole be plugged.

[bleeding heart]

The Comparison is on their gamble, in 1936 Hitler staked his leadership on the remilitarization of the Rhineland, if the French had shown even the slightest desire to act the end result would have meant a quick withdrawal from the Rhineland and the end of the Nazi Party, this is according to the Nazi's themselves. Iran is attempting to become a nuclear power, there are many reasons that could be motivating the Iranian Leadership, anything like the desire to destroy Israel, desire to join the big boys club of nuclear powers or just blackmail the world in to preferential treatment economicaly and everything in between. Iran is relatively weak now just like Germany was in 1936, if we the world lets Iran get nuclear capabilities then removing the threat would be much more costly in terms of lives.

My personal belief is that sanctions can work if they are applied properly and supported by all UN member states, but sanctions cannot work if China is trading with Iran and is therefore providing a leak through the sanctions. The Sanctions are not putting the desired pressure on Iran because they are still able to import/export a lot of their needs but should that hole be plugged.

OK...but if we're going to diuscuss this matter in terms of Iranian belligerance, rather than on the belligerance of its enemies, led by Israel and the United States, the matter still remains far from clear. Plenty of Israeli political, military and intelligence officials, from the hawkish end of the spectrum yet, have been cautioning that an attack on Iran could increase the possibility of its push for nuclear capabilities, rather than diminish the threat. That is, an attack could have the direct opposite of the stated desired effect.

[Signals.Cpl]

OK...but if we're going to diuscuss this matter in terms of Iranian belligerance, rather than on the belligerance of its enemies, led by Israel and the United States, the matter still remains far from clear. Plenty of Israeli political, military and intelligence officials, from the hawkish end of the spectrum yet, have been cautioning that an attack on Iran could increase the possibility of its push for nuclear capabilities, rather than diminish the threat. That is, an attack could have the direct opposite of the stated desired effect.

First finish up with sanctions, with the US ready to attack and Israel as well, I would hope Iran gets the picture. Should it become necessary I cannot foresee the US and Israel and the EU for that matter from letting Iran get a hold of Nuclear Weapons. If Israel or the US attack Iran to prevent nukes, I cannot foresee them backing away before all the nukes are gone.

[bleeding heart]

First finish up with sanctions, with the US ready to attack and Israel as well, I would hope Iran gets the picture. Should it become necessary I cannot foresee the US and Israel and the EU for that matter from letting Iran get a hold of Nuclear Weapons. If Israel or the US attack Iran to prevent nukes, I cannot foresee them backing away before all the nukes are gone.

It would appear that Israeli Intelligence fears it isn't that simple.

And (much weaker) Iraq was a "cakewalk," I remember well. Apparently that's a synonym for "catastrophe."

[Signals.Cpl]

It would appear that Israeli Intelligence fears it isn't that simple.

And (much weaker) Iraq was a "cakewalk," I remember well. Apparently that's a synonym for "catastrophe."

Attack does not necessarily mean Invasion. Bombing all infrastructure necessary for the research could be the answer. Then give some support for people who oppose the government. An invasion and occupation might be too much even for the US considering that Iran has more then 3 times the Iraqi population.

[fellowtraveller]

Attack does not necessarily mean Invasion. Bombing all infrastructure necessary for the research could be the answer. Then give some support for people who oppose the government. An invasion and occupation might be too much even for the US considering that Iran has more then 3 times the Iraqi population.

Not necessary to invade and won't happen. What is much more likely is the quick and systematic wipeout of the Iranian air force , navy and missile strike capacity- and of course their command capability. Every place that emits a radar signal gets a cruise missile.

I think that Iran has certainly gotten the message, what matters is what the mullahs do with that info.

Not everybody in Iran is a crazed fundie intent on killing every Jew and every American. The mullahs know well that their revolutionary rule is much more tenuous now than it was 30 years ago, even as their attack capability has increased.

Perhaps I am naive, but they may want to test local waters for full and unequivocable support before they embark on any action. I think there is a distinct lack of zeal for mass death in many civilians in Iran.

[bud]

latest development:

The head of the UN nuclear agency, Yukiya Amano, has said an agreement would be signed "quite soon" with Iran to allow an investigation into claims it had tried to develop nuclear weapons.

link

this is right before the baghdad meetings between iran and the 5+1 nations.

[Guest Derek L]

Iran closer to weapons-grade uranium, say UN inspectors

Iran has enriched uranium closer to the level required to arm nuclear missiles, according to evidence discovered at an underground facility by the United Nations nuclear inspectors.

In its latest report on Iran's nuclear activity, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said it had found traces of uranium enriched up to 27 per cent at the Fordow enrichment plant near Qom.

Hmmmmm

[Wild Bill]

It would appear that Israeli Intelligence fears it isn't that simple.

And (much weaker) Iraq was a "cakewalk," I remember well. Apparently that's a synonym for "catastrophe."

A number of more pacifistic spokespeople have stated this idea but so far all I've seen or heard is rhetoric.

The same voices were raised before BOTH invasions of Iraq! Yet look how fast Saddam's forces crumbled while retreating from Kuwait just as fast as they possibly could. The second war had essentially the same result.

I remember hearing from Carl Sagan just before the Allies ousted Saddam from Kuwait that they should forego the idea, since if Saddam torched the Kuwaiti oilfields it might trigger a nuclear winter. Well, Saddam DID torch those oilfields! Still waiting for any nuclear winter...

I think that the popular media and all those talking heads who are not directly plugged into the actual operating intelligence networks of America and Israel are simply trying to deter any attack on Iran, for various reasons but mainly for their pacifistic philosophy. Even those quotes from high ranking intelligence officers are mostly from those retired. So the number of INFORMED opinions is far lower than it may appear! There may indeed be an active intelligence officer or two publicly taking the "don't attack" view but even then I would find it difficult to believe that they would breach their own security and confidentiality by making such public statements. Such professionals NEVER use the media to try to influence their superiors!

So it would appear that this idea is just a lot of hot air! Maybe those who are spreading this meme are sincere. Maybe they are biased towards Iran or against Israel. Maybe the ones with the highest profile are being paid by the mullahs! Who knows? Still, it just doesn't seem a well-founded view to me.

Sadly, it's possible that those who believe attacking Iran would fail and escalate the situations might well be right! However, their methods and the history make them look wrong or even suspect.

They are crying "Wolf!". It would be a shame if there were actually a wolf at the door, when they have raised such false alarms for so long. We need contrary views but this element seems to have destroyed its own credibility.

Edited May 26, 2012 by Wild Bill

[GostHacked]

Meanwhile in North Korea....

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/24/world/asia/north-korea-nuclear/index.html

How many nuke tests have Iran done so far???

Seoul, South Korea (CNN) -- North Korea appears to be ready to carry out a nuclear test whenever leaders of the reclusive state give the green light, a spokesman for the South Korean Defense Ministry said Thursday.

The comment follows an analysis of recent commercial satellite images by the defense publication IHS Janes, which suggested activity was being ramped up at North Korea's nuclear test site.

Mining carts and excavation equipment at the tunneling area of the North's Punggye-ri site can be seen in satellite images taken by Digital Globe and GeoEye in the past month. Earth and debris are being removed from the tunnel in the largest quantities seen so far, according to the Janes assessment.

"Based on the sand piles from the commercial satellites, we are assuming that they have put necessary devices for a nuclear test inside the shaft," Kim Min-seok, spokesperson for South Korea's defense ministry said in a regular briefing Thursday. "This means they can conduct a nuclear test any time."

[Signals.Cpl]

Meanwhile in North Korea....

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/24/world/asia/north-korea-nuclear/index.html

How many nuke tests have Iran done so far???

The North Korean's are in serious danger of blowing themselves up more then anyone else.

[bleeding heart]

A number of more pacifistic spokespeople have stated this idea but so far all I've seen or heard is rhetoric.

The same voices were raised before BOTH invasions of Iraq! Yet look how fast Saddam's forces crumbled while retreating from Kuwait just as fast as they possibly could. The second war had essentially the same result.

The voices you named also warned of plenty of trouble if the attack on Iraq went forward; and the advocates mocked the very idea that there might be, oh, say, an insurgency, or sectarian strife.

The opponents were correct; the war supporters were catastrophiocally mistaken. That some opponents made specific dire predictions that didn't arise is irrelevant; much of what they predicted (while war's supporters called them "supporters of Saddam" and other such nonsense) did occur.

Those who advocated for the war were wrong at nearly every single turn.

I think that the popular media and all those talking heads who are not directly plugged into the actual operating intelligence networks of America and Israel are simply trying to deter any attack on Iran, for various reasons but mainly for their pacifistic philosophy.

So...those who support the attack mainly do so for their "hawkish philosophy"?

Please, WB. I know this is difficult to understand, but it's not a if war advocates remain sober and wise, and opponents are a bunch of pacifists.

Even those quotes from high ranking intelligence officers are mostly from those retired. So the number of INFORMED opinions is far lower than it may appear!

And the number of INFORMED opinions among those who support an attack may well be close to zero. You certainly can't argue otherwise, aside from your baffling premise that those who push for war are always sober and just, and those who oppose it are...well, suspect, somehow.

Maybe those who are spreading this meme are sincere. Maybe they are biased towards Iran or against Israel. Maybe the ones with the highest profile are being paid by the mullahs! Who knows? Still, it just doesn't seem a well-founded view to me.

Let's leave aside the "paid by the mullahs" speculative nonsense for the time being; the only people paid for their opinions on this subject that we know of are some high-ranking American officials (Dean, Giuliani, several others) who have been paid to speak on behalf of a terrorist organization (the MEK) who want war with Iran!

But leave that aside, and let's take up your "biased agaisnt Israel" remark, which is your cute little method of bigotry-baiting.

You know, you could turn it around; you might claim that the advocates for the war are "biased against Israel," and hope for things to go badly.

In other words, supporters of the war may well be anti-semites.

Sadly, it's possible that those who believe attacking Iran would fail and escalate the situations might well be right! However, their methods and the history make them look wrong or even suspect.

Hey, you're the one brought up the hsitory of the second Iraq War, a violent catastrophe which continues top this day.

They are crying "Wolf!". It would be a shame if there were actually a wolf at the door, when they have raised such false alarms for so long. We need contrary views but this element seems to have destroyed its own credibility.

Riiiiight.

And those throwing tantrums about Iran's imminent destruction of Israel, or how Iran is going to launch missiles willy-nilly all over the globe...sure, these shrieking little pantywaists aren't crying Wolf!" at all!

Edited May 26, 2012 by bleeding heart