Marketing the attack on Iran through the media

M.Dancer · September 11, 2007

They were enriching uranium on an air force base?

The first link from the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3502717.stm
QUOTE

UN nuclear inspectors in Iran have found undeclared components of an advanced uranium-enrichment centrifuge at an air force base, diplomats say

Makes you wonder about the civilian nature of their nuclear programme.

define close: from what I have read, years away.

So a good time to end their nuclear programme is months away?

GostHacked · September 11, 2007

excellent idea!

Totally worth another thread in of itself to discuss the media and how information is presented to us. I'd jump in on that.

GostHacked · September 11, 2007

M Dancer

Makes you wonder about the civilian nature of their nuclear programme.

Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki and you can find the answer. Or they could be going the other way and are attempting to set up a M.A.D. situation. If we all have the same big stick, real dialog tends to happen more. Cold War for example.

bush_cheney2004 · September 12, 2007

Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki and you can find the answer. Or they could be going the other way and are attempting to set up a M.A.D. situation. If we all have the same big stick, real dialog tends to happen more. Cold War for example.

Iran will not have the "same big stick".....Fat Man and Little Boy were mere toys compared to what the Big Dogs have, with the means to reach out and touch someone anywhere on the planet.

sharkman · September 12, 2007

Iran will not have the "same big stick".....Fat Man and Little Boy were mere toys compared to what the Big Dogs have, with the means to reach out and touch someone anywhere on the planet.

True, but with their close proximity to Israel, and with a nutbar with his finger on the switch in Iran, anything happening between those two would be felt everywhere on the planet. An Iran strike would get a counter strike and then the Arab world would get in their jihad groove. An Israel pre-emptive strike would have much the same effect.

Makes me at least understand the warmongers who would like to see the U.S. take out the garbage on this issue.

Edited September 12, 2007 by sharkman

jdobbin · September 12, 2007

FOX reports plans are being drawn up to bomb Iran.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296450,00.html

WASHINGTON — A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday.
Germany — a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in Iran's nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States — notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council.

The announcement was made at a meeting in Berlin that brought German officials together with Iran desk officers from the five member states of the Security Council. It stunned the room, according to one of several Bush administration and foreign government sources who spoke to FOX News, and left most Bush administration principals concluding that sanctions are dead.

The Germans voiced concern about the damaging effects any further sanctions on Iran would have on the German economy — and also, according to diplomats from other countries, gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities.

It looks like we will see the drumbeats grow steadier in the next short while.

kuzadd · September 12, 2007

The first link from the BBC
Makes you wonder about the civilian nature of their nuclear programme.

So a good time to end their nuclear programme is months away?

does it?

"Enriched uranium is a critical component for civil nuclear power generation"

I highly doubt killing lots more people, and destroying infastructure, is the answer to this situation

, unless the agenda is something else.

see: North Korea

M.Dancer · September 12, 2007

M Dancer
Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki and you can find the answer. Or they could be going the other way and are attempting to set up a M.A.D. situation. If we all have the same big stick, real dialog tends to happen more. Cold War for example.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

kuzadd · September 13, 2007

FOX reports plans are being drawn up to bomb Iran.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296450,00.html

It looks like we will see the drumbeats grow steadier in the next short while.

I noticed the refusal of Germany to go along with this.

Interesting.

Wondered if Russia, played a roll in that decision?

M.Dancer · September 14, 2007

Danke Germany

US develops 14-ton super bomb, bigger than Russian vacuum bomb
RIA Novosti | Sep 14, 2007

The U.S. has a 14-ton super bomb more destructive than the vacuum bomb just tested by Russia, a U.S. general said Wednesday.

Commenting on the report, McInerney said: "Since Germany has backed out of helping economically, we do not have any other choice. ... They've forced us into the military option."

McInerney described some possible military campaign scenarios and said: "The one I favor the most, of course, is an air campaign," he continued.

He said that bombing would be launched by 65-70 stealth bombers and 400 bombers of other types.

"Forty-eight hours duration, hitting 2500 aimed points to take out their [iranian] nuclear facilities, their air defense facilities, their air force, their navy, their Shahab-3 retaliatory missiles, and finally their command and control. And then let the Iranian people take their country back," the general said describing the campaign, adding it would be "easy."

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/mi...mb160013372.php

I think it's been said before, there is no need to invade Iran. All that's needed is to destroy the Nulcear research facilities and kill the research personel. I think thought that expecting the average iIranian to rise up and free themselves is little more than wishful thinking. Personally, who cares is the live in tyranny....that's the choice they made.

buffycat · September 14, 2007

Danke Germany
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/mi...mb160013372.php

I think it's been said before, there is no need to invade Iran. All that's needed is to destroy the Nulcear research facilities and kill the research personel. I think thought that expecting the average iIranian to rise up and free themselves is little more than wishful thinking. Personally, who cares is the live in tyranny....that's the choice they made.

Have you been drinking? That's one heck of alot of typos Dancer.

On the topic of attacking Iran, I think it's pretty clear to all that it would be insane. Note that the same folks who were bellowing for the 'cakewalk' in Iraq are the same bunch of bloodthirsty chickenhawks who are screaming for a military strike on Iran!

To see you advocating the killing of research personel is truly a new low.

Edited September 14, 2007 by buffycat

M.Dancer · September 14, 2007

To see you advocating the killing of research personel is truly a new low.

I have absolutely no qaulms about killing people who are working towards killing me, my family or friends.

White Doors · September 14, 2007

Answer the question dancing man!

Don't avoid!

Higgly · September 14, 2007

I have absolutely no qaulms about killing people who are working towards killing me, my family or friends.

Would that be without some sort of due process, Dancer? Enquiring minds would like to know. What exactly does "working towards" mean?

What if I decide, Dancer, that you are working towards killing me? Does that give me special rights?

geoffrey · September 15, 2007

To see you advocating the killing of research personel is truly a new low.

I agree with Dancer's response to this statement. These people are building weapons to kill millions. I really have little sympathy for their lives.

Would that be without some sort of due process, Dancer? Enquiring minds would like to know. What exactly does "working towards" mean?
What if I decide, Dancer, that you are working towards killing me? Does that give me special rights?

The IAEA has found Iran to be violating the agreements. That's enough for me. Generally when treaty bodies find the treaty in violation, that means something is being violated. I think it's best to act quickly on this.

That said, Iran is no Iraq. Iran is no Afghanistan. Iran is rich and has the largest military manpower in the world. Iran is a whole different can of worms. Shock and awe will have to be an understatement.

Will an attack on Iran lead to a ground invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan? We can't beat Iran on the ground, simply can't. If we are ever engaged with Iran in a ground war, we are in some serious shit. A strike would have to be complete and absolutely destructive of all Iranian military power.

I'm not convinced the US has the resources, and I am sure they'd be doing this one on their own.

bush_cheney2004 · September 15, 2007

Will an attack on Iran lead to a ground invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan? We can't beat Iran on the ground, simply can't. If we are ever engaged with Iran in a ground war, we are in some serious shit. A strike would have to be complete and absolutely destructive of all Iranian military power.
I'm not convinced the US has the resources, and I am sure they'd be doing this one on their own.

So what does it have to do with "We can't beat"? What is this "we" stuff?

geoffrey · September 15, 2007

So what does it have to do with "We can't beat"? What is this "we" stuff?

Western governments. If Iran invades Iraq or Afghanistan in response to a US strike, it's going to become a whole world issue instantly.

bush_cheney2004 · September 15, 2007

Western governments. If Iran invades Iraq or Afghanistan in response to a US strike, it's going to become a whole world issue instantly.

Really? Was the Iran-Iraq War a worldly conflagration? How's about when ISRAEL bombed Osirak in 1981? Either way, Canada or UK does not equal all "western goverments", and hardly the world.

Edited September 15, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

geoffrey · September 16, 2007

Really? Was the Iran-Iraq War a worldly conflagration? How's about when ISRAEL bombed Osirak in 1981? Either way, Canada or UK does not equal all "western goverments", and hardly the world.

It's far more than Canada and the UK. If Iran was to invade either Afghanistan or Iraq with the US there (in Iraq) or NATO (in Afghanistan), a response would almost certainly be required. Iran against NATO... not really what we want.

Consider that Iran supplies a massive amount of European (read: NATO) oil.

bush_cheney2004 · September 16, 2007

It's far more than Canada and the UK. If Iran was to invade either Afghanistan or Iraq with the US there (in Iraq) or NATO (in Afghanistan), a response would almost certainly be required. Iran against NATO... not really what we want.
Consider that Iran supplies a massive amount of European (read: NATO) oil.

Such a gift that would be...praise Allah!!

But that's exactly why it isn't going to happen.

geoffrey · September 17, 2007

Exactly. The US won't bomb because the risk is too high. Iran is actually a military power, unlike Iraq or the Taliban. Any attack would have to be absolute.

And that would be highly unpopular.

Bonam · September 18, 2007

That said, Iran is no Iraq. Iran is no Afghanistan. Iran is rich and has the largest military manpower in the world.
Iran is actually a military power

I think you have a grossly misinformed opinion of Iran's military. Iran fought Iraq in a war for 8 years that resulted in stalemate. The US came in and swatted Iraq in a few weeks. If they chose to do so, they could easily do the same to Iran. Iran is not rich, in fact, it is struggling. The economy is faltering to the point where despite it having vast oil reserves, it can't even produce enough gasoline for people to drive their cars (gas is now rationed in Iran). As for military manpower being the largest in the world, that is blatantly false. Iran has 545,000 active personnel. The US military consists of 1.4 million active personnel. Russia has 1.0 million. China has 2.25 million. In fact, Iran is ranked 8th in military manpower. Feel free to look that up.

M.Dancer · September 18, 2007

Would that be without some sort of due process, Dancer? Enquiring minds would like to know. What exactly does "working towards" mean?
What if I decide, Dancer, that you are working towards killing me? Does that give me special rights?

You seem confused, addled even. War isn't a judicial inquiry, if it was, we would simply arrest the iranian leadership and that would be it.

And yes, if you felt that your life was endangered you have the right to defend yourself. But given your state of confusion, I would not expect if I were you, that your fears or actions would be validated.

ScottSA · September 18, 2007

You seem confused, addled even. War isn't a judicial inquiry, if it was, we would simply arrest the iranian leadership and that would be it.
And yes, if you felt that your life was endangered you have the right to defend yourself. But given your state of confusion, I would not expect if I were you, that your fears or actions would be validated.

I must admit, it's fun watching you make mincemeat out of the flummoxed and logically impaired left. Shame you don't take it up as a constant instead of occasionally leaping on your nag and trotting off to tilt with the windmills of the right...

M.Dancer · September 18, 2007

I must admit, it's fun watching you make mincemeat out of the flummoxed and logically impaired left. Shame you don't take it up as a constant instead of occasionally leaping on your nag and trotting off to tilt with the windmills of the right...

I was only doing that while you were on leave. Now that you are back I shall return to my normal level headed liberal self.

I love Iran!