Iran?

[Al_U_Card]

Why did Reagan invade Grenada? Why did they start a war over Jenkin's ear? Just who was Gavrilo Princips? Its all about provocation and prevarication.

 

Times change, people don't.

[pbleighton]

"If we ignore Iran, Ahmadinejad will run out of steam because he will notice that no one listens to him. He feeds on his diplomatic game with Bush."

 

I firmly believe that Cuba would be (at least partially) reformed if the U.S. government had stopped treating Castro as the next whatever.

 

A foreign threat is a huge boon to any dictator.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

"If we ignore Iran, Ahmadinejad will run out of steam because he will notice that no one listens to him. He feeds on his diplomatic game with Bush."

 

I firmly believe that Cuba would be (at least partially) reformed if the U.S. government had stopped treating Castro as the next whatever.

 

A foreign threat is a huge boon to any dictator.

 

Peter

And from what I have read he is having conflicts within Iran with Khameni (spelling?), who is the real boss, the Supreme Leader. There has been a distinct change of directions the past couple of days and an easing of tensions - mostly because the Brittish didn't try to sound like John Wayne like some in this country are want to do.

[pbleighton]

So Iran is pardoning and releasing the Brits.

 

Any winner here?

 

It looks like a lot of smoke to me, but don't drink the bong water, Mike :P

 

Peter

[Gerben42]

The winners are the 15 soldiers and of course their family.

[hrothgar]

The winners are the 15 soldiers and of course their family.

I'm going to reserve my comments for a couple more days. (I'm still worried that the US's "Naval Exercises" are a cover for a bombing campaign)

 

BTW, there are some interest rumors that the US will "coincidentially" release the Iranian diplomats that we seized in Erbil

[Winstonm]

hrothgar I'm going to reserve my comments for a couple more days.  (I'm still worried that the US's "Naval Exercises" are a cover for a bombing campaign)

 

There is also this tidbit - Good Friday, when the stock market it closed..hmmm. And it would be nice to have the 15 Brits out of harm's way first.

 

'US ready to strike Iran on Good Friday'

 

JERUSALEM POST STAFF AND AP

Sunday April 1, 2007

 

The United States will be ready to launch a missile attack on Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as early this month, perhaps "from 4 a.m. until 4 p.m. on April 6," according to reports in the Russian media on Saturday.

 

According to Russian intelligence sources, the reports said, the US has devised a plan to attack several targets in Iran, and an assault could be carried out by launching missiles from fighter jets and warships stationed in the Persian Gulf

[mike777]

Of course the USA has plans to bomb Iran, we have plans to bomb london, that is what the Pentagon does, it makes plans.

[hrothgar]

Of course the USA has plans to bomb Iran, we have plans to bomb london, that is what the Pentagon does, it makes plans.

The issue is whether or not the US has "plans" to bomb Iran. I think that is prudent to develop such plans.

 

Acting on them is another story.

[mike777]

Yes, and it is surprising how little debate or outcry there is from Congress on that question of action.

[hrothgar]

Yes, and it is surprising how little debate or outcry there is from Congress on that question of action.

As I mentioned the last time you made this same claim, there was extensive debate within in the Democratic party on this topic.

 

When the Democrats originally submitted the supplmental spending authorization for Iraq it contained language that explictly required President to Bush to ask for Congressional approval before instituting any military attacks on Iran. This ammendment was subsequently withdrawn after heavy lobbying during the AIPAC conference in DC.

 

There was quite a lot of debate about this. I think that a lot of folks believe - or at least hope - that Bush isn't stupid enough to double down on Iran.

[mike777]

Yep I call this little debate and discussion, but I understand some may disagree with that characterzation. I hope for much much more discussion and debate on this issue.

[pbleighton]

"Yes, and it is surprising how little debate or outcry there is from Congress on that question of action."

 

Well, there's debate and outcry about Iraq now. And of course Bush is squealing like a pig.

 

Four years too late to stop his vile, self-destructive butchery, but better late than never.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

Yep I call this little debate and discussion, but I understand some may disagree with that characterzation. I hope for much much more discussion and debate on this issue.

Mike, I'm not sure how much "debate" there can be about Iran - it seems more of a judgement call, and the people in high places, i.e., the CIA and Pentagon would hopefully have more informed knowledge upon which to make that judgement.

 

I may be like many in the U.S. - I do not know who I can trust to make these judgments (certainly not Bush or Cheney).

 

I can only voice my own personal opion: I think Iran, due to their having signed the nuclear non-proliferation agreement, have a perfect right to nuclear reactors. Other countries did not sign the agreement (Israel and Pakistan, I believe), yet no one interfered in their pursuits.

[mike777]

I know we hashed this before, but I am a bit taken back by how many, esp Democrats seem to say that Iran getting the bomb would cross the line. I guess one fear is that non Shia countries would want the bomb then and start an arms race.

[Winstonm]

I know we hashed this before, but I am a bit taken back by how many, esp Democrats seem to say that Iran getting the bomb would cross the line. I guess one fear is that non Shia countries would want the bomb then and start an arms race.

There is no simple answer, obviously; however, it appears AIPAC wields enormous influence in the "beltway".

[Winstonm]

Of course the USA has plans to bomb Iran, we have plans to bomb london, that is what the Pentagon does, it makes plans.

Yes, but there is a distinct difference between "making plans" and "deployment". I belive the thrust of the article is that the U.S. has deployed the necessary arms, men, and equipment to attack - whether it is true is pure guess, but I would guess no, unless Bush/Cheney et al have decidee to go out in a blaze of glory.

[mike777]

Well I hope that go out in "Glory". :P My bet is some forum posters hope so also.........But...........that is another thread. :D

[pbleighton]

"I know we hashed this before, but I am a bit taken back by how many, esp Democrats seem to say that Iran getting the bomb would cross the line."

 

Saying is one thing, invading is another.

 

Even Bush hasn't invaded Iran, though after the 2008 election he may do it as a final act of orgasmic genocide.

 

Peter

[mike777]

Winston we have deployed forces and have plans to bomb Moscow, in a manner of minutes. Same with Iran. Our forces are deployed to bomb anyone one 24/7

[hrothgar]

Winston we have deployed forces and have plans to bomb Moscow, in a manner of minutes. Same with Iran. Our forces are deployed to bomb anyone one 24/7

Bullshit (or should I say irrelevant)

 

The US maintains a large strategic deterrence capacity that is available 24/7. I'm quite sure that we could nuke Iran in under an hour if we wanted to.

 

This is very different from the tactical bombers that would be required to launch a wide spread attack against the Iranian air defense systems and other strategic targets. That type of attack requires pre-positioning significant numbers of forces.

 

That's why folks get nervous when we have an extra aircraft carrier sitting in the Persian Gulf with a second heading to the Eastern Mediterranean. Couple this with ABC News bizzarre story that iran will have a bomb in 2009 and I start getyting VERY nervous.

[pbleighton]

"Well I hope that go out in "Glory". "

 

Nah, you'll drown in a hot tub filled with warm, pornographically oriented custard at the ripe old age of 97.

 

Until then, enjoy!

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

Winston we have deployed forces and have plans to bomb Moscow, in a manner of minutes.  Same with Iran. Our forces are deployed to bomb anyone one 24/7

Doesn't it depend on the plan? If you plan to use aircraft from a carrier as part of a strike force, don't you have to move that carrier into position?

 

I'm not relying on this supposed Russian intelligence - I don't see any way we would attack without more provocation. Certainly, though, we are "poised" to attack - I think that is fair to say.

[mike777]

Navy Jets have been in bombing range position for what 20 years and Airforce jets can fly from the usa.

 

Nukes have been sited for what 40 years from usa?

 

Sure now it seems we are adding more into position. We can only hope and pray, no one pushes some button.

[Winstonm]

Winston we have deployed forces and have plans to bomb Moscow, in a manner of minutes.  Same with Iran. Our forces are deployed to bomb anyone one 24/7

Bullshit (or should I say irrelevant)

 

The US maintains a large strategic deterrence capacity that is available 24/7. I'm quite sure that we could nuke Iran in under an hour if we wanted to.

 

This is very different from the tactical bombers that would be required to launch a wide spread attack against the Iranian air defense systems and other strategic targets. That type of attack requires pre-positioning significant numbers of forces.

 

That's why folks get nervous when we have an extra aircraft carrier sitting in the Persian Gulf with a second heading to the Eastern Mediterranean. Couple this with ABC News bizzarre story that iran will have a bomb in 2009 and I start getyting VERY nervous.

And Israel is doing its part to keep the fires going it seems:

 

The Israeli Military Intelligence claimed on Tuesday that thousands of fighter of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad are receiving military training in Iran, Syria and Yemen in preparation to what was described as “a possible American Attack”, and added that the Syrian International Airport became “a logistic point for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards”.