Nuclear attack on Iran

[Nancy Allen``]

I was just told about this and thought it would be worth bringing up. Have a look at this

 

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3340iran_sneak_attk.html

 

Tell me what you think. Is the American government really that intelligent to cook up a scheme like this?

[Emperor Devon]

I'd say the real worry is how a story like this got out into the public, supposing it's true.

 

A sneak attack on Iran? That is an absolute last resort. Must we act so uncivilized?

 

*Devon mutters "Just next year!" to himself repeatedly*

[edlib]

I've read a couple of opinions that some move on Iran will be the "October Surprise" cooked up before the elections to try to assure a Republican sweep in all the races.

 

I don't buy it (well, at least not fully...) since the whole thing has a very high possibility of backfiring catastrophically. Plus, that particular article is from LaRouche's camp... which just doesn't rate all that high on the credibility meter for me...

 

HOWEVER:

 

I do have the feeling that any move against U.S. interests anywhere in the world over the next few weeks/ months will be strongly linked to Iran, though. And I thoroughly expect the right-wing "We are the only way to keep you safe!" rhetoric to ramp up again very quickly.

 

Perhaps another jump in the Homeland Security color chart is in order, hmm?

[Jae Onasi]

My hubby's in the military. While the average grunt isn't included in most plans, it would be extremely difficult to keep a large-scale operation secret--there's just way too much involved moving troops to keep someone from spilling the beans. It's hard enough just moving special ops types and they're very small teams. You'd have to keep thousands from talking about where they were going, thousands from talking about where they're sending supplies, thousands from talking about flight plans, and that's just too many people involved to keep it secret. Even if you told everyone they're going to Iraq, some would wonder why they were going to the Iraqi border instead of Baghdad where the action is, and it wouldn't take a mental giant to figure out something was going to go down in Iran.

I highly doubt there will be any kind of sneak attack on Iran just because of logistics of keeping something that out of the news.

[Mace MacLeod]

I wouldn't put it past them. It could also be that they're trying to goad Iran into attacking first, thereby giving them a reason to play Duke Nuke 'em on a national scale.

 

I'd personally watch what Bush and co. say in the media for the next little while. If they really do launch a surprise attack with nukes included in the opening salvos, then I really think that it'll be the turning point in the world. I think that Russia, China, France, and Europe would begin to see the US as being the Fourth Reich, utterly out of control and not going to stop until the rest of the planet forces them to.

 

And it could also be that Dubya and his Evangelical buddies are trying to kick-start the Apocalypse. I've always thought it was immensely foolish to put people who believe in that sort of thing in a position of power to bring it about.

[Jae Onasi]

Uh, about the Evangelical thing, no. I'm an Evangelical. We have our fruitcakes like any other group, but the vast majority of us don't believe anything that ridiculous. If I had someone say that to me, I'd point out the verse that says no one knows when Christ will return except God, so trying to take it on ourselves would be the height of arrogance and foolishness. Besides, I doubt God would put up with a couple of idiot humans trying to force His hand.

I think this is a load of crap by some conspiracy theorists trying to create a story. We'd be seeing a lot more troop movements and requisitions for materiel than we are currently if they were planning another front with Iran. And after some of the mistakes made in Iraq, I think the US would be very careful to have at least some semblence of violations of UN resolutions to justify their activities.

[rccar328]

And it could also be that Dubya and his Evangelical buddies are trying to kick-start the Apocalypse. I've always thought it was immensely foolish to put people who believe in that sort of thing in a position of power to bring it about.

Actually, it's Ahmadinejad and his jihadist buddies who have been talking about their desire to kick start the apocalypse, in order to herald the return of the 12th Imam - their messiah, so to speak.

 

When it comes to issues surrounding Iran and militant Islam, I highly recommend checking out Glenn Beck. He has a nationally syndicated radio talk show and a TV show on Headline News. You may disagree with his politics, but he has a perspective on Iran that I've not heard anywhere else...and he backs it up with evidence that I've not seen anywhere else in the media (some examples here).

[TK-8252]

Actually, it's Ahmadinejad and his jihadist buddies who have been talking about their desire to kick start the apocalypse, in order to herald the return of the 12th Imam - their messiah, so to speak.

 

I agree with you here. It's not fair to say that only Evangelicals are pushing for WWIII... even if some of them are.

 

When it comes to issues surrounding Iran and militant Islam, I highly recommend checking out Glenn Beck. He has a nationally syndicated radio talk show and a TV show on Headline News. You may disagree with his politics, but he has a perspective on Iran that I've not heard anywhere else...and he backs it up with evidence that I've not seen anywhere else in the media (some examples here).

 

Glenn Beck's show is only good for his humor. When he gets all serious about his "OMG WWIII" stuff it makes me change the channel. He has a very typical neocon ideology... boring.

 

To the original topic, I say that while so much of the neocon movement is pushing for regime change in Iran - that's right, a "do-over" of Iraq - I just HAVE to believe that we're not so crazy that we would attack Iran without being attacked first. And even if Iran attacked Israel in some way... that doesn't justify us getting involved. Leave Israel to defend itself against Iran. It has plenty of power to do so.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

With the losses in Iraq, the cost of the bloody invasion and subsequent presence, the shortage of troops back home, and the way America's already made herself so hated it's a joke, it'd be pure madness to go into Iran.

[Mace MacLeod]

Actually, it's Ahmadinejad and his jihadist buddies who have been talking about their desire to kick start the apocalypse, in order to herald the return of the 12th Imam - their messiah, so to speak.

Oh, I know they're hot to trot for that as well. And I didn't mean to imply that all Evangelicals are in the "Let's blow up the world!" camp any more than all Muslims are ready to strap C4 to their bodies and go charging into shopping malls. I've heard Bush and this Billy Graham Jr. character spouting some very scary stuff over the years, and all parties involved are at the very least are worth keeping an eye on. There's people on both sides of the pro-war Christian and Muslim nutball fringes that do believe the whole End of this Wicked, Sinful, Horrible World has already started, and also people who want there to be a holy war between Christians and Muslims. And some of these guys are the ones with their fingers over the buttons. Not good.

[Emperor Devon]

While the average grunt isn't included in most plans, it would be extremely difficult to keep a large-scale operation secret--there's just way too much involved moving troops to keep someone from spilling the beans.

 

I can think of an example where a whole campaign was kept mostly secret. But you'd think that an idea Bush is just considering(?) wouldn't get leaked out to the news like this.

 

I highly doubt there will be any kind of sneak attack on Iran just because of logistics of keeping something that out of the news.

 

You misunderstand me. I was simply worried that things like this could be made public so easily.

[toms]

Word is that it will be about 5 years before Iran has the ability to launch a nuclear weapon. So any rushes to war in the next year or so will be premature and almost certainly motivated by domestic political motivations or other factors.

 

Most commentators project that within 10 years there will be at least 20 nuclear powers.. and to be honest there isn't a lot that can be done to stop it. Unless the US wants to start invading or nuking everyone in an attempt to maintain its control.

 

The best bet might be to try and make sure that we are on good terms with those powers, and that we are engaged with them in a number of forums, arenas and commercial ways.

 

Detaching nuclear power (which a lot of countries want) from nuclear weapons tech might be a good idea, if its possible. To give them access to nuclear power whilst witholding the key techs needed for nuclear weapons.

[Nancy Allen``]

One thing I'd like to know is how would America think it could get away with a nuclear strike. There'd really be no way known it could would there? It'd cause a **** storm the likes of which we've never seen, if not a nuclear holocaust as North Korea lets fly with the nukes, India and Pakistan see they have a green light to do so on each other, ect.

[Windu Chi]

Word is that it will be about 5 years before Iran has the ability to launch a nuclear weapon. So any rushes to war in the next year or so will be premature and almost certainly motivated by domestic political motivations or other factors.

 

Most commentators project that within 10 years there will be at least 20 nuclear powers.. and to be honest there isn't a lot that can be done to stop it. Unless the US wants to start invading or nuking everyone in an attempt to maintain its control.

 

The best bet might be to try and make sure that we are on good terms with those powers, and that we are engaged with them in a number of forums, arenas and commercial ways.

 

Detaching nuclear power (which a lot of countries want) from nuclear weapons tech might be a good idea, if its possible. To give them access to nuclear power whilst witholding the key techs needed for nuclear weapons.

You trust in time much.

I don't give a damn if we had 30 years, I will not want Iran to have a weapon of Armageddon.

I don't surely trust no one who deny the Holocaust.

That f**ker have to go, now.

[toms]

North Korea isn't thought to have any functioning missiles that could attack outside their country.. except maybe south korea. With China starting to put pressure on them its possible that situation will get sorted.

 

I'm worried about Iran having weapons, but i don't see it as a sign they'd use them. Say what you want about people's rligious beliefs.. but once they get in power they tend to want to stay in power.. not get their country blown up the moment they do anything.

 

With Israel having nukes, they feel its their right to have nukes too.

[Mace MacLeod]

You trust in time much.

I don't give a damn if we had 30 years, I will not want Iran to have a weapon of Armageddon.

I don't surely trust no one who deny the Holocaust.

That f**ker have to go, now.

Whether or not you or anybody else trusts this guy is a moot point. I don't trust him either, but the list of people I do trust to have their hands over the Doomsday Button is infintesimally small. I'm not even on it. But something people don't seem to appreciate is that no one but the Iranians have the right to decide who's running the show in Iran, any more than they have to say; "Well, you know, I'm not really a big fan of the Israeli government, let's get rid of them and life will be much nicer for the poor Palestinians." or "Y'know, this French government isn't saying nice things about the US lately, and they have nukes, so just to be safe we'd better blow them up and put our own people in there."

 

Not just attacking or invading places because you decide you want to or because you think that maybe sometime in the future they might be a threat and only using war as a last-ditch response is supposed to be what separates civilized countries from places like Nazi Germany. If the US attacks a country with nuclear weapons as a part of this stupid "First Strike" or "Proactive Defence" policy (which are basically just buzzwords for "Unprovoked Aggression") without having been attacked first, it then sets a precedent that nukes can be used for offence and not just a defensive deterrent. How immensely foolish and dangerous a world situation that would create.

 

And just to point out the absolutely bloody obvious, if the US really is planning a "secret" sneak attack on Iran, how secret can it be if we're debating it's merits here?

[Nancy Allen``]

And just to point out the absolutely bloody obvious, if the US really is planning a "secret" sneak attack on Iran, how secret can it be if we're debating it's merits here?

 

Neat catch. You'd think if there really was going to be an attack it'd be kept out of the view of conspiracists. It might be worth looking into from both angles, from the point of view that America may carry out the attack (unlikely, even if they did do September 11 this is too big and their name will be all over it) and from the view of those seeking to throw doubt into America.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Too big for them. Maybe if it was a regime considerably good at keeping secrets (such as Kim Jong-Il's little pseudo-country), but the Dubyans? Never.

[dtriniman]

You should be concerned if ANYONE aquires nuclear weapons. Although to be quite honest, as I've said before, I think it's only fair for other nation's to aquire them in the event Bush gets too big for his britches.

 

Glenn Beck is an idiot. He is talking about: "Why is America not fighting to win in Iraq but just fighting not to lose? We should bring more troops to crush them." or "I'm tired of people walkign on eggshells worrying about saying something that might offend Muslims!!!

 

Why the hell would you want to send more troops to die for lies and greed? Why would you not watch what you say? He has the view that I'm an American I don't have to care what I say and that (view) is what is getting a lot of people killed.

 

He invites people onto his show then railroads the convo. I remember one guy saying "why would you invite me to talk if I can't say anything?" and Glenn replied "You're right." and cut the guy out of the show. The arrogance...

[Nancy Allen``]

Too big for them. Maybe if it was a regime considerably good at keeping secrets (such as Kim Jong-Il's circus country), but the Dubyans? Never.

 

 

[Davinq]

I wish.