U.S. plans envision broad attack on Iran: analyst

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. contingency planning for military action against
Iran's nuclear program goes beyond limited strikes and would effectively unleash a war against the country, a former U.S. intelligence analyst said on Friday.

"I've seen some of the planning ... You're not talking about a surgical strike," said Wayne White, who was a top Middle East analyst for the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research until March 2005.

"You're talking about a war against Iran" that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070120/ts_nm/iran_usa_experts_dc_1

that's been weakened and abused by what the Dictator-Tot has put them through in 4 years of Iraq occupation.

exactly how are we not going to let this happen? Actual, practical things to stop this other than simply calling Bush names. The Democrats do control both houses of Congress, so how exactly can we be feckless?

who's asking the hard questions. Yes, what practical things can we do to stop these madmen?

Impeachment is off the table. Cutting off funds is off the table - we're going to send thousands more to die so we can't be accused of causing the deaths of the thousands who are already there. Cheney is laughing his ass off!

The other day, someone suggested that Bush is mentally ill and someone else accused them of insulting everyone who's mentally ill. I know. I don't get it either. Bush is mentally ill -dangerously so, IMHO - and it's not like a mood disorder that can be managed with meds. His illness can't be fixed. He needs to be evaluated by a competent mental health professional, and until someone is willing to take up that cudgel the carnage is going to continue.

Get us out of this mess now!

Don't talk to or about BushInc and their crazy stupidity, aggression,
secretiveness, and arrogance.

Do something about it! Walk the walk!

to Pelosi's ears.

If you want to see the poll numbers for those who are against the war seriously head the other way, then cut off the funds for the troops already there and in harm's way. Pelosi knows this and knows that the Democrats losing power in just 2 years does no good in the long run. The only way that this could happen is for significant numbers of Republicans to support it. Because otherwise Bush will allow the troops to suffer and simply blame the Democrats and many Americans who no longer support the war will turn on the Democrats.

despite the fact that DoD's own wargaming shows any attack on Iran would be a failure according to Gen Gardiner

Will Iran be next ?
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows

""Such a failure of imagination—which Hammes said is common in military-run war games—has a profound effect, because it leads to war plans like the ones from Gardiner's CentCom, or from Tommy Franks, which in turn lull Presidents into false confidence. "There is no such thing as a quick, clean war," he said. "War will always take you in directions different from what you intended.""

Failure of imagination...where'd we hear that line before ?

to Saudi Arabia, and the president's change-of-generals in Iraq...

I'm not liking the looks of this at all.

We don't let them do this, Old Crusoe. They can kiss our remotes.

The woman is a wonder. Caught myself humming "Wish I Had a River" the other day at the grocery. The song's been in my head for decades and it feels like it was written yesterday morning.

Nice to see you, poet. I hope all's well your way.

is so top-drawer.

Many thanks.

Imagine this pending disaster coupled by the chaos about to be
unleashed by global warming.

Unthinkable misery for so many.
The hell of climate change is enough crisis for future generations
and the neocon crazies want to add to it by further igniting the ME?

They MUST be stopped.
NOW.

BHN

How far are we willing to be pushed by these madmen?

we have to support the troops. So if Bush sends any troops to Iran, we must fund them. Then we must be there for years because we cannot NOT support the troops. Of course stupid little middle American me wonders why-you can't say SEND THE GODDAMN TROOPS HOME-Fuck you Mr. President-you are defying congress and the will of the majority of people. Send them home. Don't give them the damn bullets-but I know that's NOT the way the world works. So we must support the troops which means we must let them die. This is the world I live in it and it makes no sense to me. Supporting the troops means sending them home to live not giving them guns to be slaughtered. Wow. Imagine a politican saying that. If the war is not necessary, not approved, then the rest is this Orwellian nightmare like a dog chasing it's tale. Support the troops! They are already there. So we must support them. What is support? Oh yes it's weapons. Support to me would be a few planes home. If you find me a congress that can figure that out-let me know.

for any opportunity we can find to protest.

We don't let this go. No way.

Iraq=Czechoslovakia

Iran=Poland

The Iraq war was bad enough, we piss off even more folks, destabilized a nation, and killed thousands, an Iran war will, at the very least, destabilize the region, piss off even MORE folks, including some of our staunchest allies, and could kill MILLIONS. Hitler would have nothing on US.

If Bush were to attack Iran, it would be the equivalent of Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, or Napoleon's attack on Russia. We know what happened to the invading armies!

But, Iraq is more like Czechoslovakia in that it caused little real reaction from the rest of the world, WWII didn't start with the invasion of that country after all, however, Poland DID start WWII. Iran may be the same thing, especially with Russia, which is, right now, ambivalent to the Middle East right now, but that may quickly change if we declare war on Iran.

Who needs a bunch of troops when you have nukes?

Which is exactly why Iran WANTS it's own nukes.

and that includes the purchase of Russian and Chinese missiles, and if necessary, the acquisition of nuclear military technology. If the US had not engaged in a campaign of hostility and aggression against Iran, and had chosen to sit down and talk to the Iranians with mutual respect, we wouldn't find ourselves in a situation in which our Fuehrer is itching to push the nuclear button in another military adventure.

War with China would be more like the examples you use. Give them time, they will get there.

That's what will come out of *'s mouth next.

we do not have enough ground soldiers in Iraq for the effort.

launching such an attack by air/sea will result in a Shia uprising against US forces in Iraq, meaning our soldiers
will be surrounded by millions of new found enemies in Iraq plus those added in Iran.

anybody remember George Custer? Was his middle initial W?

Msongs
www.msongs.com

Split the forces between Iraq and Iran, just like Little Big Horn. Then charge right into the middle of a huge army.

just as Chalabi set us up in Iraq

How can you conduct a full scale war on Iran when your military home base Bagdad is not held position... plus half of our fleet is in a narrow strait where they can be trapped make no mistake George is out to destroy US army navy and soon next airforce... leaving us defenseless

Its all part of the plan to destroy Democracy in the world

A few tactical warheads aimed at the right places could do the trick, IF, the intelligence is good.
As for the Shia uprising, they won't do anything they aren't doing already.

seems to be at odds with your professed political ideology. Looking through your past posts I'm picking up a pattern, a disturbing pattern, that seems to indicate you're for the use of America's military might to solve any problem that should arise in the ME. You even support the use of, "A few tactical warheads aimed at the right places"? :wtf:

You seem to have adopted the Bush system of diplomacy. "Do as we say or we'll bomb your country back into the stone-age".

Would you care to elaborate on these posts of yours?

.. war is an ugly option, but not the ugliest. Because you live in a time and place of relative peace and prosperity, you have no perspective. Go and learn from history how lasting peace is achieved.

My professed ideology is the security of the United States and it's friends, notably Israel. My professed ideology is peace in the Middle East for all; real,lasting peace, not biding-for-time peace. When it comes to the security of this country and it's people, party labels mean diddley squat to me.

A 'tactical nuclear warhead' is *NOT* a 'strategic nuclear warhead' even though the word 'nuclear' may make it sound so; it is not meant to blow up cities and kill thousands of people. It is at best a high yield conventional explosive with a possibility for minimal fallout, that can be all but eliminated if targeted properly.

the use of 'tactical nuclear' weapons is alright with you. :eyes: Minimal fallout? Just like our 'smart bombs' there will be minimal collateral damage, right? Ask the Iraqis about our 'smart' weapons and depleted uranium ordnance.
Don't you think Israel is capable of taking care of itself? Why must the United States spend billions each year on Israel's security?
I haven't put anyone on ignore for years. Congratulations.

Even "penetrating" nukes wouldn't penetrate the hundreds of feet of soil and rock required to destroy them. They would, however, throw enough radiation into the air to kill or sicken millions in the Middle East.

"As for the Shia uprising, they won't do anything they aren't doing already."

So far the Shia have been killing the Sunnis, and attacking the US forces only when they try to intervene. Nuke Iran, and you have 10 million angry Shia in Iraq now furious at the US, not to mention 60 million angry Shia in Iran (minus the millions dead or sickened by radiation poisoning). The sectarian violence in Iraq so far has been smoldering for several years. An attack by the US on Iran would fan those flames into a full-fledged civil war with the US a primary target.

Now THAT is a Progressive notion, eh ?

LET'S have a nuclear war that will kill hundreds of thousands, and poison the whole ME region, and then ? : We will feed the hungry, clothe the naked and house the homeless ....

Yeah ... I see how it all fits together into one philosophical package .... :sarcasm:

so that get to enjoy the fruits of the policies you are advocating.

As to the inevitable radioactive fallout from a tactical nuclear strike against Iran, don't expect Jesus to protect the Christians from radiation. That radioactive cloud will travel across the world causing untold grief to millions of people that had nothing to do with America's madness and lust for blood.

Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor is scheduled to beging initial fueling in March and begin operation in September 2007.

If they want to avoid contaminating the Persian Gulf with reactor fuel and/or fission products, they have to take it out soon.

It's no coincidence that the Surge forces and the Stennis Strike Group are supposed to arrive in the PG by March (IMHO anyway)...


Russia to supply fuel to Iranian nuclear power plant in March 2007

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/energywatch/nuclear/news/article_1232840.php/Russia_to_supply_fuel_to_Iranian_nuclear_power_plant_in_March_2007

Moscow - Nuclear fuel destined for Iran's Bushehr power plant has been produced in Russia and will be shipped to the plant's Persian Gulf site in March, the Russian company that is building the plant said Wednesday.

The fuel, which is being held in 'responsible care' at a Siberian chemicals factory, will reach Iran via eight Russian transport planes, the news agency Interfax quoted an unidentified spokesman at Atomstroiexport as saying.

The statement came after Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency head Sergei Kiriyenko met with Iranian leaders in Tehran for talks on the two countries' nuclear cooperation.

The Iranian side had expressed hope the Bushehr plant would be launched on schedule - which, after a number of delays, now means September 2007 - and Kiriyenko said there were no impediments to that at the moment.

<more>

.. and the Iranians are well aware of it. If that window of opportunity passes, it will be near impossible to disarm Iran because of what you mentioned. There are rumors circulating that a strike could come as early (or as late?) as April.

Iran should be left alone...

.. and takes control of the Middle East's oil supply, you can count on walking everywhere the rest of your life.

n/t

Do Pakistan, China, ISRAEL, Russia, etc.? What's the difference? Should we invade/bomb Pakistan? Maybe China should bomb us? We have more nukes than all the others combined. Who the fuck are we to say other sovereign states can't defend themselves from a PNAC Pax Americana? It's all disgusting, repulsive and sick. What future do my children have?

Guess you're part of the new aggressive PR campaign involving CIA "bloggers" to infiltrate liberal websites.

.. China, Israel and Russia are responsible countries. Their nuclear triggers are in the hands of govts with whom we have diplomatic relations,and we can resolve disputes with them at a diplomatic level first.

Ahmedinijad is a deranged lunatic with whom we have no diplomatic relations, who hates America with a passion, actively collaborates with America's enemies including terrorist groups, and every other week calls for wiping Israel off the face of the earth. I wouldn't be as comfortable letting this guy get his hands on nukes as I would be with the above three.

Maybe you could invite Joe and Henry K over for a working lunch and discuss your plans for the rest of the world.

.. put principle above politics, even when facing certain defeat in the primaries. And guess who the people of CT voted for in the end ?

Other than him and Dean, what other well known Democrat has stuck by his/her position ? Kerry ?? Hillary ??? Edwards ???

"We were **MISLED** ".

Don't make me laugh.

1. Ahamadinejad is far from being a deranged lunatic.
2. The lack of diplomatic relations is America's choice, not Iran's.
3. He hates the current US government, which has threatened to attack Iran, not the US people. He has made that clear.
4. He actively collaborates with America's enemies? Depends who you see as America's enemies. He actively collaborates with America's friends too, if we look at how many countries Iran has good relations with, including large countries like Russia, China, India, Japan and Pakistan. Not to mention Italy, Afghanistan, the the 115 or so members of the the non-aligned movement.
5. Which terrorist groups does he collaborate with. Do you have any proof of this beyond hearsay?
6. He has never called for wiping Israel off the face of the earth. He has predicted that Israel would rot from within and vanish from the map as the Soviet Union did.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We had diplomatic relations with the USSR when Khrushchev was in charge. Nixon re-established relations with China--under Mao.

We need diplomatic relations with Cuba & Iran. Not to shower their leaders with priase. But to foster relations between our countries & maybe prevent wars.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

> Young skullsful of mush thoroughly indoctrinated inside classrooms,
> being raised to be the New Castrati.

... as you've never been inside a classroom, you're doing a splendid
job of demonstrating the skills of the Old Castrati ...

:hi:

My classroom time started in the mid 50's. And I've continued educating myself.

I'm not anatomically equipped to be castrated. If you feel that you lack something, don't blame me.

In fact, don't blame anyone but yourself.

Seems like I used to hear that phrase an awful lot on my AM radio. Refresh my recollection, those of you who still have the stomach to occasionally listen in on America's favorite thrice-divorced, oxycontin-addicted, draft-dodging bloviator.

Elsewhere on this thread, he complained that reviving The Fairness Doctrine is meant to shut down Limbaugh.

I don't care if Iran gets nukes! I also know that there is no evidence that Iran is pursuing atomic weapon technology, but that their intentions are peaceful. The alarm bells are based on lies being spread by the same people that got us into Iraq: neocons, Christian Zionists, and the Israel Lobby.

Bicycle would be tool.

Published: January 16 2007 16:24 | Last updated: January 16 2007 16:24 Financial Times

"Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, has appealed to fellow politicians to cool their rhetoric about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and stop instilling in the public a fear that they threaten Israel’s existence.

His remarks at a meeting of his Kadima party, quoted in Israeli media Tuesday, followed a build-up of increasingly strident comments by politicians and others about the threat posed by Iran’s alleged intention to produce a nuclear bomb.

According to the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth, he also told Kadima parliamentarians: “I believe that the world and us know how to deal with the present threat, but, please, we need to stop instilling fear of an existential threat just to grab more headlines …There is no need to make the threat worse than it is.”

> If Iran gets the Nukes ..
> .. and takes control of the Middle East's oil supply, you can count
> on walking everywhere the rest of your life.

On the other hand, if Iran gets Nuked (which you have actively supported
in your other posts), I wouldn't count on having enough "rest of a life"
to worry about my transport options.

But there again, I suppose you have a better chance of surviving the
aftermath from behind an anonymous keyboard in the USA. If only there
was a way to ensure that the war-mongers had no shelters, no hiding-places,
no anonymity, no protection ... that would truly be the start of a
peaceful world ...

IF, the intelligence is good.

It hasn't been "good" thus far. In fact, BushCo has complained that its blundering into Iraq was a result of "bad" intelligence.

So how are we to believe it will be "good" this time?

edited for spelling

BushCo ignored the Intell community when they went into Iraq. It wouldn't matter if they had a zillion spys on the ground in Iran, BushCo is driven by ideology, not reality. They would find some way to "cook" the intelligence.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Perhaps the brain-damaged fool did believe what he was being fed. But oil was the reason we invaded Iraq.

I'm disappointed in the Democratic politicians who voted for the IWR--although it wasn't a blank check for invasion. Too bad Your President interpreted it that way.

But I'll gladly vote for the Democratic nominee in 2008--even if they don't have a "perfect" past. So will most of the country.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Wow, you managed to squeeze just about every hackneyed right-wing talking point I've heard over the past two years into just one long-wnided screed. Although, you did forget to mention that Barak Obama is secretly Muslim and that Nancy Pelosi shoot mind-control beams out of her eyes that can turn unsuspecting manly men like yourself gay. I hope that you're well-renumerated for your valiant efforts in flogging horses that died a long time ago.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And spewing out a litany of assertions is not presenting a cogent argument. Hope you enjoyed your time here as much as we did.

Your idiot President's ratings are in the toilet. Limbaugh is upset.

Tough shit.

A Straight Jacket. This law should apply only to any President with the last name Bush and specify that signing statements are not allowed.

It specifies that no previous congressional resolution can be costrued as authorizing an attack on Iran and requires a declaration of war in accord with Article 1 section 8 of our constitution. Though a number of anti-war members of congress have signed on as co-sponsors it has received no support at all, yet, from the Democratic leadership. Please urge your representative, Democrat or Republican to support it. Otherwise that madman in the whitehouse will unleash a nuclear war that will cause much death and distruction and will bring our nation and our economy to ruin.

Got a link for any more info?



Cher

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3165002>

What is an activist alert?

It will get more contacts to our representatives.

Thanks for starting the thread.



Cher

Just what they intended all along.

strong independent Iraq. They want the crud(e) to be as expensive as they can get it to reap the last few kernels of wheat before the metaphorical drought when we (the West and Asia) say "enough" and get to work on alternative and renewable energies.

for any one action. They like multi-tasking and multifaceted policy...and getting all the bang/death/destruction for the buck they can.

That will just lead us to what we should have been doing all along, developing alternative energy resources. I think America is finally waking up to the importance of investing alternative, renewable, environmentally healthy and hopefully cheap energy resources, short of burning neocons at the stake.

of seven months ago.

Iran NEEDS high oil prices.

think; how best to destabilize Iran ?

FUCK FUCK FUCK

The killing stops.

and convince King George to step down and go back to Texas. Seriously - that's what convinced Nixon. Threaten impeachment, anything, just get the mad man out of there before we're in another war.

- neither to his military leaders nor to his daddy's associates. Why should he listen to what any Senators or Representatives have to say? And that is what makes this so frightening. I'm even beginning to wonder if Charlie Rangel's legislation toward restoring the draft is not so "symbolic" after all.

before all your omeny goes to taxes to pay for this debacle.

While I don't doubt Darth has wet dreams of invading Iran nor that the admin is crazy but Mr. White has seen planning but hasn't been in the department for nearly 2 years. There are always contingency plans made. 160,000 troops were not enough for Iraq and I wager less than a quarter of those would be available for Iran at this point. An all out war would require a massive troop buildup first, hundreds of thousands, not a surge.

June 2005 invasion
June 2006 invasion
Oct.2006 Invasion
So at leats "the experts" have decided to downgrade their status to "analyst" in this latest go round.
btw, everytime a carrier makes its scheduled,previously announced deployment, seems "analysts" call it an alarming indication of an Iranian invasion.

It is just amazing to me that the supposed most enlightened country on Earth has someone with less than a full deck in charge.

I am saddened beyond belief to think that the only way Bush will be stopped is through a military coup. Can't imagine being one of the 140,000 service members on the ground in Iraq facing the prospect of never returning to family and friends because the lunatic illegitimate president decided to deploy nucular weapons in the Middle-east!!

I have a sign that says, "52 Hostages in 1979, 130,000 in 2006!!" Guess I have to make a new one for Bush-boi's sacrificial surge...

preserving, protecting, and defending the constitution.

A soldier can protest by quitting the service... that's about it. That's the only option they ever should have. It is not the job of the military to force Bush to adhere to the Constitution. That is our job and the job of the Congress. As long as Bush has authorization to act from Congress, which the Republican Congress did kinda give him in 2001, then the military can't really move against him. As much as it defies standing treaties and international protocols and all the norms of decency among nations, Bush's actions do enjoy the sanction of US law.

The only way to stop the rush to armageddon is for Congress to stop him. The only way they will do so is if we speak up and act up. Wishing for a coup is just another step toward madness.

unless someone goes in and arrests Bush the War with Iran continues

Congress Military FBI and CIA and the American people be dammed

"Stay the Course"

That is my prediction.

Israel invaded Lebanon (in what was supposed to be the preamble to the US going to war with the Iran) the last day Plame had to file a civil suit against Cheney (she filed the suit the day before).

W. delivered his speech all but declaring war on Iran the week before the Libby trial was to start.

Cheney is controlling W.. He is encouraging him to wage war on Iran, probably telling him it will "bring the country to together" and make us forget Iraq. He is also telling him that the Libby trial may bring out secrets about how we get into Iraq (i.e lies about WMDs) and that the Invasion of Iran will distract America and give the administration and excuse to clamp down on political enemies (like NBC and the NYT and the internet).

Cheney did not get these ideas or negotiate these plans with Israel by himself. It is clear from the events of the last several years, and in particular the administration's handling of Iran, including Cheney's rejection of Iran's offer to help stabilize Iraq and cut its ties with Hezbollah and Hamas in exchange for U.S. efforts to eradicate Iran's terrorist enemies that Cheney has not been working for Israel's interests. This means that he is working for the interests of Iran's other enemy, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia's representative in the White House, the one who has had regular meetings with Cheney and Bush, the one with a history of arranging wars, massacres, truces for Richard Nixon as needed for political cover (without regard to cost in human lives) is the War Criminal Himself. And therefore, I can say with a high degree of certainty that these plans which the military keeps leaking (because it has no intention of carrying them out) are proof that....(see the next subject line)

please!!!

Because all the active duty divisions are tied up in Iraq.

Bush's Iraq Plan - Goading Iran into War Analysis
by Trita Parsi
January 15, 2007
WASHINGTON, Jan 12 (IPS) - President George W. Bush's address on Iraq Wednesday night was less about Iraq than about its eastern neighbour, Iran. There was little new about the U.S.'s strategy in Iraq, but on Iran, the president spelled out a plan that appears to be aimed at goading Iran into war with the U.S.

While Washington speculated whether the president would accept or reject the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, few predicted that he would do the opposite of what James Baker and Lee Hamilton advised. Rather than withdrawing troops from Iraq, Bush ordered an augmentation of troop levels. Rather than talking to Iran and Syria, Bush virtually declared war on these states. And rather than pressuring Israel to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the administration is fuelling the factional war in Gaza by arming and training Fatah against Hamas.

Several recent developments and statements indicate that the administration is ever more seriously eyeing war with Iran. On Wednesday, Bush made the starkest accusations yet against the rulers in Tehran, alleging that the clerics were "providing material support for attacks on American troops."

While promising to "disrupt the attacks on our forces" and "seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq," he made no mention of the flow of arms and funds to Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda from Jordan and Saudi Arabia

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=11859

...the more money their corporate overlords can drain from the ME oil economy and the American taxpayer through bloated unopposed and unexamined no-bidservice contracts.

If he is set for starting a war with the Iran, no matter how it is discussed, or strategies planned, the net result will be catastrophic.
I swear, this lunatic in the White House does EVERYTHING counter to reason. I can't help but think he believes the End Times are near, and might as well bring them here more quickly!!!!


:nuke: :scared: :scared: :nuke: :scared: :scared: :nuke: :scared: :scared: :nuke: :scared: :scared:

Do you really think they will risk attacking the Iran Analyst?

Only there is nothing glorious about any of these failures*.