Speculations over US attack against Iran

Speculations over US attack against Iran

By Jürgen Gottschlich

12/23/05 "Der Spiegel" -- -- Are the USA planing a rocket attack against targets in Iran? In secret discussions Washington was preparing the Allies for appropriate air strikes in 2006, agencies disclosed to day. Especially in the NATO country Turkey, speculations about an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities are taking place.

Istanbul/Berlin - The News exploded like a Bomb in the tranquil prechristmas mood.:Washington was preparing close allies for air strikes against Iran. This was disseminated today by the German Depeschenservice in a text by the former "FAZ" editor - Head and Secret Service Expert Udo Ulfkotte - however substantial doubts on this matter are certainly justified.

As source given by the not undoubted journalist Ulfkotte "Western security circles" without naming specifics. According to his statements, CIA-Chief Porter Goss in the Turkish Capital Ankara asked M.P. Recep Tayyip Erdogan to support the air strikes against Iranian Nuclear and Military Installations especially with uninhibited exchange of secret information. At the present plan the attacks were planned for 2006.

In recent weeks The governments of Saudi-Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan have been informed about the implementations of military plans. The air strikes were described as "possible option" a specific point in time was however, not mentioned.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11373.htm

I'm sending a donation to the charity of Walt Starr's choice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5653533

Iran

Area:
total: 1.648 million sq km
land: 1.636 million sq km
water: 12,000 sq km

Area - comparative: slightly larger than Alaska
Land boundaries:

total: 5,440 km
border countries: Afghanistan 936 km, Armenia 35 km, Azerbaijan-proper 432 km, Azerbaijan-Naxcivan exclave 179 km, Iraq 1,458 km, Pakistan 909 km, Turkey 499 km, Turkmenistan 992 km

Population: 68,017,860 (July 2005 est.)

Age structure:
0-14 years: 27.1% (male 9,465,475/female 8,973,828)
15-64 years: 68% (male 23,556,970/female 22,701,065)
65 years and over: 4.9% (male 1,637,512/female 1,683,010) (2005 est.)

2.5 times bigger then Iraq with more then double the population.

If bush tries to do anything with Iran WE HAVE TO SHUT DOWN THIS COUNTRY GENRAL STRIKE .....
NOTHING MOVES .... NO WORK .... NO SCHOOL .... NOTHING

are you saying we don't have a right to take out their nuclear sites with a strategic attack? Remember now, they have threatened to use them.

I'm not implying a full-fledged invasion, but I believe we should take out their nuclear sites.

They have as much right to nuclear weapons as the US and Israel.
We need to start work on making peace with Iran. It can be done.
The first step is to throw Bush and his whole gang of bastards
out on their asses. Peace is the solution. Not World War III.

to make peace with them in the past. It would be pretty easy for them to betray us once we have achieved "peace" with them, but if we don't let them have the capability to betray us then obviously we don't have to worry as much.

Also, I don't think a country that threatens to use them against its neighbors has a right to own them. I can't recall a time when the US has threatened their use. Israel, although, I'm not so sure about. Can anyone verify if Israel has?

And the US has not been too choosy about who it's neighbors are or who they threaten with any weapon. The US and the Bush admin. also have failed to work with Russia to remove safely old and unstable nuclear weaponry from the cold war days of the Soviet Union. The US is no victim when it comes to nuclear energy or weaponry, yet. The issue is whether and in what manner we make ourselves a tasty target. For extremists, for terrorists, for anyone who threatens the maintenance of Israel, the US has created motive, not diminished motive.

As to the issue of betrayal, the US has betrayed it's former allies throughout the world. Never more so than following WWII.

"Suspicions about a deal between the Reagan campaign and Iran over the hostages have circulated since the day of President Reagan's inaugural, when Iran agreed to release the 52 American hostages exactly five minutes after Mr. Reagan took the oath of office. Later, as it became known that arms started to flow to Iran via Israel only a few days after the inauguration, suspicions deepened that a secret arms-for-hostages deal had been concluded. Five years later, when the Iran-contra affair revealed what seemed to be a similar swap of hostages for arms delivered through Israel, questions were revived about the 1980 election. In a nice, ironic twist, the phrase `October surprise,' which Vice Presidential candidate George Bush had coined to warn of possible political manipulation of the hostages by Jimmy Carter, began to be applied to the suspected secret activities of the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign... In a Madrid hotel in late July 1980, an important Iranian cleric, Mehdi Karrubi, who is now the speaker of the Iranian Parliament, allegedly met with Mr. Casey and a U.S. intelligence officer who was operating outside authority. The same group met again several weeks later.... From Oct. 15 to Oct. 20, events came to a head in a series of meetings in several hotels in Paris, involving members of the Reagan-Bush campaign and high-level Iranian and Israeli representatives. Accounts of these meetings and the exact number of participants vary considerably among the more than 15 sources who claim direct or indirect knowledge of some aspect of them. There is, however, widespread agreement on three points: William Casey was a key participant: the Iranian representatives agreed that the hostages would not be released prior to the Presidential election on Nov. 4; in return, Israel would serve as a conduit for arms and spare parts to Iran. At least five of the sources who say they were in Paris in connection with these meetings insist that George Bush was present for at least one meeting. Three of the sources say that they saw him there... Immediately after the Paris meetings, things began to happen. On Oct. 21, Iran publicly shifted its position in the negotiations with the Carter Administration, disclaiming any further interest in receiving military equipment.... Between Oct. 21 and Oct. 23, Israel sent a planeload of F-4 fighter aircraft tires to Iran in contravention of the U.S. boycott and without informing Washington. Cyrus Hashemi, using his own contacts began privately organizing military shipments to Iran. On Oct. 22, the hostages were suddenly dispersed to different locations. And a series of delaying tactics in late October by the Iranian Parliament stymied all attempts by the Carter Administration to act on the hostage question until only hours before Election Day... On Jan. 15, Iran did an about-face, offering a series of startling concessions that reignited the talks and resulted in a final agreement in the last few hours of Jimmy Carter's Presidency. The hostages were released on Jan. 21, 1981, minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President. Almost immediately thereafter, according to Israeli and American former officials, arms began to flow to Iran in substantial quantities... Moshe Arens, the Israeli Ambassador to Washington in 1982, told The Boston Globe in October 1982 that Israeli's arms shipments to Iran at this time were coordinated with the U.S. Government `at almost the highest of levels.' ... The allegations of these individuals have many disturbing implications for the U.S. political system. One is the tampering with foreign policy for partisan benefit. That has, of course, happened before and it may well happen again, but it assumes special poignancy in this case since it would have involved tampering with the lives and freedom of 52 Americans. Another implication is that leaders of the U.S. exposed themselves to the possibility of blackmail by Iran or Israel. Third, the events suggest that the arms-for-hostage deal that in the twilight of the Reagan Presidency became known as the Iran-contra affair, instead of being an aberration, was in fact the re-emergence of a policy that began even before the Reagan-Bush Administration took office."
Gary Sick - The Election Story of the Decade
New York Times, 15 April 1991

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_cr/h920205-october-clips.htm

all of 9 posts and you out yourself? :rofl:

Guess what happens to you now?

I'm a freeper because I happen to disagree with this one little thing? Maybe you should look at my other 9 posts.

I promise to look @ them really, right after; I get done eating roast beef & yorkshire pudding
on my Gulfstream jet as I fly into Aspen for a week @ my "condo" in the mountains.

How silly an argument.

The Bush philosophy, and the neo-Cons comes down to that one slogan: might makes right.

An unwarranted attack on Iran will lead to increased attacks on our interests around the world, and may lead to nuclear war.

Bush will certainly make the history books in a big way.

if there are any history books left.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

for not pointing out my general spelling mistake ....

memo to self ...... spell check is easy

Merry Xmas tater!

your tree? Beautiful Chocolate Lab!

The Persian state is far better armed than Iraq was.
And the Iranians need not speculate about the technical
aspects of how to resist, the exemplary success of the
people of Iraq lies before them, and the experience of
Iraqi jihadis and patriots will be at their disposal.

I think it likely that massive numbers of Iranian troops would come puring over the border into southern Iraq at least ostensibly to protect the SHiite population from the infidels and, of course, to attack the forces that attacked Iran.

Massive differences in US forces and resources would force the US to use extreme weapons for force proection and defense. The SHiites would side with the Iranians and our logistics support would be at extreme risk.

This administration has to be insane and any general who follows such orders instead of refusing to obey such orders or resigning his commission is culpable in a war crime and disloyalty to the country and the Constitution.

Iran would be backed by China and there is NO WAY we win that war.

I think any military action against Iran could be disastrous for the troops in Iraq, and would turn the Iranian population against us. There are other reports that seem to contradict this,saying that Russia is trying to get the Iranians to move their enrichment program to there, and that the US is supporting this. Hopefully the Russians and the world community can work something out.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3189709,00.html

the U.K. with the U.S.? Piecing it together, it is obvious that the U.S. has agreed to sacrifice our kids so that a few can own the earth resources and Israel can be protected. What is the U.K. giving - some token kids - or is their major contribution some money from the Banks of England or the throne? Or is the U.K, just going along with the U.S. and Israel out of sympathy?

There are two big goals here -

. water and oil pipelines from the Himalyas and the xxx-stans and Arab world to the Mediterranean and Israel.

. the security of Israel.

You can throw in all kinds of other reasons. Fancy words boil down to practical goals in the end.

In addition, there are some roles here for the Russia, China, (or a combination of Russia-China), India, and Pakistan.

How do we stop the deaths of Iranians? How do we stop radiation from these bombs.

America under the right wing = bomb droppers. With our kids.

use them up instead of throwing them away; we haven't scrapped a cruise missile yet. If Bush & Co. don't use them on Iran, they'll use them on somebody else...

The same applies to certain other high-tech munitions.


Interesting historical parallel; Elihu Thompson, the noted inventor (and co-founder of GE, which resulted from a merger of Edison Electric and Thompson-Houston Electric) correctly predicted in 1911 that there would be a world war by 1915 at the latest. How? He visited Germany, was shown around, and noticed enormous stocks of munitions that would have to be scrapped by mid-to-late 1915.

So if you want to predict future U.S. aggressions, look at the manufacturing rates for munitions with finite shelf lives.


The bottom line for now? Somebody's gonna get it -- and soon.