Israel planning strike on Iran Nuke factory???
0
-
I would hope there's a video. 0 -
uh-oh. I wonder if that's why the govt has been buying up all that 7.62 ammo and ak's. or if that's another reason why they wanted to stay in iraq for as long as they have, in anticipation of this.
iran probably would close the straight of hormuz, they have all the power to do so and nobody could force their way through.
1. israel blows up the stuff in iran
2. iran closes the straight
3. we threaten to invade if they don't open it up again
4. they don't
5. we do
in the meantime, how much ya wanna bet the media uses the phrase "nuclear-tipped bunker buster" instead of the more appropriate "tactical nuclear weapon" to make it sound more PC. as they did in this article.0 -
...if Israeli intel is convinced Iran is even remotely close to getting the happy atom, they will give the building contractors in Iran a lot of work, this year...[;)] 
0 -
President George W. Bush is poised to stake every US resource to hand on a no-holds-barred military operation all the way to victory in Iraq, after first bringing Baghdad under control. The chips should all be lined up by the time he goes public next week on his new strategy for Iraq and the Middle East at large.
Our military and Washington sources report that the new Bush policy will brook no look-in for Iran, Syria or Hizballah in Iraq's affairs. Exceptionally offensive US military resources have been marshaled to bar any interference with the White House's plans for Iraq. They will under the hand of the military command for instantaneous responses. To this end, the shakeup of military leaders the US president set in motion over the weekend moves into forward position one of the toughest and most hawkish US military leaders.
Adm. William J. Fallon, 62, hitherto supreme commander in the Pacific theater, takes over from Gen. John Abizaid as commander of the US central command which is in charge of the US fronts in Iraq, Afghanistan and against global terrorism. The admiral specializes in deploying large-scale navy, air and Marines forces simultaneously in different arenas.
And the White House is making sure that Adm. Fallon has plenty of resources to deploy, a veritable buildup, the second in four months, in the Persian Gulf and other waters opposite Iran. The USS John C. Stennis strike group is heading for the Persian Gulf with a mighty air arm of 9-10 fighter-bomber squadrons. Saturday, some sources reported that another task force, the USS Ronald Reagan Strike Group, had been ordered out of Sand Diego on Jan. 4 and was heading in the same direction.
Military observers in the US and Middle East noted that the group's commander, Rear Adm. Michael H. Miller, reiterated: "When we deploy for real-world operations, Carrier Strike Group 7 will be an example of how the Navy is able to carry out our mission any time, anywhere in the world."
The original announcement that the Stennis strike group will this month join the USS Dwight Eisenhower aircraft carrier group and USS Boxer strike force in the Persian Gulf described the deployment "as a warning to Syria and Iran" in face of acts seen as provocative, and to give commanders more flexibility in the region.
Deployment of the Stennis group puts a total of 16,000 US sailors in the region as well as another nuclear carrier and 7 escort warships, 10 air squadrons, 2 submarines and helicopters to support amphibious landings on enemy soil.
This massed naval, air and marine forces assembled should provide credible evidence of the lengths the United States is prepared to go to keep Iran, Syria or Hizballah from interfering with the all-out American attempt to stabilize Iraq.
While the Stennis group has a high capability for sowing sea mines across broad stretches of water, thus threatening to disable the Iranian army and corking up its oil export outlets, the Ronald Reagan has the opposite and supplementary operational capability of sweeping up marine mines and explosive charges should Tehran blockade the Persian Gulf and Hormuz Strait against American warships and outgoing oil shipping from Iraq and Arabian oil centers.
Our military sources foresee these frenzied preparations as spelling a turbulent winter and spring for the region - critical for Iraq and fraught with tension for the rest of the Middle East.
Israel might face extreme danger should Tehran and Damascus target the Jewish state in retaliation for US strikes. Israel is ruled by a volatile, shaky government; its military command under fire for its Lebanon War mistakes. Both may decided to take advantage of Israel's low state. In fact US and Israeli military leaders do not rule out possible Iranian, Syrian or Hizballah assaults on the pretext that they are really aiming for US military installations in Israel. They may also direct their fire on American locations in Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and its fleet in the eastern Mediterranean.
President Bush's willingness to go all the way in Iraq, say our sources in Washington, is prompted by a simple line of reasoning. If it ends in victory, he will end his presidency on a high note and be able to boast that American doggedness and courage prevailed over the enemy in the long haul. If the US armed forces fail to deliver, Bush will be in exactly the same position as he is today, namely, heading for the history books as the American president who lost the Iraq war and the struggle against terror.
He therefore has nothing to lose and everything to gain by staking his all on victory.
In pushing ahead in Iraq, the Gulf and the Middle East, Bush faces intense opposition from the Democratic majority which rules both houses of congress since they were lost to the Republicans last year over Iraq.
Democratic leaders Senate leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi are urging the US president to reject US troop increases in Iraq and opt for redeployment. Turning them down would also reject the bipartisan spirit embodied in the Baker-Hamilton Iraqi Study Group report.
Using his powers as commander in chief, he continues to bolster the Iraqi front with another key appointment: Lt. Gen. David Petraeus will succeed Gen. George Casey in command of American forces in Iraq. Petraeus commanded the 101st Airborne, the Screaming Eagles, in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Its motto, Rendezvous with Destiny, fits the US president's present frame of mind.
The appointment of Ryan Crocker to replace Zamay Khalilzad as US ambassador to Baghdad further supplements the all-or-nothing scenario. Crocker led the US campaign in the Indian subcontinent against al Qaeda and Taliban. Khalilzad moves over to head the US mission at the United Nations.0 -
Buschmaster, if this should come about, 2007 will be a very interesting year indeed. It does not sound out of the realm of reality. We'll see what happens. What's the source for this "intel"? 0 -
I would never doubt Isreal striking and eliminating Irans nuclear capacity. Isreal did it before in Iraq and Isreal knows their very existance is at stake. Isreal is a little smarter than America in that capacity. 0 -
For this type of "planning" to go public in major newspapers sounds to me like it was leaked by the Israeli government to put pressure on Iran and the United Nations, sort of a "if you don't take care of it, we will" type of threat. 0 -
quote:Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack. 0 -
If this comes to happen it should not surprise anyone. Iraq is just a part of the "Axis of Evil" they've been talking about for a few years now, and there's a good chance Iraq is just the opening act in a much larger play. I think whatever happens has basically been planned from before day one. I don't believe the strategists go into something like the Iraq adventure in a haphazzard manor. Extremely comprehensive and detailed plans, allowing for EVERY possible occurence are made by very intelligent and competent people. There are no surprises in store for these folks, the surprises are for their enemies.The POTUS is not one of the shot callers, though he is the mouthpiece. We'll see what happens. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Dak To 68
Buschmaster, if this should come about, 2007 will be a very interesting year indeed. It does not sound out of the realm of reality. We'll see what happens. What's the source for this "intel"?
debka.com
something I forgot about is the "new" drive to use overwhelming military force, starting in baghdad, to put down the insurgents- that could be a reason for the gov't stocking up on 7.62 and ak's, to supply the iraqi army. cuz the fun ain't gonna stop there. might not have anything to do with iran. hopefully.0 -
I saw a very interesting show on the History channel about 2 months ago which talked primarily about Iran and told a good bit about the history of the Iran-Iraq war. They were talking about how the Iranians have a volunteer group called the "recruits", can't remember how to pronounce it in their language, of 7 million men that are willing to run ahead of their regular army into battle. They just wear whatever they happen to be wearing when they get the call and they put on a bandana and go. They don't normally carry weapons unless they happen to find one on the battlefield and their only purpose is to absorb bullets that would otherwise hit their troops. They said it was pretty effective when they were fighting the Iraqis, but of course they didn't have the firepower and air capability that we have. I think this would be referred to in after action reports as a "target rich environment." 0 -
they aren't that stupid or that suicidal. 0 -
We all should let the U.N. take care of Iran. You know just like they did with Saddam. 0 -
Still don't understand what Bush means by victory in Iraq. We already
accomplished everything we were supposed to do when we invaded that
country. It's up to the Iraqi people themselves to get the country
under control. Their government has allowed militias to take over so
certain government leaders can stay in power. We've leveled cities to
drive out insurgents and when we leave, they come back. The people do
not trust their own police and military. They don't want us there because
we are an invading army who wants to take over their country with a
puppet government. I think Israel will use our troop build up for a
strike on Iran. That way, there will be a large army in place in case
Iran declares war on Israel. That large army belongs to the country that
backs Israel no matter what - us, the United States. In my opinion, Iraq was never a source of terrorism on the rest of the world.
What dictator wants a foreign body in his country to potentially cause
more grief than he's already placing on the population? Bush was just
looking for some excuse to invade for an easy victory so he could look
good. It backfired and he won't admit it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Dak To 68
I don't believe the strategists go into something like the Iraq adventure in a haphazzard manor. Extremely comprehensive and detailed plans, allowing for EVERY possible occurence are made by very intelligent and competent people. .
You're kidding, right? You have to be joking, there is no way you can say that in a serious manner. Remember, Donald Rumsfeld said before the war that it would take less than six months to wrap up any resistance in Iraq. Dick Cheney said that we would be greeted as liberators and that the Sunnis and Shia would unite and work together. The people who planned and executed this war have been DEAD WRONG since Day One in all of their plans and predictions. They are NOT smart or competent, they are in fact the polar opposite.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Cameroon
Still don't understand what Bush means by victory in Iraq. We already
accomplished everything we were supposed to do when we invaded that
country. It's up to the Iraqi people themselves to get the country
under control. Their government has allowed militias to take over so
certain government leaders can stay in power. We've leveled cities to
drive out insurgents and when we leave, they come back. The people do
not trust their own police and military. They don't want us there because
we are an invading army who wants to take over their country with a
puppet government. I think Israel will use our troop build up for a
strike on Iran. That way, there will be a large army in place in case
Iran declares war on Israel. That large army belongs to the country that
backs Israel no matter what - us, the United States. In my opinion, Iraq was never a source of terrorism on the rest of the world.
What dictator wants a foreign body in his country to potentially cause
more grief than he's already placing on the population? Bush was just
looking for some excuse to invade for an easy victory so he could look
good. It backfired and he won't admit it.
hairy's dumb is apparently contagious.0 -
cartod - Hairy has nothing to do with my thinking on the Iraq fiasco.
For your info, I voted for Bush twice. The second time because he was
the lesser of two evils. Never did buy the reasons for invading Iraq
and don't buy what he wants to do now.0 -
quote:Originally posted by warriorsfan
quote:Originally posted by Dak To 68
I don't believe the strategists go into something like the Iraq adventure in a haphazzard manor. Extremely comprehensive and detailed plans, allowing for EVERY possible occurence are made by very intelligent and competent people. .
You're kidding, right? You have to be joking, there is no way you can say that in a serious manner. Remember, Donald Rumsfeld said before the war that it would take less than six months to wrap up any resistance in Iraq. Dick Cheney said that we would be greeted as liberators and that the Sunnis and Shia would unite and work together. The people who planned and executed this war have been DEAD WRONG since Day One in all of their plans and predictions. They are NOT smart or competent, they are in fact the polar opposite.
No, I'm not kidding. Haven't you ever heard politicians or Government officials lie before? Your error is that you apparently believed it. What makes you think they they've been dead wrong since day one? Did they let you in on all the planning and strategy meetings? Do you know the entire scope of the operation, which is by no means over, and what the final goals are? I hardly think people at our level are privy to the full geopolitical plans of the U.S, we can only look at the scene as it unfolds, form opinions as to what has happened, and GUESS at what the future holds.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Dak To 68
quote:Originally posted by warriorsfan
quote:Originally posted by Dak To 68
I don't believe the strategists go into something like the Iraq adventure in a haphazzard manor. Extremely comprehensive and detailed plans, allowing for EVERY possible occurence are made by very intelligent and competent people. .
You're kidding, right? You have to be joking, there is no way you can say that in a serious manner. Remember, Donald Rumsfeld said before the war that it would take less than six months to wrap up any resistance in Iraq. Dick Cheney said that we would be greeted as liberators and that the Sunnis and Shia would unite and work together. The people who planned and executed this war have been DEAD WRONG since Day One in all of their plans and predictions. They are NOT smart or competent, they are in fact the polar opposite.
No, I'm not kidding. Haven't you ever heard politicians or Government officials lie before? Your error is that you apparently believed it. What makes you think they they've been dead wrong since day one? Did they let you in on all the planning and strategy meetings? Do you know the entire scope of the operation, which is by no means over, and what the final goals are? I hardly think people at our level are privy to the full geopolitical plans of the U.S, we can only look at the scene as it unfolds, form opinions as to what has happened, and GUESS at what the future holds.
So you believe that it is OK for government to LIE to their people in order to secure their cooperation for a war based on lies and false pretenses, as long as they have some hidden "master plan" for the war that seems to NOT be working? Just out of curiosity, since the levels of violence in Iraq are the HIGHEST they have ever been, and since December was the deadliest month for U.S. troops in 2006 and the fourth deadliest month of the entire war, when is that "master plan" going to kick in? It's been four years, I'd like to see that master plan that covers all contingencies finally kick in and take effect.0 -
Warriorsfan, of course I don't believe it's alright for the Government to lie to their people, I didn't say that at all. The evidence that wholesale lying by them is a regular occurence is overwhelming in spades. I'm in my late 50s and have been watching them do it a LONG time. Like some I used to actually believe them, I came out of that fog some time ago. It seems not to be working to us, but as I've stated, we don't know much, only what we've seen. There has been a "master plan" since before day one, what that is I don't know, they didn't let me in on it. This is serious business, what seems to be a failure could be exactly the opposite in reality. Four years is not long in the geopolitical world, plans are made many years in advance. Details may change as situations unfold, but the basic strategies remain. It's becoming obvious that this is far from over, lending credence to the theory that there is a bigger scenario. Could one reason plans of this scope are not completely divulged to the American public be that it's not a good idea to give the enemy all the details of your intentions? They can read newspapers and have CNN.[;)] 0 -
Let's hope so. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
22 comments