So lets just stick our fingers in our asses and pretend the islamist nations have no interest in genuinely acquiring nukes.
You make NEville Chamberlain look like Patton.
Answer the question, bag.So lets just stick our fingers in our asses and pretend the islamist nations have no interest in genuinely acquiring nukes.
You make NEville Chamberlain look like Patton.
Since you are too stupid to figure out that I haven't stated support for any course of action or inaction at this time, tell me your grand plan for Iran.
Now.
He's far too republican to answer firmly, because he's a mexican.
ZorrO!
For not having stated an oppinion, (i don't know how that makes you any better) you sure have alot of to talk.
I myself would commence airstrikes by Sept, and enforce sanctions, and then we'll see what. But i'm not a military expert as are you either, so we're both not in the know.
So instead of making snide remarks, for once actually state you're oppinion.
WHich btw, you always abstain from everytime i asked.
ANd give a real oppinion, not some cynical bush whip.
otherwise go back to massaging Can bE ed's culo.
Can the culo smack.
You have been warned about that before.
I'm very interested in the Israeli view. I think your idea of airstrikes before sanctions is as stupid as anything else you've ever said. Bravo.
Fine,
You still have not entered a concrete oppinion. ANd airstrikes towards key targets that might be producing nukes is not a dumb idea before sanctions. It's all a matter of which situation is yearning.
So, you can back of your culo ways and not be an ass.
What is not concrete about wanting to find out more about the situation before starting yet another war.Yeah, just like we are occupying a country we thought might have had some WMDs and might have given those weapons they might have had to someone else who might have used them on the US.ANd airstrikes towards key targets that might be producing nukes is not a dumb idea before sanctions.
How about we stop guessing and talk to folks who actually have an intelligence network there before killing any more Americans for a bunch of mights?
But by all means, bomb first and ask questions later - it has worked out great so far hasn't it? You are a ing idiot.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 04-08-2006 at 01:30 PM.
,
Me, Wesley clark, and bill clinton. all of us idiots
OMG! i knew you were just kidding. For a minute there i thought you were serious about people being stupid by using airstrikes to eliminate WMD's, sanctions and relying on our own intelligence.
I mean, Either Saddaam discarded the WMD's that clinton alleged, or Clinton did away with them as you and many others have alleged.
Iraq attacked in 'Operation Desert Fox'
Anti-aircraft fire explodes over Baghdad
December 16, 1998
Web posted at: 6:39 p.m. EST (2339 GMT)
BAGHDAD (CNN) -- A second round of explosions were seen and heard over Baghdad at 2:30 a.m. Thursday. The activity occurred shortly after U.S. President Bill Clinton announced he had ordered a "strong, sustained" series of airstrikes on military and security forces in Iraq, designed to degrade Iraq's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction.
The first anti-aircraft blasts were reported over Baghdad at about 1 a.m. local time (5 p.m. EST Wednesday). CNN nightscope video showed specks of white light flashing through the air, as explosions thundered in the distance.
In a televised address, Clinton accused Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein of failing to live up to his commitment to allow unrestricted access to U.N. weapons inspectors.
"We had to act, and act now," he said. <--
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors with nuclear weapons, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said from the Oval Office. Clinton said he decided weeks ago to give Hussein one last chance to cooperate. But he said U.N. chief weapons inspector Richard Butler reported that Iraq had failed to cooperate -- and had in fact placed new restrictions on weapons inspectors.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the attack, named Operation Desert Fox, was necessary because Hussein never intended to abide by his pledge to give unconditional access to U.N. inspectors trying to determine if Iraq has dismantled its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.
•Timeline
•Maps
•Flashback 1991
•Forces in the Gulf
•Bioweapons Explainer
•Message Boards
•UNSCOM Do ents
•Related Links
"He is a serial breaker of promises," Blair said of the Iraqi president.
Speaking outside his Downing Street residence, Blair said Britain had no quarrel with the Iraqi people and was taking every possible care to avoid civilian casualties.
Western leaders had conferred about possible military action against Iraq since late Tuesday, when Butler handed over his latest report to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Clinton and Blair had discussed the latest crisis during a phone conversation on Tuesday.
There are 15 U.S. warships and 97 U.S. aircraft in the Persian Gulf region, including about 70 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. More than 12,000 U.S. sailors and Marines are in the region.
U.S. sources said eight of the warships, equipped with cruise missiles, have been moved into the northern part of the Gulf, within easy striking distance of Baghdad.
More than 300 cruise missiles are available for use against Iraq, and there are air-launched cruise missiles aboard 14 B-52 bombers on the British island of Diego Garcia, sources said.
Britain has 22 strike aircraft in the region.
And early Wednesday, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook warned Iraq that military strikes could come quickly and without warning.
Butler: 'We can't ... do our jobs'
Butler's report discussed events that had taken place since mid-November, when Baghdad last agreed to cooperate fully with U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors.
"Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in either the fields of disarmament or accounting for its prohibited weapons programs," the report said.
Butler late Tuesday ordered UNSCOM staff out of Baghdad. The entire staff was evacuated before dawn on Wednesday.
"I regret that I had to report the facts yesterday, which is that (unfettered access) had not been given, and we can't adequately do our jobs under these cir stances," Butler told reporters at the United Nations on Wednesday.
"It made logical sense therefore to pull our people out, and we'll see where this goes in the future," he added.
Military might in place for weeks
The military strikes -- which came at night -- followed a roughly 14-month period during which Baghdad officials periodically said they would no longer cooperate with the weapons inspectors.
Clinton
During that time, Baghdad also repeatedly demanded that crippling international sanctions, imposed after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait prior to the Gulf War, be lifted., what was he smokin. IF only chump was president instead.
The most recent escalation in the ongoing weapons standoff came in early November.
At that time, Western powers threatened military strikes against Iraq. The threat was removed on November 14, when Baghdad agreed to cooperate fully with the weapons inspectors.
But, U.S. and British officials warned Baghdad that future airstrikes could come without warning should Iraqi leadership again refuse to cooperate with UNSCOM.
To back up their threat, Western powers left in place the military might they had positioned in the Persian Gulf, within striking distance of Iraq.
It was that military weaponry that was used on Thursday to conduct the strikes against Iraq.
Military Affairs Correspondent Jamie McIntyre, The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
Last edited by gtownspur; 04-09-2006 at 03:36 AM.
U.S. Is Studying Military Strike Options on Iran
Any Mix of Tact, Threats Alarms Critics
By Peter Baker, Dafna Linzer and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, April 9, 2006; A01
The Bush administration is studying options for military strikes against Iran as part of a broader strategy of coercive diplomacy to pressure Tehran to abandon its alleged nuclear development program, according to U.S. officials and independent analysts.
No attack appears likely in the short term, and many specialists inside and outside the U.S. government harbor serious doubts about whether an armed response would be effective. But administration officials are preparing for it as a possible option and using the threat "to convince them this is more and more serious," as a senior official put it.
( the Repuq Iraq war wasn't "effective" either, but that didn't stop dubya )
According to current and former officials, Pentagon and CIA planners have been exploring possible targets, such as the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan. Although a land invasion is not contemplated, military officers are weighing alternatives ranging from a limited airstrike aimed at key nuclear sites, to a more extensive bombing campaign designed to destroy an array of military and political targets.
Preparations for confrontation with Iran underscore how the issue has vaulted to the front of President Bush's agenda even as he struggles with a relentless war in next-door Iraq. Bush views Tehran as a serious menace that must be dealt with before his presidency ends, aides said, and the White House, in its new National Security Strategy, last month labeled Iran the most serious challenge to the United States posed by any country.
( Iran was already that before March 2003, but dubya invaded the wrong ing country. The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. And don't forget, Iran owes an embassy. )
Many military officers and specialists, however, view the saber rattling with alarm. A strike at Iran, they warn, would at best just delay its nuclear program by a few years but could inflame international opinion against the United States, particularly in the Muslim world and especially within Iran, while making U.S. troops in Iraq targets for retaliation.
"My sense is that any talk of a strike is the diplomatic gambit to keep pressure on others that if they don't help solve the problem, we will have to," said Kori Schake, who worked on Bush's National Security Council staff and teaches at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.
Others believe it is more than bluster. "The Bush team is looking at the viability of airstrikes simply because many think airstrikes are the only real option ahead," said Kurt Campbell, a former Pentagon policy official.
The intensified discussion of military scenarios comes as the United States is working with European allies on a diplomatic solution. After tough negotiations, the U.N. Security Council issued a statement last month urging Iran to re-suspend its uranium enrichment program. But Russia and China, both veto-wielding council members, forced out any mention of consequences and are strongly resisting any sanctions.
U.S. officials continue to pursue the diplomatic course but privately seem increasingly skeptical that it will succeed. The administration is also coming under pressure from Israel, which has warned the Bush team that Iran is closer to developing a nuclear bomb than Washington thinks and that a moment of decision is fast approaching.
Bush and his team have calibrated their rhetoric to give the impression that the United States may yet resort to force. In January, the president termed a nuclear-armed Iran "a grave threat to the security of the world," words that echoed language he used before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Vice President Cheney vowed "meaningful consequences" if Iran does not give up any nuclear aspirations, and U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton refined the formula to "tangible and painful consequences."
Although Bush insists he is focused on diplomacy for now, he volunteered at a public forum in Cleveland last month his readiness to use force if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tries to follow through on his statement that Israel should be "wiped off the map."
"The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally, Israel," Bush said. "That's a threat, a serious threat. . . . I'll make it clear again that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel."
Bush has also been privately consulting with key senators about options on Iran as part of a broader goal of regime change, according to an account by Seymour M. Hersh in the New Yorker magazine.
The U.S. government has taken some preliminary steps that go beyond planning. The Washington Post has reported that the military has been secretly flying surveillance drones over Iran since 2004 using radar, video, still photography and air filters to detect traces of nuclear activity not accessible to satellites. Hersh reported that U.S. combat troops have been ordered to enter Iran covertly to collect targeting data, but sources have not confirmed that to The Post.
The British government has launched its own planning for a potential U.S. strike, studying security arrangements for its embassy and consular offices, for British citizens and corporate interests in Iran and for ships in the region and British troops in Iraq. British officials indicate their government is unlikely to participate directly in any attacks.
Israel is preparing, as well. The government recently leaked a contingency plan for attacking on its own if the United States does not, a plan involving airstrikes, commando teams, possibly missiles and even explosives-carrying dogs. Israel, which bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 to prevent it from being used to develop weapons, has built a replica of Natanz, according to Israeli media, but U.S. strategists do not believe Israel has the capacity to accomplish the mission without nuclear weapons.
Iran appears to be taking the threat seriously. The government, which maintains its nuclear activity is only for peaceful, civilian uses, has launched a program to reinforce key sites, such as Natanz and Isfahan, by building concrete ceilings, tunneling into mountains and camouflaging facilities. Iran lately has tested several missiles in a show of strength.
Israel points to those missiles to press their case in Washington. Israeli officials traveled here recently to convey more urgency about Iran. Although U.S. intelligence agencies estimate Iran is about a decade away from having a nuclear bomb, Israelis believe a critical breakthrough could occur within months. They told U.S. officials that Iran is beginning to test a more elaborate cascade of centrifuges, indicating that it is further along than previously believed.
"What the Israelis are saying is this year -- unless they are pressured into abandoning the program -- would be the year they will master the engineering problem," a U.S. official said. "That would be a turning point, but it wouldn't mean they would have a bomb."
But various specialists and some military officials are resisting strikes.
"The Pentagon is arguing forcefully against it because it is so constrained" in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA Middle East specialist. A former defense official who stays in touch with colleagues added, "I don't think anybody's prepared to use the military option at this point."
( The military was too small to invade Iraq, but that didn't stop dubya and rummy )
As the administration weighs these issues, two main options are under consideration, according to one person with contacts among Air Force planners.
The first would be a quick and limited strike against nuclear-related facilities accompanied by a threat to resume bombing if Iran responds with terrorist attacks in Iraq or elsewhere.
The second calls for a more ambitious campaign of bombing and cruise missiles leveling targets well beyond nuclear facilities, such as Iranian intelligence headquarters, the Revolutionary Guard and some in the government.
Any extended attack would require U.S. forces to cripple Iran's air defense system and air force, prepare defenses for U.S. ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and move Navy ships to the Persian Gulf to protect shipping. U.S. forces could launch warplanes from aircraft carriers, from the Diego Garcia island base in the Indian Ocean and, in the case of stealth bombers, from the United States. But if generals want land-based aircraft in the region, they face the uphill task of trying to persuade Turkey to allow use of the U.S. air base at Incirlik.
Planners also are debating whether launching attacks from Iraq or using Iraqi airspace would exacerbate the political cost in the Muslim world, which would see it as proof that the United States invaded Iraq to make it a base for military conquest of the region.
Unlike the Israeli air attack on Osirak, a strike on Iran would prove more complex because Iran has spread its facilities across the country, guarded some of them with sophisticated antiaircraft batteries and shielded them underground.
Pentagon planners are studying how to penetrate eight-foot-deep targets and are contemplating tactical nuclear devices. The Natanz facility consists of more than two dozen buildings, including two huge underground halls built with six-foot walls and supposedly protected by two concrete roofs with sand and rocks in between, according to Edward N. Luttwak, a specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"The targeteers honestly keep coming back and saying it will require nuclear penetrator munitions to take out those tunnels," said Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA analyst. "Could we do it with conventional munitions? Possibly. But it's going to be very difficult to do."
Retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, an expert in targeting and war games who teaches at the National Defense University, recently gamed an Iran attack and identified 24 potential nuclear-related facilities, some below 50 feet of reinforced concrete and soil.
At a conference in Berlin, Gardiner outlined a five-day operation that would require 400 "aim points," or targets for individual weapons, at nuclear facilities, at least 75 of which would require penetrating weapons. He also presumed the Pentagon would hit two chemical production plants, medium-range ballistic missile launchers and 14 airfields with sheltered aircraft. Special Operations forces would be required, he said.
Gardiner concluded that a military attack would not work, but said he believes the United States seems to be moving inexorably toward it. "The Bush administration is very close to being left with only the military option," he said.
Others forecast a more surgical strike aimed at knocking out a single "choke point" that would disrupt the Iranian nuclear program. "The process can be broken at any point," a senior administration official said. "But part of the risk is: We don't know if Natanz is the only enrichment facility. We could bomb it, take the political cost and still not set them back."
Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said a more likely target might be Isfahan, which he visited last year and which appeared lightly defended and above-ground. But he argued that any attack would only firm up Iranian resolve to develop weapons. "Whatever you do," he said, "is almost certain to accelerate a nuclear bomb program rather than destroy it."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Theres talk of north korea havin pre-emptive strikes on america.....if there demands like restrictions are not lifted.
North Korea actually has missles that can reach us too.
Hey great, did we force such an situation with Iran after invading them and forcing them to agree to it? That would be a no.Thanks for pointing out that Iraq was under sanctions first, dip . You really need to work on your own arguments and stop helping me - I really don't need it seeing as you are this stupid.During that time, Baghdad also repeatedly demanded that crippling international sanctions, imposed after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait prior to the Gulf War, be lifted.
Have I ever discounted an airstrike out of hand?
No, dip . I want better intel than we had before starting another storm like Iraq.
Where are all the WMDs Rummy said he knew exactly where they were (yes, dip , he didn't need a roadsign to make that claim, so you can't trot out that little chestnut again to stall)?
You think our intel was adequate before the invasion? Our intel didn't even consider an strong insurgency - but an idiot like you will just say everything went like clockwork.
We have had major difficulties and international fallout from our invasion of Iraq. It would only be more difficult with Iran. This isn't a country with two hands tied behind its back like Iraq.Yeah, there's a mandate for President gdownssyndrome.No attack appears likely in the short term, and many specialists inside and outside the U.S. government harbor serious doubts about whether an armed response would be effective.
You are truly a dip .
US and iseral have a "secert" mutal aid agreement
you know how wwe have our nuclear shild over allies like japan and such
well if iseral attacks iran and then all the arbas attack iseral we HAVE to protect iseral or esle we broke our treaty(ofcourse breaking a treaty isn;t a big thing for bush)
therefore it might be in our intrest to attack iran insted of iseral since other arab countries might sit back more than if the EVIL iseral atacked then they pretty much would be FORCED to come to the aid even though iran is PERSSUIANS and not arabs just because it was ISERAL that attacked
basiclay us and iseral have agreements and if iran did attack iseral we woudl have to repsond so we want to respond before such a situation happens were we woudl have to "respond" more argessivly
Wow, you are a serious dumbass. My situation is that if iRan was making nukes through any industry that we first bomb them out. Sanctions will not stop the production of nukes. Only a reall stupid ass like yourself would use sanctions to stop nuclear buildup.
And guess what else. We found out that the sanctions we used towards Iraq were useless because there were under the table deals done with France Russia and Germany. But, hey who's to say the same will happen with Iran. Only your wishful thinking i guess. Just like your stupid wishful thinking that gets you to believe that sanctions would stop a country from building nukes.
ANd what kind of better intelligence do you need besides British and American. As if you are stupid enough to take intelligence from the french who have vested ties with iran and supply their nuclear material.....
Guess what bozo, the same intelligence Clinton relied on, Bush used.
SO what the do you mean by better intelligence?
And only a complete idiot like you would make and end run around any diplomatic channels and protocols to bomb first and try to explain that to everyone else later. "Um, we didn't think sanctions would work, so we said it and bombed them. Trust us!"My situation is that if iRan was making nukes through any industry that we first bomb them out. Sanctions will not stop the production of nukes. Only a reall stupid ass like yourself would use sanctions to stop nuclear buildup.It's nice that you prove you don't read my post or the other articles that are linked in this forum.ANd what kind of better intelligence do you need besides British and American.
Israel.
Now go back and read everything to make yourself look just a little less stupid.
Bush warned against attacking Iran
ENGLISH AL-JAZEERACritics of the Bush administration have expressed alarm over reports that the president is considering a military strike to knock out Iran's nuclear programme.
Anthony Zinni, a retired general and former head of US Central Command, told CNN on Sunday that a pre-emptive strike on Iran would be extremely risky
"Any military plan involving Iran is going to be very difficult. We should not fool ourselves to think it will just be a strike and then it will be over," said Zinni.
"The Iranians will retaliate, and they have many possibilities in an area where there are many vulnerabilities, from our troop positions to the oil and gas in the region that can be interrupted, to attacks on Israel, to the conduct of terrorism."
As I've been saying for awhile, everyone should be approaching life like we are at war with Iran and they have successfully blockaded a good percentage of the world's oil supply and the entire region is now at war. Act accordingly, think responsibly.
THere is no explaining to do anymore nitwit. The world is pretty much convinced that Iran is gungho about their problem. where have you been?
Sanctions, did for Nkorea, and we should have airstriked their facilities.
if the iranians were within a year of having nukes, only a dumbass would put sanctions first and not react. and then if they were enforced, you'd have to prove to that same world body, who doesn't care, that iran is not in step.
More proof you don't read the articles. I'll wait for mom to summarize for you.THere is no explaining to do anymore nitwit.So now it's one year? What has mom been telling you?if the iranians were within a year of having nukesThe only reason we have a shred of credibility with any Muslim nation right now is that Bush pretended to go through diplomatic channels first. Skip that and you'll be recruiting even more terrorists who think US is on an anti Muslim crusade. Good "thinking" on your part.nd then if they were enforced, you'd have to prove to that same world body, who doesn't care, that iran is not in step.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
