US Will Attack Iran Within 6 Months

[Linkster]

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Former_CIA_agent_US_to_attack_0821.html

From a former CIA Field officer - The US is already gearing up for a quick surprise attack - although with the way Fox is priming their base it wont be much of a surprise

[Moby]

I'm still not convinced. I've been saying for 3 or 4 years now that we will attack Iran in December 2008 and that WMD will be used some where in the last few months of Dubya's presidency.

His daddy did the same thing by starting 2 conflicts right before handing the office over to Bill.

This way he can avoid ALL consequences of the fallout and republicans can blame the next president. The economic fallout is going to be huge and the following retaliation will be unprecedented.

They'll blame everything on the successor, including the debt, China's growth, health care costs and everything that The PNAC created. Then in 2012 or 2016 they're going to run Jeb as the savior for all the bad things that happened in 2009 and 2010.

I still believe that.

[Linkster]

I only think that its going to be a little sooner based on the fact that the White House invited over the Fox people a few weeks back and immediately after those meetings the Network started their repeat of the same messages they started back before Iraq - following exactly the same script

[moonman]

I dunno if we will or not. Seems for the last two years somebody predicts we will attack Iran within 6 months. Am also not sure if Iran represents a big enough disaster. We have always underestimated Bush43 and I suspect he will find a bigger mistake to make on his way out. Like attacking both Iran & Syria or even Russia.

[Bill]

Have you guys heard the latest on this?

Supposedly Karl Rove and Tony Snow quit now because they know that Cheney has prevailed, and that the attack will happen, and they both think it's crazy, and career ending to be involved with it.

[Linkster]

Doesnt surprise me a bit - I knew that Snow had quit but he was being pretty secretive about it

[Linkster]

Senator Bernie Sanders has a post up about this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/fox-attacks-iran_b_61578.html
Its good to see someone with the background to talk intelligently about this issue

[Jennifer]

You are all nuts. We won't attack Iran for a multiple of reasons, I cannot list them all, but I'll give you some of the big ones.

A) They are almost, if not already, a nuclear power.
B) We'd have to un-deploy troops from somewhere like Germany, Korea, Japan, etc to have some available to deploy in Iran.
C) Hillary doesn't have the testicular fortitude to invade a White Castle, let alone Iran and President Bush doesn't have the tenure left in office to get enough Senators and Congressmen to sign off on the marching orders.

[Linkster]

Jennifer - welcome - I like that approach unfortunately it avoids real facts.
Iran is not a nuclear power and it will be a good 5 years before they will be.

The forces are already on station in the Gulf with a third aircraft carrier sent to assist back in July which put the Navy at a higher readiness level than when the attack on Iraq started in 2003 - an attack would not involve a large amount of troops - it would be all air power launched from ships

The resolution used to go to Iraq is not limited to that one country - Bush wouldnt have to get congress to go along with it as he already has a resolution that allows him to preemptively strike any country in the "axis of terror"

[Bill]

Do it, Mr President!

Do it.

[Linkster]

I guess I need to amend that time to sometime in the very near future instead of 6 months down the road since Bush authorized his military commanders to take action against Iran toady

[Jennifer]

Honestly, I thought his Congressional approval was limited to Iraq and Afghanistan (two separate approvals.) And that was why we were not going into Pakistan or Iran to get terrorists and why they were using those nations as staging areas to attack us.


And no, Iran is currently not a nuclear power. However, they do have the materials and knowledge for dirty bombs, which are much worse then nice clean incineration in an instant, but rather death over weeks from radiation poisoning and they are rapidly approaching full nuclear status with the thousands of centrifuges they have running around the clock and their scientists also working around the clock.


Anyway, my personal opinion on this is simple, we should have killed the Hussein family with Delta Force and we should kill Ahmedinijahd (sorry if I misspelled that) with a sniper as well. Anyone who refuses to believe the Holocaust happened and tells his people that an entire culture should be eliminated should be eliminated for the good of mankind.

Yes, I know, I don't advocate the destruction of unique DNA pools located in genetic material at any age, but every rule has an exception or two. And, honestly, who is going to argue that one sniper bullet at the cost of $0.13 is worse then hundreds or thousands of American lives and billions of military equipment?

[Moby]

Anyway, my personal opinion on this is simple, we should have killed the Hussein family with Delta Force and we should kill Ahmedinijahd (sorry if I misspelled that) with a sniper as well.
Do you think that we should kill the families of those responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

Maybe that's too harsh. Maybe we should just have our President's family stop doing business them.

[Bill]

at any age, but every rule has an exception or two. And, honestly, who is going to argue that one sniper bullet at the cost of $0.13 is worse then hundreds or thousands of American lives and billions of military equipment?

The corporations and the corporatists?

[Linkster]

Jennfer - first off - to hopefully quell some of your fears that have been instilled in you on purpose - dirty radioactive bombs are not a serious problem - they cannot "poison" you and certainly would have less effect on anyone within 20 feet of the blast than the explosive used - other than that you will get the same biological effect that you get from getting a chest xray (if you need any technical help on that I can certainly answer any questions on it since radiation protection and physics has been my lifes career)

Second - the notion that there are thousands of centrifuges running in Iran right now is ridiculous - and even if they had them (although the US only has supplied them a few so far) they would still be 5 years away from plutonium - which you cant make in a centrifuge - you need the breeder reactor first - and they havent even built that yet

Third - Ahmedinijahd is just a spokesperson for a small part of Iran - most Iranians also think he is an idiot and would never let him go very far - he also has control over one small section of the military - which if he tried to use, would also be put down by the rest of the regular army in Iran.
Interestingly, the most outspoken of critics of the holocaust that you are referring to when he had his little get-together are the most religious of the Jewish community in Israel - check the coverage of the event and you will find they were there in large numbers - I dont really have an opinion one way or the other, but I guess if that was a holocaust so was the crusades and many other religious cleansings

Last - if you are a religious person than I would take you up on the killing of a life but since I dont know one way or the other Ill just leave it at my opinion that way too many lives have already been taken over the last 3000 years in the name of fairy tales - its about time to stop - and since the Iran problem stems from the same religious experience that Bush had (when some god figure he worships told him to go to war) I guess that Ahmedinijahd would just be another religious killing like Saddam was (of course they had to silence him before the next trial started since he was going to expose the US for supplying the chemical gas to him that he used on his enemies in the Iran-Iraq war - which he remembered his history when Churchill did the same thing in Iraq was a quick effective way to control the tribes)

[Bill]

If we gotta attack every country with the capacity to make dirty bombs, we are going to have to attack a lot of freekin' countries.

Even after we narrow down the list to countries that don't like us. Radioactives are everywhere.

[Jennifer]

Do you think that we should kill the families of those responsible for the 9/11 attacks?




No. The sins of the father do not pass to the child and the sins of the child do not pass to the parent.

As for those responsible for the attacks on 9/11, they should be arrested and thrown in a deep, dark hole for the rest of their natural lives. I don't think they should be killed either.

People who should be killed are those currently moving in an aggressive and meaningful manner in which the probability of them doing imminate harm to you, your friends, your family or your fellow citizens is relatively clear and then you should only kill as a method of last resort.

For instance, if you are in a rifle platoon and are being shot at by enemies. Then it is okay to kill them until they surrender or retreat.

For instance, if you are in your home and someone breaks in, brandishing a sidearm and threatening to harm your children, you can kill them.

[Linkster]

For instance, if you are in your home and someone breaks in, brandishing a sidearm and threatening to harm your children, you can kill them.

Except that in most states you would go to jail for murder - although I guess its a good "ideal"

Of course the real answer is to teach future generations that killing is not an option anymore, including war and simply change the futures' concept of life. Unfortunately that is a little "idealistic" too and I know that man cannot, as long as they believe in imaginary objects and deities, abstain from killing and hating in their names.

[Jennifer]

Except that in most states you would go to jail for murder - although I guess its a good "ideal"

Of course the real answer is to teach future generations that killing is not an option anymore, including war and simply change the futures' concept of life. Unfortunately that is a little "idealistic" too and I know that man cannot, as long as they believe in imaginary objects and deities, abstain from killing and hating in their names.


I believe you are wrong. It's called Justifiable Homocide in most states and you would not even be censured for it.

However, if you injure the assailant, they would be able to sue you. Which is why you should ALWAYS make sure to kill the assailant and not injure them.

[kres24GT]

Snow definitely quit because he couldn't swallow the BS he was spouting. He would come on the Boortz show and it was hilarious to hear him pain through the questions Boortz would answer him because he knew what he was saying was absolute horse shit and if he still had his own show he'd be saying something totally different.

[mwillman]

You seem to get some joy out of the idea of killing others?

So how are you different then those you want to kill?

[Linkster]

Jennifer - there are still many states where it is still a crime of murder - although some of the states are trying to pass laws to change that like Michigan and Missouri currently. Many other states have limitations on when you can use deadly force ranging from So Dakota where if the intruder is there for a burglery, you cannot use it, to Alabama where it is ok if there is a real threat to do harm physically which is usually shown by the intruder having to have a loaded weapon in case law.

[Bill]

which is usually shown by the intruder having to have a loaded weapon in case law.

"Would you do me a favor and open the action of your weapon so that I can see if it's loaded and decide if I'm allowed to shoot you?".

[Linkster]

Bill - I was referring to the after the fact cases where homeowners have been charged with murder or manslaughter - and the upper courts using that as a "tell"

[moonman]

Earlier in this thread I challenged the idea that we would attack Iran in the next six months. I've been hearing this for two years and we haven't done it. I also don't believe that Bush/Cheney would be successful in any attempt to do away with '08 election and impose martial law.

I still hold to the above but am troubled today by an article I'll link after explaining what I find so concerning. Specifically, Generals Lynch & Patreous have violated protocol by crittizing and advocating millitary policy in the M.E. In fact, Patreous current job is counter to what he wrote in the Washington Post in 2004. General Lynch has recently taken to the public arena tossing smack at Senator John Warner for calling for a reduction in U.S. troops in Iraq by Christmas.

It's no secret that Bush/Cheney have played a game of musical generals in a continual search to find any millitary men who agree with their policy. What is very troubling here is that Lynch & Patreous have overstepped their role and entered the public debate regarding plicy.

History shows numerous examples of once the millitary oversteps protocol and becomes openly crittical of civilian leadership, it is but a very short step for the millitary to do away with civilian leadership.

I question that Bush/Cheney couldn't impose martial law because the American People will not support or tolerate it. Sadly I shouldn't have spoken so generally. Apparently there at least two Americans, Generals Lynch & Patreous who would support the imposition of martial law.

http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/08/31/the-bad-judgment-of-gen-david-petraeus-brent-budowsky/

BTW, a voice I respect and follow, Ray McGovern, disagrees with me and writes that we will attack Iran within six months

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/1276

[Betty Blowtorch]

Pentagon "three-day blitz" plan for Iran (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece)


The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes
against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the
Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to
a national security expert.

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran
last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East
“under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He warned
that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before
it is too late”.

Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire
nuclear weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes
and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down.
It looks like these genocidal nutcases in the White House
are really gonna do it. Put all your spare cash into Exxon
stock because the price of gas is gonna shoot through
the roof once the bombs fall on Iran.

This is scary shit. We could be looking at World War III.
I don't like having a billion Muslims hating America and
wanting revenge.

[Linkster]

With the revelation today that Fox and quite a few media types have been instructed to start a propaganda campaign this week for war in Iran, I would say that it is extremely close - especially now that the third aircraft carrier is on station (first time 3 have ever been there at the same time "on-station" - normally it happens when relieving one with another - but never with all in readiness)

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=8b707092337b9d5d7dce6 07666bb743a
Gives a good list of indicators for a coming war - interestingly - Iran announced today that they supposedly now have 3000 centrifuges cascaded in operation - although no one really believes them this is the type of "holocaust" wording the administration is great at making into marching orders - will probably hear something about it in a speech any day now

Combine that with the fact that something is being prepared to "rock" the US - so much chatter on the west coast that involves Israeli's casing different places and further up the coast other reports from the FBI looking for specific people being reported - that in itself would provide a trigger to a chain of events that the US population would fall right in line like they did in 2003

[Linkster]

More importantly - found this by accident:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/1/183018/1527

A currently active duty officer in the Navy on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of Hormuz :
"I don’t think it’s limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning every damn Tomahawk we have in inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden, like thousands of targets. I believe that no American will know when it happens until after it happens. And whatever the consequences, whatever the consequences, they will have to be lived with. I am sure if my father knew I was telling someone in a news organization that we were about to launch a supposedly secret attack that it would be treason. But something inside me tells me to tell it anyway."

[Betty Blowtorch]

So when is the attack supposed to go down? Has a date been set?
Will there be some kind of "terrorist attack" inside the U.S. to justify
the attack on Iran?

[Linkster]

Supposedly the "in the knows" are saying that the physical buildup of hardware is already there, the propaganda buildup will occur starting Tuesday and some sort of incident will occur - who knows - some have even said tomorrow - but then Ive heard people saying that part with timeframes anywhere from Sept to November.
I would say that the stuff is already in place for the attack in Iran so that part shouldnt need to wait - it would mostly depend on how much resistance the media and the public put up - then the attack on US soil would have to be used to turn the tide using fear like they did with the 911 stuff

[Bill]

This is a few days old, but still pretty heated - TIME magazine saying war with Iran is inevitable.

This may be redundant - someone else might have posted it, but I didn't find it until a link to it came up on metafilter just now.

"Strengthening the Administration's case for a strike on Iran, there's a belief among neo-cons that the IRGC is the one obstacle to a democratic and friendly Iran. They believe that if we were to get rid of the IRGC, the clerics would fall, and our thirty-years war with Iran over. It's another neo-con delusion, but still it informs White House thinking.

And what do we do if just the opposite happens — a strike on Iran unifies Iranians behind the regime? An Administration official told me it's not even a consideration. "IRGC IED's are a casus belli for this Administration. There will be an attack on Iran.".

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1654188,00.html

[moonman]

From all these and various sources if yer in Iran you might say there is indeed elevated 'chatter' concerning an impending attack. What is inescapable is that many sources are claiming if we don't attack Iran the Israeli's will.

[Linkster]

moonman - while that may be a good case - I wouldnt be surprised to see it be a combined operation of the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia - this last week we just gave Israel 30 bill in arms aid and Saudi Arabia another 20 bill for arms

[Linkster]

Heres another little attempt to put all the signs together:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-a-rodman/how-i-learned-to-stop-wor_b_62830.html