Celtic Radio Community [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > Targeting Iran

Posted by: Macfive 06-Feb-2007, 07:46 PM

Without sounding to dramatic, I thought it might be interesting to get everyone's take on the increased tension between Iran and the U.S.

Some interesting developments:

U.S. Seizes Iranian Operatives in Iraq.
Iranian Agents kidnapped U.S. Soldiers & Execute them.
John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group deployed to Persian Gulf.
Joins the already deployed Eisenhower Carrie Strike Group.
USS Bataan steamed through the Suez Canal to the Persian Gulf.
First Admiral appointed as head of Centcom.
New leadership in mid-east Military.
Iran continues with Nuclear aspirations.
Iranian Embassy official kidnapped in Baghadad.
Israel will not accept a nuclear Iran.
New patriot missle defensive systems deployed to U.S. Mid-East Allies.
Clinton states Iran must not be allowed to become a nuclear power.

I think it is interesting that Bush has named an Admiral to head Centcom. A Naval leader has never been named to Centcom. Plus why do we need 2 Carrier Strike Groups in the Persian Gulf. The Stennis by itself represents unbelievable strike power.

A power struggle is unfolding between the U.S. and Mid-East Allies against growing Iranian influence and the stakes appear to be even higher than Iraq.

If Clinton, representative of the democrats is even stating that Iran must not be allowed to become a nuclear power and we all know how Bush feels about this - it would seem that all signs are pointing to a show down.

What does everyone think?

Posted by: Sekhmet 06-Feb-2007, 08:44 PM

It's a matter of time. We've gone well beyond the realm of sabre-rattling at this point, and now it's a matter of finding that convenient excuse to invade. I give it six months or less.

Posted by: stevenpd 06-Feb-2007, 08:54 PM

QUOTE (Sekhmet @ 06-Feb-2007, 06:44 PM)

It's a matter of time. We've gone well beyond the realm of sabre-rattling at this point, and now it's a matter of finding that convenient excuse to invade. I give it six months or less.

I'll give it a little bit longer - mid-September, before Ramadan.

Posted by: Roberto Phoenix 06-Feb-2007, 11:01 PM

I would have to say no on this one. Or at least not yet, not with Bush in office and to many people already sick of war news. In my opinon there is just too little public backing behind it at this point so there would have to be a huge reason for it. Something even larger than 9-11. I would say that it would probably be the beginning of the next presidency or at the earliest when this season of American Idol ends.

Posted by: maisky 07-Feb-2007, 06:58 AM

QUOTE (Roberto Phoenix @ 06-Feb-2007, 11:01 PM)

Bush just doesn't care what public opinion, or the opinion of other politicians is. He just keeps setting up continued profitablitly for Big Oil. Don't forget the Bush family money is still there. Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

Posted by: Antwn 09-Feb-2007, 02:09 PM

Lets see....we're fighting on two fronts currently, with much controversy around sending another 25,000 to Iraq and a Democratic majority in Congress, I don't think another war effort will be taken lightly - no green light on this one. Bush is more likely to foster the "diplomatic solution" until he can hand off to the next president, unless there's some serious development like Iran develops a verifiable nuke with a delivery system which can reach Israel. Unless that happens, then I think we may be in for more than our earful of rhetorical barking but no bite on all sides. Business as usual in Dystopia.

The carrier group may be either a relief to an existing one, or to pressure Iran with increased military presence with a hope to diminish their obstinacy by fear. Or maybe its to have more planes in place for select strikes against sites that are processing nuclear materials without an actual invasion or war declaration - that option would damage relations with our European allies which we're trying to mend, and also strengthen the Dems presidential bid by inciting more anti-war rallying and ranting. Maybe they'll try to pass a slap-your-wrist resolution, but then even with a majority they can't even gain enough strength to resolve to whine at this point. Whatever the carrier group motive, the rubber band of relations seems to be stretched a bit more taut....hey, is that a taut-ology then?

As far as Iranian influence in the region, we'd be better off trying to convince Iran that a stable Iraq is more in their interest than Iraq in the midst of civil war. Then again, maybe Iran thinks an Iraq in conflict gives them a greater chance to influence the outcome in their favor.

Iraq like Northern Ireland has one similarity with a bad marriage, they just can't get along with the opposite sects.

Posted by: Macfive 09-Feb-2007, 07:14 PM

I do not think an invasion of Iran is what they have planned. That would be pure stupidity and would certainly result in the president being impeached for sure. Also, we are not even capable of that right now - it would require a military buildup of immense proportions.

I'm thinking along the lines of a sustained air campaign - possibly taking out all of the nuclear R&D sites and setting the Iranian Regime 50 years back.

Posted by: Roberto Phoenix 09-Feb-2007, 09:47 PM

We could threaten them with our methods of stabilizing countries like we have done in Iraq.

Posted by: Shadows 10-Feb-2007, 05:49 AM

QUOTE (Macfive @ 09-Feb-2007, 09:14 PM)

And your point is? It was pure stupidity to go into Iraq too.

We will be at war with Iran before the years end.

Posted by: maisky 12-Feb-2007, 04:26 AM

Pure stupidity? Shrub is a little boy playing with his toy soldier set. His poor, coke burned brain isn't capable of realizing that these are real American children he is getting killed. He doesn't listen to anybody, not his advisors, not the American people. He will go on killing our children until he is stopped. Don't imeach, indict! Wait! That is a different thread! sorry.

I was reading an arictle about the results of investigations into the pre-war intelligence over the weekend. The Pentagon clearly manipulated the intelligence, using and releasing only those parts that supported Bush's pet plan to invade. The report went on to say that this manipulation was not "illigal" or "unauthorized". I.e. GW authorized it. We are back to Bush lying to get his war.

Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 12-Feb-2007, 10:01 AM

According to the NY TImes:

QUOTE

The Bush administration is expected to make public this weekend some of what intelligence agencies regard as an increasing body of evidence pointing to an Iranian link, including information gleaned from Iranians and Iraqis captured in recent American raids on an Iranian office in Erbil and another site in Baghdad.

The information includes interrogation reports from the raids indicating that money and weapons components are being brought into Iraq from across the Iranian border in vehicles that travel at night. One of the detainees has identified an Iranian operative as having supplied two of the bombs. The border crossing at Mehran is identified as a major crossing point for the smuggling of money and weapons for Shiite militants, according to the intelligence.

According to American intelligence, Iran has excelled in developing this type of bomb, and has provided similar technology to Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon. The manufacture of the key metal components required sophisticated machinery, raw material and expertise that American intelligence agencies do not believe can be found in Iraq. In addition, some components of the bombs have been found with Iranian factory markings from 2006.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/world/middleeast/10weapons.html?ei=5065&en=7febec32f88064b5&ex=1171774800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
It's hard to think of a reason for releasing this intel to the public unless some reaction (IMHO, a bombing campaign) is being planned.

Posted by: Emmet 12-Feb-2007, 10:33 AM

Iran sits atop an amount of oil roughly equivalent to that of Iraq, and threatens US hegemony over Iraq and it's oil resources. The US is going to attack Iran, and there's absolutely nothing you or I can do about it.

Iran is quite well aware of this, which is why they're working so hard on developing nuclear weapons (thanks to our good friends and gallant allies the Pakistanis, who sold nuclear weapons technology to Iran, Libya, North Korea, and God knows who else). The US must attack Iran very soon, before their nuclear deterrent capability becomes operational.
To ensure the complete first-strike destruction of hardened underground nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak I won't be at all surprised if the first strike utilizes the B61 EPW, a thermonuclear "bunker buster" with a maximum yield of 340 kilotons, either by the US or, more likely, by their proxy Israel under diplomatic cover of US veto power in the Security Council, all in the name of "pre-emptive self-defense" and peace, freedom, the onward march of democracy, of course.

Posted by: John Clements 12-Feb-2007, 11:24 AM

Given the track record of this administration, how anyone can believe anything they say, is beyond me?

Even in hindsight, America has either become blind, totaly naive, or just one of them.

I mean the very idea, of forcing a democratic system on anyone, is simply un-American.

Later,
JC

Posted by: haynes9 12-Feb-2007, 12:51 PM

In a truly great understatement, this is a really tough call. Iran certainly is a threat to world stability (whatever THAT is). They have a guy at the helm that is a certified wacko just like North Korea. And because of the ineptitude of previous intelligence reports (which both Democratic and Republican administration bought into, I might add), it is difficult to give credibility to these reports.

Having said all that, I certainly have no answers. And it doesn't seem like any of the '08 candidates do, either. I know from my Middle Eastern friends that the tyranny in Iraq is something none of us has likely experienced or completely understand. As an aside, I have a close friend from a Middle Eastern country that shall remain nameless who was smuggling Bibles into Iran. He has a death warrant out on him. He spent hours hiding from Iranian authorities in a sewer and is now experiencing some pretty intense health issues because of it. Of course, attacking Iran for my friend's sake is not what I am advocating. We are just dealing with a totally different mind set.

Something militarily happening in Iran may be inevitable. If not the US, it certainly could be Israel. These are amazing times, indeed.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 12-Feb-2007, 12:57 PM

I would think a sustained air campaign would be a logical choice IF they attack Iran on any level.

However, they better make sure they have adequate proof that Iran IS seeking nuclear weapons. If, and I'm not saying they are one way or the other, but if Iran doesn't have any evidence of anything other than nuclear technology to power their country...well doing anything against them will set the US back in the global arena. It would be a huge PR nightmare.

If the government can prove that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, well I wouldn't be surprised if they use this as a way to get us out of Iraq and still continue the War on Terror. I don't know how this would work logistically, but a new enemy would look a lot better in the news than more Iraq failures.

Posted by: maisky 14-Feb-2007, 05:09 AM

Here is letter I sent to my congressman:

"Stop these madmen from irrevocably committing us all to World War III. Just as it was transparently obvious during the buildup to the Iraq war that it was a done deal, so is it now clear that these criminals and madmen are preparing to widen their theater and invade Iran. Despite the lack of credible justification, despite the virtual certainy of disaster along this course, they soldier on, secure that ideology is on their side. Billions or trillions in graft and slush certainly are, at any rate.

Well, that virtual certainty of diaster sure didn't stop them from pulling their PNAC bullcrap in Iraq. The Legislative branch must IMMEDIATELY prohibit any military "adventurism" in Iran by president Hand-Puppet and his evil handler, Darth Cheney. We must all absolutely refuse to continue being accessories to mass murder. Especially since this time, the list of victims could well include ourselves."

I hope that wasn't too subtle.

Posted by: haynes9 14-Feb-2007, 08:38 AM

QUOTE (maisky @ 14-Feb-2007, 04:09 AM)

So, let me see if I understand, Maisky. Are you saying your against any involvement in Iran

Posted by: Emmet 14-Feb-2007, 10:34 AM

I find it highly amusing that within 24 hours of our idiot king loudly proclaiming that the Iranian government "at the highest levels" is complicit in the deaths of 170 American soldiers, USMC General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, so much as called him a liar, saying he had seen no evidence or intel to substantiate such a claim.

After the past six years, I can't imagine what would possess anyone to believe a single word emanating from the White House.

Posted by: stoirmeil 14-Feb-2007, 11:19 AM

QUOTE (Macfive @ 09-Feb-2007, 08:14 PM)

If Afghanistan and Iraq are not enough to demonstrate that the "Shock and Awe" approach doesn't work alone and even trying it is so monstrously destructive to infrastructure and civilian populations that it ought to be a war crime unto itself, AND that the follow-up ground invasion to preemptive air strikes in a huge, unfriendly terrain we don't know, against people we can't fathom, is a surreal take on hell, including the eternal nature of it, then --

Yes. The administration will do it again. The present regime has little to lose, since Republican supremacy stands to be overturned in the next election, and is obviously thinking it has a slim chance of justifying the mess they've made, as a parting "legacy," by succeeding with Iran where the other engagements have failed. Personally I think there is NO chance of doing it with Iran -- one definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect different results.

But I see the same mentality with students we counsel here at this school who can't pass enough math courses to major in science. Every new semester is a new beginning on a clean slate, in the short run, despite what the lengthening record of C-'s and D's and F's shows with those old courses they took before. And that's how they reason. In this style of thinking, depletion of troops, terrible morale, public opinion circling the toilet bowl and stone-cold hostility from even neutral and allied nations regarding this war mean nothing against the prospect of starting a whole, brand new front. Just like getting a D in Calculus I has nothing to do with your chances of acing Calc II. Weird fragmentation of cause and effect -- there is something truly nutty about it.

In many ways, Bush & Co., Inc. thinks a lot like a mediocre college kid with a weak memory of the past, a dim perception of the future, and the idea that a new start will have a different outcome, even with the same proven ineffective strategies and fundamental lack of aptitude for the job.

Emmet's point pulls me up short, as usual. The issue of nuclear deterrant is necessarily on a real, very short fuse now, and Israel is almost sure to be pulled in as the striking arm, or a significant part of it. We have not yet seen the beginning of World War III, only the run-up -- but that really will be it. Given the nature of all the available weapons, nuclear and otherwise, in five years or less a great deal of the ordinary fabric of everything we do will have changed radically, not just in the field but right on our own turf.

Posted by: John Clements 14-Feb-2007, 01:47 PM

Hey guys�

I almost wish we found Weapons of Mass Destruction. At least then this war might be just. And to think that we�re considering doing it all over again, in Iran, is simply beyond forgiveness.

Of course you all know. That it was that kind of thinking. That brought down Napoleon. When he marched into Russia! And come to think of it. It also brought down the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan.

Have a good day, it might be the last.

JC

Posted by: Emmet 15-Feb-2007, 09:56 AM

On 10 February unnamed US officials (aren't they always?) asserted to the New York Times (remember Judith Miller?) that deadly "explosively formed penetrators" which have killed US soldiers are being smuggled into Iraq with the complicity "at the highest levels" of the Iranian government. "Iran is a significant contributor to attacks on coalition forces."

(A) At least 60% of US deaths have occurred in areas where Sunni insurgents are active. Iran is Shi'ite; not Sunni; they passionately hate each other's guts (look at Baghdad). The Ba'athists and Sunnis are the historical enemy of Iran; it is extremely unlikely that Iran would provide them with weapons to overthrow their natural allies, the Shi'a dominated government of Iraq. Only 4% of US casualties have taken place in Shi'ite controlled areas in the provinces, while about 25% of total US fatalities have taken place in Baghdad, where both Shi'ites and Sunnis engaged in open civil war.

(B) Despite their ominous insinuations, "Explosively formed penetrators" are not some sinister new secret weapon. Shaped-charge munitions have been well-known since WW I, and are now as common as grass around the world, particularly in anti-tank munitions, including the venerable and ubiquitous RPG-7. Iraqis even make home-made ones for their roadside IED's.

By insisting that Iran is "providing material support" for fighters who were killing US troops, Bush is none-to-subtly proposing a de jure justification under the UN Charter for attacking Iran. As with his duplicitous justifications for attacking Iraq, Bush is actively spouting "alternative analysis" which is every bit as mendacious and deceitful.

Posted by: John Clements 15-Feb-2007, 10:49 AM

Isn�t it at all suspicious, that the "markings" on the weapons. Supposedly smuggled into Iraq, from Iran, are printed in English. Could it be that those weapons are actually coming from Saudi Arabia?
You know the same place that most of the alleged hijackers on 9/11 came from.
JC

Posted by: John Clements 26-Feb-2007, 04:45 PM

(A letter to the Editor of the NJ Record, February 22/07)

Dear Editor,

So, on questionable evidence we went to Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction, and so far. All we�ve found is death, by improvised bombs, small arms, and shoulder mounted rockets. Of course that�s not to forget suicide bombers. And just the thought, of doing it all over again, in Iran, �once again, on flimsy evidence�, is simply unforgivable.

Don�t the words imperialism and hypocrisy, have meaning anymore? I know one thing, and that is. If I were an Iraqi, I would probably be an insurgent, and I�d be willing, to give you ten to one odds, that you would too.

John Clements

Posted by: Shadows 26-Feb-2007, 07:07 PM

We all need to wake up , as some of us here have.
The times are not looking good for mankind and dear "king" is at the lead of this avenue of distruction ( humm, could it be he is the one predicted? )

Posted by: maisky 27-Feb-2007, 07:10 AM

QUOTE (Shadows @ 26-Feb-2007, 07:07 PM)

Careful, I remember a couple of folks catching lots of flack in the past for inferring that The Shrub is the AntiChrist. I get little satisfaction from having predicted all this stuff BEFORE the US invaded Iraq.

Posted by: maisky 01-Mar-2007, 04:22 AM

After looking closely at the interests of the closest groups backing the two main factions (besides the US) in Iraq, it is apparent, to me at least, that our best course would be to pull out, immediatley, in a controlled fashion and let Syria and Iran have their war with each other, with Iraq as the battlefield. The civil war and the war will occur whether we are there or not.

I dont see Shrub allowing control over his toy soldier set to go away. He doesn't care that the soldiers are real people, who die. He doesn't care that his play is crippling the US economy and leaving a huge debt for our grandchildren. He doesn't care that his toy soldier set is getting worn out. He still has 2 years left to play with it. Nobody can take it away from him!

Posted by: Antwn 01-Mar-2007, 10:10 AM

QUOTE (maisky @ 01-Mar-2007, 05:22 AM)

You may have a point Maisky. Both Iran and Syria will want to establish a government in Iraq amenable to their interests. Trouble is that whoever wins is trouble for the US. A larger fraternity of religious states after the bomb, hating Israel and the US is not a good prospect. I don't know at this point what chance democracy has/ever had in Iraq, whether failures are because of US bungling, nascent Iraqi government bungling, regional sister state "extracurricular activities" or combination thereof, but what I think is stupid is premature pullout or failure to provide additional troops to at least attempt to succeed at what we've started.

Whatever anyone says about the war's initial justifications, we remain responsible for the mess we've created. What does it say to the world for us to leave the situation in shambles now? The US will overthrow dictators at will and leave your country in chaos, good luck cleaning up after us? Hey, avoiding civil war, building a viable economic sovereign state with minimal outside interference is a learning experience boys and girls, you'll grow so much stronger for it. Yeah, aren't we the morally preeminent ones.... leave it to the good ole boys to ruin your nation in their national interest and be sloppy enough to give/gain nothing out of it. If our intention is to give democracy a chance, then lets do so. I agree that we should leave, but I'm disagreeing with your timeframe. At some point the Iraqis will have to take over, but its irresponsible and disingenuous of us to leave prior to ensuring their best chance for success.

To extend the theater to Iran is insanity, agreed. Rhetorical sabre rattling is a political and diplomatic tactic which is not always serious however. Moving military pieces around the geo-political chessboard may be prelude to war or just making our barking loud enough to disturb the neighbor's sleep.