Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Page 1 of 6 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 60

Thread: How to deal with Iran

  1. #1
    cpt_azad's Avatar Colonel
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Surrey, BC
    Posts
    6,741

    Urgent

    linkage: http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/9...n_Secret_Sites

    The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts.


    President George W Bush is said to be so alarmed by the threat of Iran's hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, that privately he refers to him as "the new Hitler", says Seymour Hersh, who broke the story of the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.


    Some US military chiefs have unsuccessfully urged the White House to drop the nuclear option from its war plans, Hersh writes in The New Yorker magazine. The conviction that Mr Ahmedinejad would attack Israel or US forces in the Middle East, if Iran obtains atomic weapons, is what drives American planning for the destruction of Teheran's nuclear programme.

    Hersh claims that one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One alleged target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, 200 miles south of Teheran.


    Although Iran claims that its nuclear programme is peaceful, US and European intelligence agencies are certain that Teheran is trying to develop atomic weapons. In contrast to the run-up to the Iraq invasion, there are no disagreements within Western intelligence about Iran's plans.


    This newspaper disclosed recently that senior Pentagon strategists are updating plans to strike Iran's nuclear sites with long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched missiles. And last week, the Sunday Telegraph reported a secret meeting at the Ministry of Defence where military chiefs and officials from Downing Street and the Foreign Office discussed the consequences of an American-led attack on Iran, and Britain's role in any such action.

    The military option is opposed by London and other European capitals. But there are growing fears in No 10 and the Foreign Office that the British-led push for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear stand-off, will be swept aside by hawks in Washington. Hersh says that within the Bush administration, there are concerns that even a pummelling by conventional strikes, may not sufficiently damage Iran's buried nuclear plants.


    Iran has been developing a series of bunkers and facilities to provide hidden command centres for its leaders and to protect its nuclear infrastructure. The lack of reliable intelligence about these subterranean facilities, is fuelling pressure for tactical nuclear weapons to be included in the strike plans as the only guaranteed means to destroy all the sites simultaneously.

    The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings among the joint chiefs of staff, and some officers have talked about resigning, Hersh has been told. The military chiefs sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran, without success, a former senior intelligence officer said.


    The Pentagon consultant on the war on terror confirmed that some in the administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among defence department political appointees.


    The election of Mr Ahmedinejad last year, has hardened attitudes within the Bush Administration. The Iranian president has said that Israel should be "wiped off the map". He has drafted in former fellow Revolutionary Guards commanders to run the nuclear programme, in further signs that he is preparing to back his threats with action.


    Mr Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official told Hersh. "That's the name they're using. They say, 'Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?' "


    Despite America's public commitment to diplomacy, there is a growing belief in Washington that the only solution to the crisis is regime change. A senior Pentagon consultant said that Mr Bush believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy".


    Publicly, the US insists it remains committed to diplomacy to solve the crisis. But with Russia apparently intent on vetoing any threat of punitive action at the UN, the Bush administration is also planning for unilateral military action. Hersh repeated his claims that the US has intensified clandestine activities inside Iran, using special forces to identify targets and establish contact with anti-Teheran ethnic-minority groups.


    The senior defence officials said that Mr Bush is "determined to deny Iran the opportunity to begin a pilot programme, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium".
    No comment, since I'm completely "neutraled" out on this issue. I for one believe that Iran is a threat, not the people mind you (albeit a majority are), but the government at hand. I would love to see democracy embrace Iran, but not in the way Iraq has embraced it.


    Diplomacy should be a first act. And if all else fails....


    But knowing the Bush Admin....


    Like I said, I for one am neutral on this issue, I believe that democracy should be brought to Iran (its countries like Iran that give Islam a bad name and portray it as such a backwards religion not to mention use it as a shield and as an excuse for unexcusable acts) but not through the use of war. When you start to sentence and kill innocent people for defending themselves and commit acts that go against the basic Human Rights, something must be done. (http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/4...ath_By_Hanging)

    Before you flame, yes, I strongly believe that US should be held accountable and should answer to the thousands upon thousands of acts that they've commited themselves that greatly outweigh those that were commited by other countries. (and please don't post something about Rwanda or anything, that is totally out of context, I'm talking about small acts that have been accumalating for a loooong time)

    Oh, and this is all assuming they (Iran) don't launch their attacks first, which is highly unlikely.

    Keep in mind this post is coming from a user who loaths the US Foreign Policy and Israel's many many policies.

    Your thoughts on this?
    Last edited by cpt_azad; 04-10-2006 at 11:05 PM.

    Jeff Loomis: He's so good, he doesn't need to be dead to have a tribute.

  2. The Drawing Room   -   #2
    sArA's Avatar Ex-Moderatererer
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    4,765
    Well put Cpt....

    My initial reaction is that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran would be a disastrous mistake.

  3. The Drawing Room   -   #3
    Seedler's Avatar T__________________T
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,644
    Totally against it.

    One nuke fired=60,000 in the world all fired.

    I don't want a nuclear winter.
    Biostar XE T5
    i5-750 @ 4.0 GHZ stable (CM Hyper 212)
    2 x 2GB Cosair XMS3 DDR3 1600MHZ
    Radeon 5850 @ 866/1254MHZ
    Intel X25-M in RAID 0
    WD Caviar Black 2TB in RAID 0
    3 x Asus 25.5" VW266H LCD [Eyefinity]

  4. The Drawing Room   -   #4
    j2k4's Avatar en(un)lightened
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oh, please...
    Posts
    15,254
    Quote Originally Posted by sArA
    Well put Cpt....

    My initial reaction is that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran would be a disastrous mistake.
    My first reaction is that Seymour Hersh is full of shit.

    Cap, your distaste for American foreign policy is a bit too obvious for any simultaneous personal claim of neutrality on the matter of Iran.

    As to the export of democracy, it is either part of foreign policy or it is not, and the only qualifying determinants are logistics and methodologies.

    In other words, what fit for Iraq may have no bearing on Iran; the coalition of the "willing" in the case of Iraq may share no relationship/resemblance whatsoever with any that may develop over Iran.

    Iran still has a healthy and youthful population evincing a "Western" empathy.

    As the Iraqi war began, Iran was considered to be on the verge of a revolution of sorts, if you'll remember...

    Actually, I see Iran as quite fragmented, internally.

    The larger issue for me is Iran's relationship with a seemingly re-born Russia; there are economic considerations burgeoning (oil, natural gas) vis a vis Russia and Western Europe which are obscured somewhat by the concern over Iran, and Russia doesn't mind the fact at all (at all).
    “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

  5. The Drawing Room   -   #5
    j2k4's Avatar en(un)lightened
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oh, please...
    Posts
    15,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Seedler
    Totally against it.

    One nuke fired=60,000 in the world all fired.

    I don't want a nuclear winter.
    Quite right; 'twould mean the end of global warming.

    EDIT-

    On second thought...
    Last edited by j2k4; 04-11-2006 at 12:01 AM.
    “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

  6. The Drawing Room   -   #6
    vidcc's Avatar there is no god
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,630
    Seems to me that a good rule of thumb is listen to what Bush actually says on the issue.
    Today he said reports that his administration has considered nuclear strikes was "wild speculation" and that they are trying to resolve the Iran issue through diplomacy.....
    Given that Bush and his administration have been caught in so many "mistruths" lately or used "truthiness", for him to make that statements worries me that Hersh may have some ground for his article.

    it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.

  7. The Drawing Room   -   #7
    cpt_azad's Avatar Colonel
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Surrey, BC
    Posts
    6,741
    Quote Originally Posted by j2k4
    Quote Originally Posted by sArA
    Well put Cpt....

    My initial reaction is that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran would be a disastrous mistake.
    My first reaction is that Seymour Hersh is full of shit.

    Cap, your distaste for American foreign policy is a bit too obvious for any simultaneous personal claim of neutrality on the matter of Iran.

    As to the export of democracy, it is either part of foreign policy or it is not, and the only qualifying determinants are logistics and methodologies.

    In other words, what fit for Iraq may have no bearing on Iran; the coalition of the "willing" in the case of Iraq may share no relationship/resemblance whatsoever with any that may develop over Iran.

    Iran still has a healthy and youthful population evincing a "Western" empathy.

    As the Iraqi war began, Iran was considered to be on the verge of a revolution of sorts, if you'll remember...

    Actually, I see Iran as quite fragmented, internally.

    The larger issue for me is Iran's relationship with a seemingly re-born Russia; there are economic considerations burgeoning (oil, natural gas) vis a vis Russia and Western Europe which are obscured somewhat by the concern over Iran, and Russia doesn't mind the fact at all (at all).
    Oh, and pray tell what that exactly is supposed to signify?

    Because of my distaste of the American Foreign Policy, my neutrality just "cancels" out and I automatically side with no war/no change in Iran?

    I think not.

    But as any sane person would point out, to hell with Nuclear war, I'm too young to die

    Jeff Loomis: He's so good, he doesn't need to be dead to have a tribute.

  8. The Drawing Room   -   #8
    DanB's Avatar Smoke weed everyday
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    London, so fuck y'all
    Age
    38
    Posts
    22,104
    This story spent the day yesterday getting rip to shreds on the news and in the papers as being a fabrication on this Seymour Hersh's behalf.

  9. The Drawing Room   -   #9
    ahctlucabbuS's Avatar <
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Oslo
    Posts
    2,008
    Quote Originally Posted by DanB
    This story spent the day yesterday getting rip to shreds on the news and in the papers as being a fabrication on this Seymour Hersh's behalf.
    If you're referring to Bush's press conference, I certainly wouldn't take his word for it, and would agree with vidcc.

    Bush might be committed to diplomacy for the time beeing. However I seriously doubt that his military strategists is sitting around with no contingency plan of sorts, at the very least. Especially if it's true that reaching the underground facilities by conventional weapons proves hard, then a nuclear scenario seems entirely plausible.

    On what grounds are the article said to be a fabrication?



    Quote Originally Posted by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
    The rationale for regime change was articulated in early March by Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been a supporter of President Bush. “So long as Iran has an Islamic republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely,” Clawson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 2nd. “The key issue, therefore, is: How long will the present Iranian regime last?”

    When I spoke to Clawson, he emphasized that “this Administration is putting a lot of effort into diplomacy.” However, he added, Iran had no choice other than to accede to America’s demands or face a military attack. Clawson said that he fears that Ahmadinejad “sees the West as wimps and thinks we will eventually cave in. We have to be ready to deal with Iran if the crisis escalates.” Clawson said that he would prefer to rely on sabotage and other clandestine activities, such as “industrial accidents.” But, he said, it would be prudent to prepare for a wider war, “given the way the Iranians are acting. This is not like planning to invade Quebec.”

    Quote Originally Posted by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
    He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.”
    Quote Originally Posted by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
    One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”


    http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../060417fa_fact
    Last edited by ahctlucabbuS; 04-13-2006 at 12:15 AM. Reason: Tags

  10. The Drawing Room   -   #10
    j2k4's Avatar en(un)lightened
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oh, please...
    Posts
    15,254
    Quote Originally Posted by cpt_azad
    Quote Originally Posted by j2k4
    My first reaction is that Seymour Hersh is full of shit.

    Cap, your distaste for American foreign policy is a bit too obvious for any simultaneous personal claim of neutrality on the matter of Iran.

    As to the export of democracy, it is either part of foreign policy or it is not, and the only qualifying determinants are logistics and methodologies.

    In other words, what fit for Iraq may have no bearing on Iran; the coalition of the "willing" in the case of Iraq may share no relationship/resemblance whatsoever with any that may develop over Iran.

    Iran still has a healthy and youthful population evincing a "Western" empathy.

    As the Iraqi war began, Iran was considered to be on the verge of a revolution of sorts, if you'll remember...

    Actually, I see Iran as quite fragmented, internally.

    The larger issue for me is Iran's relationship with a seemingly re-born Russia; there are economic considerations burgeoning (oil, natural gas) vis a vis Russia and Western Europe which are obscured somewhat by the concern over Iran, and Russia doesn't mind the fact at all (at all).
    Oh, and pray tell what that exactly is supposed to signify?

    Because of my distaste of the American Foreign Policy, my neutrality just "cancels" out and I automatically side with no war/no change in Iran?

    I think not.

    But as any sane person would point out, to hell with Nuclear war, I'm too young to die
    We're generally aware of your stance, I think, but you might have made your post and left out the superfluous critical recounting of Bush's foreign policy.

    It had the effect of compromising the question, as well as your sincerity in asking it.

    I guess you could say you short-circuited your intent by making it less apparent.
    “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

Page 1 of 6 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •