US plannning possible attack on Iran. Here we go folks!

jenn · 01-17-2005, 11:38 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/...ran/index.html

The Omega Concern · 01-17-2005, 02:02 PM

i heard this was in the works before the election and would come about if Bush won re-election.

my sources tell me Isreal was to be given a green light to help.

i'll read that link later and check up on your sources. heh.

Knight0440 · 01-17-2005, 02:39 PM

I posted the article CNN is talking about by Hersh below.

phaedrus · 01-17-2005, 03:22 PM

i can't think of a better way to take the spotlight off the mess that is Iraq

sleeper · 03:39 PM

i was joking when i said a new war would really help things in iraq by shifting attention but i might as well not have been. assuming its true, i cant wait to see the course the argument on this will take. thats going to be the both the most interesting and aggravating element of all. the world has learned some big political lessons from the iraq war, i cant imagine this taking the same course; in any sense.

sleeper · 01-17-2005, 03:38 PM

heres the department of defense press release on the matter:

http://www.dod.mil/releases/2005/nr20050117-1987.html

Knight0440 · 03:52 PM

Wow... that was laughable.... They forgot to mention that Hersh's article on the Abu-Ghraib torture blew that story wide open and as far as I can tell was right on.

It's amazing really. They don't come out and say that the government is absolutely not involved in the actions he describes, but rather takes a few points and tries to show that this event didn't happen, or that discussion didn't happen, but never go so far in saying that they are not involved in activities of this nature. Then they try to smear his personhood by indirectly calling him a conspirator and a bigot. My god. What a bunch of fools.

jczeroman · 01-17-2005, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sleeper

http://www.dod.mil/releases/2005/nr20050117-1987.html

Quote:

By his own admission, Mr. Hersh evidently is working on an “alternative history” novel. He is well along in that work, given the high quality of “alternative present” that he has developed in several recent articles.

OMG, that is so childish and illogical. I can't believe that anyoen would take the department of defense that seriously after a non sequitor like that. Goodness.

dreamsofdali · 01-17-2005, 07:26 PM

Quote:

The Iranian regime’s apparent nuclear ambitions and its demonstrated support for terrorist organizations is a global challenge that deserves much more serious treatment than Seymour Hersh provides in the New Yorker article titled “The Coming Wars.”

How much "more serious treatment" can you get than bombing a nuclear site? Nice to see their not denying it.

Corganist · 01-17-2005, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Knight0440
Wow... that was laughable.... They forgot to mention that Hersh's article on the Abu-Ghraib torture blew that story wide open and as far as I can tell was right on.

So that gives him license to say whatever he wants now? The DOD has no obligation to take into account whether he's been right before. If he's wrong now, he's wrong.

Quote:

It's amazing really. They don't come out and say that the government is absolutely not involved in the actions he describes, but rather takes a few points and tries to show that this event didn't happen, or that discussion didn't happen, but never go so far in saying that they are not involved in activities of this nature.

Quote:

Finally, the views and policies Mr. Hersh ascribes to Secretary Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, Under Secretary Feith, and other Department of Defense officials do not reflect their public or private comments or administration policy.

There's the denial. Now its their word against Hersh's unnamed "former Intelligence official."

Quote:

Originally posted by jczeroman
OMG, that is so childish and illogical. I can't believe that anyoen would take the department of defense that seriously after a non sequitor like that. Goodness.

It may have been a cheap shot, but it wasn't illogical or non sequitur. All they're saying is that it figures that the guy would be writing fictional material, considering the fact that he's gotten people to buy into claims they allege are totally made up. I don't see any reason to take them less seriously as a result of that statement. At worst, you can say the author of the press release is not a very nice guy....thats about it.

DeviousJ · 01-17-2005, 08:21 PM

Haven't they been planning for this since (at least) the whole Axis Of Evil thing was mentioned? I thought drawing up preliminary attack plans was normal these days, and the fact they've been doing recon isn't a huge surprise either. I guess he's hinting that the plans are well in advance of any kind of contingency work, but it's hard to know just how much of this is news.

The Omega Concern · 01-17-2005, 08:23 PM

i believe this is what they call a trial balloon.

pioneer or complete nut job, Dubya has a vision and its a safe bet he'll follow through on the Iran intervention if circumstances that's he's manipulating allow it.

very interesting. I believe the adminstration is better to battle the terrorist half-way around the globe then deal with constant instances here...so keep 'em busy over there and not here.

time will tell.

phaedrus · 01-17-2005, 11:05 PM

i guess it would make sense in Dubya's scheming so long as Iraq stabilizes more.

what's that saying..."While in Rome..."

sleeper · 01-18-2005, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeviousJ
Haven't they been planning for this since (at least) the whole Axis Of Evil thing was mentioned? I thought drawing up preliminary attack plans was normal these days, and the fact they've been doing recon isn't a huge surprise either. I guess he's hinting that the plans are well in advance of any kind of contingency work, but it's hard to know just how much of this is news.

yeah before the iraq war everyone was talking about a veritable checklist of problem countries the US was going to deal with but i think most people, myself *******d, ruled out the possibility of another war after seeing what kind of mess iraq turned into. like i said, assuming they actually do have concrete plans to attack, its going to be interesting seeing how they sell this war. if they convinced so many with such vacuous logic for the iraq war, anything is possible

dreamsofdali · 01-18-2005, 04:09 PM

Quote:

There's the denial. Now its their word against Hersh's unnamed "former Intelligence official."

Quote:

Gregory: About Iran, will you rule out the potential for military action against Iran if it continues to stonewall the international community about the existence of its nuclear weapons program?

Bush: I hope we can solve it diplomatically, but I will never take any option off the table.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6836247/

sppunk · 01-18-2005, 04:28 PM

I posted this months ago. In Iraq, we have secured all the military bases that are remotely close to Iran.

Israel will, after the elections, decide to help us out a bit more if their drama with Palestine hits a lull. America will of course give them access to the bases, a perfect spot for Israel to launch its offensive against strategic Iranian targets.

When Israel does this and gets caught, it will be shown that American gave them the bases and manpower to launch such an offensive, and then Iran will invade Iraq simply to kill Americans and take over a civil war-torn Iraqi nation, thus giving Iran the land mass and power (and most of all, proximity to Israel) that they've wanted since the mid-80s.

sleeper · 01-18-2005, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sppunk
I posted this months ago. In Iraq, we have secured all the military bases that are remotely close to Iran.

Israel will, after the elections, decide to help us out a bit more if their drama with Palestine hits a lull. America will of course give them access to the bases, a perfect spot for Israel to launch its offensive against strategic Iranian targets.

When Israel does this and gets caught, it will be shown that American gave them the bases and manpower to launch such an offensive, and then Iran will invade Iraq simply to kill Americans and take over a civil war-torn Iraqi nation, thus giving Iran the land mass and power (and most of all, proximity to Israel) that they've wanted since the mid-80s.

thats an interesting idea, i dont know why i didnt think of that. the idea being iran attacking iraq. thatd be strategically perfect for the states. wow, they could milk that so hard

Nimrod's Son · 01-18-2005, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sppunk
I posted this months ago. In Iraq, we have secured all the military bases that are remotely close to Iran.

Israel will, after the elections, decide to help us out a bit more if their drama with Palestine hits a lull. America will of course give them access to the bases, a perfect spot for Israel to launch its offensive against strategic Iranian targets.

When Israel does this and gets caught, it will be shown that American gave them the bases and manpower to launch such an offensive, and then Iran will invade Iraq simply to kill Americans and take over a civil war-torn Iraqi nation, thus giving Iran the land mass and power (and most of all, proximity to Israel) that they've wanted since the mid-80s.

This is a crazy theory

The US isn't going to give Israel bases to launch attacks on Iran

What have you been smoking?

Mariner · 01-18-2005, 11:08 PM

Yeah, the Bush administration might be a little insane, but I don't think they're all the way out to WWIII-insane yet.

gurr8 · 01-19-2005, 12:28 AM

They may deploy airstrikes against Iran, but they will not invade. The U.S. government is supposed to have the resources to fight 2 and a half wars, but (for all intents and purposes) it's entire military is bogged down in Iraq. Airstrikes are a definate possibility, invasion is unlikely.

The quote Colin pulled up was awesome, it sounds like Tucker Carlson found a new job at the DOD.

Fonzie · 01-19-2005, 12:46 AM

So, in a nutshell, this looks to fuck over any trip that I may have had planned to travel to Israel later this year?

Knight0440 · 01-19-2005, 01:28 AM

no. go. I'm going to palestine/israel in the fall myself.

sppunk · 01-19-2005, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
This is a crazy theory

The US isn't going to give Israel bases to launch attacks on Iran

What have you been smoking?

No, but they certainly would allow Israel to use the bases for operational duties, which could lead to strikes on Iran.

Knight0440 · 01-29-2005, 04:48 PM

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story...401310,00.html

In conjunction with the Hersh article here is one from the Guardian UK:

US jets 'flying over Iran to spot potential targets'

Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday January 29, 2005
The Guardian

The US is increasing the pressure on Iran by sending military planes into its airspace to test the country's defences and spot potential targets, according to an intelligence source in Washington.

The overflights have been reported in the Iranian press and the head of Iran's air force, Brigadier General Karim Qavami, declared recently that he had ordered his anti-aircraft batteries to shoot down any intruders, but there have been no reports of any Iranian missiles being launched.

"The idea is to get the Iranians to turn on their radar, to get an assessment of their air defences," an intelligence source in Washington said. He said the flights were part of the Pentagon's contingency planning for a possible attack on sites linked to Iran's suspected nuclear weapons programme.

"It make sense to get a look at their air defences, and it makes the mullahs nervous during the EU negotiations [over the suspension of Iranian uranium enrichment]," said John Pike, the head of GlobalSecurity.org, an independent military research group.

The flights come after reports of American special forces incursions into Iran. However, former US intelligence officials have said they believe the incursions are being carried out by Iranian rebels drawn from the anti-Tehran rebel group, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, under US supervision.

The US military denied the reports. "We're not flying over frigging Iran," an official said, suggesting Tehran was making up the incidents to attract international sympathy.

01-17-2005, 11:38 AM	#1
jenn Minion of Satan Location: new york Posts: 6,325	US plannning possible attack on Iran. Here we go folks! http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/...ran/index.html

01-17-2005, 03:37 PM	#5
sleeper Minion of Satan Posts: 8,801	i was joking when i said a new war would really help things in iraq by shifting attention but i might as well not have been. assuming its true, i cant wait to see the course the argument on this will take. thats going to be the both the most interesting and aggravating element of all. the world has learned some big political lessons from the iraq war, i cant imagine this taking the same course; in any sense. Last edited by sleeper : 01-17-2005 at 03:39 PM.

01-17-2005, 03:45 PM	#7
Knight0440 Demi-God Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 447	Wow... that was laughable.... They forgot to mention that Hersh's article on the Abu-Ghraib torture blew that story wide open and as far as I can tell was right on. It's amazing really. They don't come out and say that the government is absolutely not involved in the actions he describes, but rather takes a few points and tries to show that this event didn't happen, or that discussion didn't happen, but never go so far in saying that they are not involved in activities of this nature. Then they try to smear his personhood by indirectly calling him a conspirator and a bigot. My god. What a bunch of fools. Last edited by Knight0440 : 01-17-2005 at 03:52 PM.

01-19-2005, 12:46 AM	#21
Fonzie Dute of Seven Y's Location: Mr. C's garage Posts: 7,573	So, in a nutshell, this looks to fuck over any trip that I may have had planned to travel to Israel later this year? __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "I'm a fucking puppet." - Warren "Potsie" Weber

01-17-2005, 02:02 PM	#2
The Omega Concern Banned Location: stay, far, away Posts: 8,997	i heard this was in the works before the election and would come about if Bush won re-election. my sources tell me Isreal was to be given a green light to help. i'll read that link later and check up on your sources. heh.

01-17-2005, 02:39 PM	#3
Knight0440 Demi-God Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 447	I posted the article CNN is talking about by Hersh below.

01-17-2005, 03:22 PM	#4
phaedrus Minion of Satan Location: up there somewhere Posts: 8,014	i can't think of a better way to take the spotlight off the mess that is Iraq

01-17-2005, 03:38 PM	#6
sleeper Minion of Satan Posts: 8,801	heres the department of defense press release on the matter: http://www.dod.mil/releases/2005/nr20050117-1987.html

01-17-2005, 08:21 PM	#11
DeviousJ CORNFROST Location: GUREITO DESU YO Posts: 24,891	Haven't they been planning for this since (at least) the whole Axis Of Evil thing was mentioned? I thought drawing up preliminary attack plans was normal these days, and the fact they've been doing recon isn't a huge surprise either. I guess he's hinting that the plans are well in advance of any kind of contingency work, but it's hard to know just how much of this is news.

01-17-2005, 08:23 PM	#12
The Omega Concern Banned Location: stay, far, away Posts: 8,997	i believe this is what they call a trial balloon. pioneer or complete nut job, Dubya has a vision and its a safe bet he'll follow through on the Iran intervention if circumstances that's he's manipulating allow it. very interesting. I believe the adminstration is better to battle the terrorist half-way around the globe then deal with constant instances here...so keep 'em busy over there and not here. time will tell.

01-17-2005, 11:05 PM	#13
phaedrus Minion of Satan Location: up there somewhere Posts: 8,014	i guess it would make sense in Dubya's scheming so long as Iraq stabilizes more. what's that saying..."While in Rome..."

01-18-2005, 04:28 PM	#16
sppunk Netphoria's George Will Location: Fenway Park Posts: 37,125	I posted this months ago. In Iraq, we have secured all the military bases that are remotely close to Iran. Israel will, after the elections, decide to help us out a bit more if their drama with Palestine hits a lull. America will of course give them access to the bases, a perfect spot for Israel to launch its offensive against strategic Iranian targets. When Israel does this and gets caught, it will be shown that American gave them the bases and manpower to launch such an offensive, and then Iran will invade Iraq simply to kill Americans and take over a civil war-torn Iraqi nation, thus giving Iran the land mass and power (and most of all, proximity to Israel) that they've wanted since the mid-80s.

01-18-2005, 11:08 PM	#19
Mariner OB-GYN Kenobi Location: the sea Posts: 17,020	Yeah, the Bush administration might be a little insane, but I don't think they're all the way out to WWIII-insane yet.

01-19-2005, 12:28 AM	#20
gurr8 Ownz Location: Kingston, ON. Posts: 940	They may deploy airstrikes against Iran, but they will not invade. The U.S. government is supposed to have the resources to fight 2 and a half wars, but (for all intents and purposes) it's entire military is bogged down in Iraq. Airstrikes are a definate possibility, invasion is unlikely. The quote Colin pulled up was awesome, it sounds like Tucker Carlson found a new job at the DOD.

01-19-2005, 01:28 AM	#22
Knight0440 Demi-God Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 447	no. go. I'm going to palestine/israel in the fall myself.

01-29-2005, 04:48 PM	#24
Knight0440 Demi-God Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 447	source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story...401310,00.html In conjunction with the Hersh article here is one from the Guardian UK: US jets 'flying over Iran to spot potential targets' Julian Borger in Washington Saturday January 29, 2005 The Guardian The US is increasing the pressure on Iran by sending military planes into its airspace to test the country's defences and spot potential targets, according to an intelligence source in Washington. The overflights have been reported in the Iranian press and the head of Iran's air force, Brigadier General Karim Qavami, declared recently that he had ordered his anti-aircraft batteries to shoot down any intruders, but there have been no reports of any Iranian missiles being launched. "The idea is to get the Iranians to turn on their radar, to get an assessment of their air defences," an intelligence source in Washington said. He said the flights were part of the Pentagon's contingency planning for a possible attack on sites linked to Iran's suspected nuclear weapons programme. "It make sense to get a look at their air defences, and it makes the mullahs nervous during the EU negotiations [over the suspension of Iranian uranium enrichment]," said John Pike, the head of GlobalSecurity.org, an independent military research group. The flights come after reports of American special forces incursions into Iran. However, former US intelligence officials have said they believe the incursions are being carried out by Iranian rebels drawn from the anti-Tehran rebel group, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, under US supervision. The US military denied the reports. "We're not flying over frigging Iran," an official said, suggesting Tehran was making up the incidents to attract international sympathy.