War with Iran

[Geowhizzer]

Speaking of nuclear strikes in any form scares the devil out of me.

It would open up that proverbial Pandora's box:  they used a nuke, why can't we?

[Drunkmasterflex]

Speaking of nuclear strikes in any form scares the devil out of me.

It would open up that proverbial Pandora's box:  they used a nuke, why can't we?

That is definately true.

[mussa]

i highly doubt they would need to use any type of nuke.  why is the US preparing for another war? isn't israel capable of handling them?  it all sounds like a game of poker w/ some bluffing going on. isn't that what nukes are for anyway? those crazy basterds from the middle east seem crazy enough to use one if they ever develop them, which is cause for enough concern.  why can't we all get along?

[Drunkmasterflex]

i highly doubt they would need to use any type of nuke.  why is the US preparing for another war? isn't israel capable of handling them?  it all sounds like a game of poker w/ some bluffing going on. isn't that what nukes are for anyway? those crazy basterds from the middle east seem crazy enough to use one if they ever develop them, which is cause for enough concern.  why can't we all get along?

It would be difficult for the US to wage against Iran given the current situation, but Israel probably wouldn't be able to handle it by themselves.  Not to mention that may bring other countries into the fold.

[stalker]

Speaking of nuclear strikes in any form scares the devil out of me.

It would open up that proverbial Pandora's box:  they used a nuke, why can't we?

The idea is to prevent them from having that option.

Nuke 'em up! Why the hell not.

[MURP]

Iran issues stark military warning to United States

[MDS]

oooo im shteinting my pants because iran warned us. attack the dot heads, damnit.

[PhillyPhanInDC]

Iran Leader: Israel Will Be Annihilated
Apr 14 12:34 PM US/Eastern

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran


The president of Iran again lashed out at Israel on Friday and said it was "heading toward annihilation," just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first time.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust really happened.

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

Ahmadinejad provoked a world outcry in October when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map."

On Friday, he repeated his previous line on the Holocaust, saying: "If such a disaster is true, why should the people of this region pay the price? Why does the Palestinian nation have to be suppressed and have its land occupied?"

The land of Palestine, he said, referring to the British mandated territory that includes all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, "will be freed soon."

He did not say how this would be achieved, but insisted to the audience of at least 900 people: "Believe that Palestine will be freed soon."

"The existence of this (Israeli) regime is a permanent threat" to the Middle East, he added. "Its existence has harmed the dignity of Islamic nations."

The three-day conference on Palestine is being attended by officials of Hamas, the ruling party in the Palestinian territories.

Iran has previously said it will give money to the Palestinian Authority to make up for the withdrawal of donations by Western nations who object to Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel and renounce violence. But no figure has been published.

On Tuesday, Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had successfully enriched uranium using a battery of 164 centrifuges, a significant step toward the large-scale production of enriched uranium required for either fueling nuclear reactors or making nuclear weapons.

The United States, France and Israel accuse Iran of using a civilian nuclear program to secretly build a weapon. Iran denies this, saying its program is confined to generating electricity.

The U.N. Security Council has given Iran until April 28 to cease enrichment. But Iran has rejected the demand.

The chief of Israeli military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, was quoted Wednesday as saying Iran could develop a nuclear bomb "within three years, by the end of the decade."

[Geowhizzer]

Just send old Dick Cheney pheasant huntin' with Mr. Ahmadinejad.

[PhillyPhanInDC]

Blair refuses to back Iran strike
BRIAN BRADY
WESTMINSTER EDITOR
Tony Blair has told George Bush that Britain cannot offer military support to any strike on Iran, regardless of whether the move wins the backing of the international community, government sources claimed yesterday.

Amid increasing tension over Tehran's attempts to develop a military nuclear capacity, the Prime Minister has laid bare the limits of his support for President Bush, who is believed to be considering an assault on Iran, Foreign Office sources revealed.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is calling on the United Nations to consider new sanctions against Tehran when the Security Council meets next week to discuss the developing crisis. Blair is expected to support the call for a "Chapter 7" resolution, which could effectively isolate Iran from the international community.

But, in the midst of international opposition to a pre-emptive strike on Tehran, and Britain's military commitments around the world, the government maintains it cannot contribute to a military assault. "We will support the diplomatic moves, at best," a Foreign Office source told Scotland on Sunday. "But we cannot commit our own resources to a military strike."

Meanwhile, a new report on the Iran crisis has warned that neo-conservatives in the Bush administration are on "collision course" with Tehran.

The Foreign Policy Centre (FPC), often referred to as Blair's "favourite think-tank", will appeal for a greater effort to find a diplomatic solution in a report to be published later this week. FPC director Stephen Twigg, formerly a Labour minister, explained: "It is essential UK policy on Iran is well informed... We want to engage with the various reformist elements in Iran, both inside and outside the structures of power.

"There is potential for political dialogue, economic ties and cultural contacts to act as catalysts for the strengthening of civil society in Iran."

While the sense of crisis over Iran has been escalated by the fiery rhetoric between Tehran and the West - particularly Washington - many within the British government are now convinced that the impasse can be resolved by repeating the same sort of painstaking diplomatic activity that returned Libya to the international fold.

The approach contrasts sharply with the strategy employed during the run-up to the war in Iraq, when ministers repeatedly issued grim warnings to Saddam Hussein over the consequences of not falling in line with their demands.

"The only long-term solution to Iran's problems is democracy," said Alex Bigham, co-author of the FPC report. "But it cannot be dictated, Iraq-style, or it will backfire. Iran may seem superficially like Iraq but we need to treat Iran more like Libya. Diplomatic engagement must be allowed to run its course. There need to be bigger carrots as well as bigger sticks."

However, the conciliatory language was not reflected in the approach from Washington, where senior figures in the Bush administration remain keen to stress the danger of Tehran's intentions.

In a declaration aimed at America's allies as much as Iran, Rice claimed the Security Council's handling of the Iranian nuclear issue would be a test of the international community's credibility. "If the UN Security Council says: 'You must do these things and we'll assess in 30 days,' and Iran has not only not done those things, but has taken steps that are exactly the opposite of those that are demanded, then the Security Council is going to have to act."

Rice dismissed Iran's declaration that it is only interested in enriching uranium for use in civil nuclear power facilities, saying the international community must remain focused on the potential military applications of this technology.

"The world community does not want them to have that nuclear know-how and that's why nobody wants them to be able to enrich and reprocess on their territory, getting to the place that they can produce what we call a full-scale nuclear plant to be able to do this," she said.

Rice reiterated that President Bush has not taken any option off the table, including a military response, if Iran fails to comply with the demands of the international community.

[ice grillin you]

i just finished sy hershs terrifying piece in the new yorker on what is essentially the prospect of nuclear war with iran.....i reccomend it to everyone....it brings up some really interesting stuff:

-its unbelievable that this administration would jump on this path to war with iran after the experience with iraq....knowing the incredible opposition a preemptive strike would face both amongst the us population and the world at large.....and all of this before even attempting to sit down with iran and talk it out....either unilaterally or otherwise.....the simple gall exhibited by the Bush folks never stops amazing me......

-irans nuclear capabilities threaten us in one way: the potential trickling down of deliverable weapons from iran to various terrorist organizations....the major immediate threat is really toward israel.....in making his case for war....bush is going to try to convince us otherwise.....now...i think we have a responsibility to come to the aid of our allies but i am thoroughly uneasy with the influence that israel wields over us.....why are we interested in jumping into a holy war....retaliation is one thing but to preemptively attack a country....in order to protect israel.....seems like a death wish....

-hersh quotes an official as saying that a preemptive strike could fare well against iran because they have "no friends"......this is laughable.....if bush wants to see how many friends iran has....he should go ahead and bomb them....i have a feeling about a billion of their friends will show up shortly thereafter....they will be the ones praying 5 times a day.......again a holy war that we need not be involved in....

-the covert operations which have already begun might not be so bad.....military planning....troops on the ground in iran scouting sites.....these probably arent bad things for ahmadinejad to know about...it is possible that w is simply doing some flexing to show we mean business....thereby facilitating more productive diplomatic talks.....i suppose thats possible.....however i dont think so.....i dont think the administration possesses either the even handedness...the foresight or the restraint to be that crafty...

-before we went into iraq.....the whole world was on the same page regarding saddam.....the world had an interest in keeping him in check and it was doing a pretty good job of it.....this is where iran is right now.....the other arab states dont want iran getting punchy with the bomb.....the entire world wants to keep them in check.....even russia.....if we go in first it will completely ruin that consensus....as it did when we invaded iraq......it will do far more harm than good.....

-i love this theory....quoted by hersh....that a bombing campaign will really embarrass the irani leadership and make them vulnerable to a civilian uprising.....what a farging joke......i cant think of anything that would unite the country more.....

-how come im a degenerate gambler alcoholic philly fan and i can figure this stuff out but the neocons cant...

[Seabiscuit36]

Its funny that they once again think by removing dictators/the current regime that the populous will rise up and form new Govt's, leadership under a democratic system.  That really worked well in Iraq.

[phillymic2000]

.the simple gall exhibited by the Bush folks never stops amazing me

Should we have no plans for an attack against an enemy who has threatened us? I'm actually glad they have a plan in place, just like they should have one for China, N. Korea, Russia etc...

again a holy war that we need not be involved in....

We were involved in the "holy war" before Iraq, before Afganistan, they hate us, everything we stand for. This is not just a war against the U.S.A. this is a war against every person that believes differently then them.

before we went into iraq.....the whole world was on the same page regarding saddam.....the world had an interest in keeping him in check and it was doing a pretty good job of it.....this is where iran is right now.....the other arab states dont want iran getting punchy with the bomb.....the entire world wants to keep them in check.....even russia.....if we go in first it will completely ruin that consensus....as it did when we invaded iraq

Yeah great job the world was doing with Saddam, how many UN mandates did he violate? We handled the war wrong with him, but don't try and say the whole world was against us going in there. It was few, China, russia and a couple others. Everyone else was agreeing with what we did, bad intel or not most agreed with the overall mission.

retaliation is one thing but to preemptively attack a country....in order to protect israel.....seems like a death wish

retaliation to what a nuke strike? you want us to wait around for a nuke to hit Isreal, Europe, or us? then you will bitch that Bush did nothing to stop it.

Look I don't know what the exact way to handle this is, but to sit back and let the diplomatic way take hold is a joke, it didn't work with the last pres and N. Korea, and that guy is crazy. This wack job in Iran has already threatned to wipe out Isreal, you think he will stop there? Now he is claiming he has 40,000 trained suicide bombers to attack the west http://www.twincities.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/14358473.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_world something needs to be done, who will do it is the question, either way we will look like the bad guys, if we do strike first we are being the big bad meanie americans. If we wait and there is a nuke attack somewhere we look like the big dumb soft americans. It's a lose lose situation.

[phillymic2000]

the world had an interest in keeping him in check and it was doing a pretty good job of it.....this is where iran is right now

The world is doing a good job with Iran? are you serious? they almost have a nuke and are threatening everybody and their mom's. They already have working nuke stations in place. You also think that they were doing a good job with Iraq? how many people were involved in the oil for food scandal, but thats pushed under the rug cause it's the UN, not the USA doing wrong.

[phillymic2000]

In a declaration aimed at America's allies as much as Iran, Rice claimed the Security Council's handling of the Iranian nuclear issue would be a test of the international community's credibility. "If the UN Security Council says: 'You must do these things and we'll assess in 30 days,' and Iran has not only not done those things, but has taken steps that are exactly the opposite of those that are demanded, then the Security Council is going to have to act."

holy crap this admin is crazy, they actually think the UN is going to do something