billcoe Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 U.S. signals Gulf allies that attack on Iran is possible this year "WASHINGTON — The United States has let its Gulf Arab allies know that an attack on Iran could take place in 2007. Diplomatic sources said U.S. Central Command and the U.S. intelligence community have conducted discussions with Gulf Cooperation Council states. "There has not been a U.S. commitment, but the discussions have been interpreted as an expression of intent," a ource said. So far, the U.S. Navy has sent two strike carrier groups to the Gulf. The source said the naval build-up would be completed by February as additional PAC-3 systems arrive in GCC states. " Pony up some money dudes, this isn't going be cheap. Or easy. LINK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 summumma-bitch. Bill, one must be a subscriber to read the rest of the text through your link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 I'm going to try to beat Dave Schuldt to the punch. Two words: IMPEACH BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted January 23, 2007 Author Share Posted January 23, 2007 Heading that direction sooner as opposed to later: LINK By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 24 minutes ago TEHRAN, Iran - Iran has barred 38 nuclear inspectors on a United Nations list from entering the country, the foreign minister said Monday in what appeared to be retaliation for the U.N. sanctions imposed last month. ADVERTISEMENT The rejected officials are on a list of potential inspectors drawn up by the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit and monitor Iran's nuclear facilities. "The act of rejecting some inspectors is legal and in accordance with the agency's regulations," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the official Islamic Republic News Agency. He said others on the U.N. nuclear watchdog's list remain eligible, but did not explain how Iran decided which inspectors to bar. The IAEA "submits a long list of inspectors to member countries and the countries have the right to oppose the visit by some inspectors," Mottaki said. Last month, the U.N. Security Council imposed limited trade sanctions on Iran over its refusal to cease uranium enrichment, a process that can produce the material for nuclear energy or bombs. Days later, the Iranian parliament passed a motion that obliged the government to revise its cooperation with the IAEA, but gave it a free hand to determine the steps to be taken. IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming and other agency officials did not immediately return after-hours calls from The Associated Press. The United States rebuked Iran for the move. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said it was "another example of the Iranians trying to dictate the terms to the international community — in this case, the IAEA." The United States and some of its allies accuse Tehran of trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies this, saying its program is only to produce nuclear energy. Iranian hard-liners had urged the government to respond to sanctions by abrogating the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty — the agreement under which the inspections are held. Analysts said the decision to bar a limited number of inspectors appeared to be a measured retaliation. "Iran is carefully calibrating its response, saving harsher measures for a further tit-for-tat response to the next U.N. Security Council resolution," said Mark Fitzpatrick, an Iran expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. When the Security Council imposed sanctions on Dec. 23, it gave Iran 60 days to cease enrichment or face the likelihood of additional penalties. Fitzpatrick said the decision to bar some inspectors was largely "a symbolic act of defiance." "The IAEA has about 200 inspectors it could send to Iran, so stopping 38 of them will not impede its ability to carry out inspections, at least in the short term," he said. The move "demonstrates Iran's unwillingness to accept the U.N. Security Council mandate that it suspend enrichment." The IAEA last visited Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this month when two inspectors came. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 hey no surprise there. they see this as the most important issue facing the US. cheney has said they'll do whatever it takes, and iran ain't backing down, far as i can tell. this'll go over well. i played a game of backgammon online with someone in iran last year sometime, and he was sincerely frightened of a US attack. at the time i thought it an impossibility; now it seems simply a matter of when. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jens Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 Sad. I have known a couple of guys from Iran. They were pretty cool and a lot like us Americans. If we do go in, we will steamroll them in about 7 days like we did in Iraq. It is to bad we just can't all get along. Isn't Cheney due for another heart attack? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 Played soccer with quite a few Iranians. They all preferred being called "Persians". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 i think the attack won't entail an "occupation", but rather a "strategic" "surgical" "precision" strike against specific facilities. if it comes, that is. which looks likely at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 Strange that I can't find any other sources for this specific story. But I did find a similar one here. Scary shit, I wonder why there isn't any mainstream media on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 "I've seen some of the planning ... You're not talking about a surgical strike," said Wayne White, who was a top Middle East analyst for the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research until March 2005. "You're talking about a war against Iran" that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank. "We're not talking about just surgical strikes against an array of targets inside Iran. We're talking about clearing a path to the targets" by taking out much of the Iranian Air Force, Kilo submarines, anti-ship missiles that could target commerce or U.S. warships in the Gulf, and maybe even Iran's ballistic missile capability, White said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 "I've seen some of the planning ... You're not talking about a surgical strike," said Wayne White, who was a top Middle East analyst for the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research until March 2005. "You're talking about a war against Iran" that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank. "We're not talking about just surgical strikes against an array of targets inside Iran. We're talking about clearing a path to the targets" by taking out much of the Iranian Air Force, Kilo submarines, anti-ship missiles that could target commerce or U.S. warships in the Gulf, and maybe even Iran's ballistic missile capability, White said. Then again, this guys been a civilian since 2005. And the Middle East Policy Council, have you ever heard of them before? I wonder how much of all this is just speculation and belly-rot. I think it's best to keep a slightly skeptical mind, especially without reputable sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TREETOAD Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 Is this post from 2001? Are you looking for WMD again? WTF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 Played soccer with quite a few Iranians. They all preferred being called "Persians". Farsi is a beautiful language. As for attacking Iran, you guys are all a bunch of conspiracy theory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 no comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 KK, I'm not sure you were on this board then but when "some guys" speculated here that Bush had already made up his mind to go to war in Iraq, and was lying in the SOU speech and had Powell lie to the UN, "some other guys" on this site said such "some guys" were a bunch of conspiracy theory wacko's. At this point, would one really be at all surprised if, when Bush starts cranking up the rhetoric and amassing aircraft carriers and leaking rumors of pending attack he actually means it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 Scary shit, I wonder why there isn't any mainstream media on this? This was the headline on MSNBC.com this morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 I'm going to try to beat Dave Schuldt to the punch. Two words: IMPEACH BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote from another thread: "Impeach bush = President Chaney" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 Scary shit, I wonder why there isn't any mainstream media on this? Because mainstream media is controlled by the bushes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 "Impeach bush = President Chaney" President Chaney? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fear_and_greed Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 “The Middle East isn’t a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn’t a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That’s why we’ve seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region,” Burns said “Iran is going to have to understand that the United States will protect its interests if Iran seeks to confront us,” Burns continued. That's fucking classic American chest beating! Just classic. And you wonder why the world is sick of the imperialistic delusions of grandeur coming from W. Where do they get this stuff from? Hollywood? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motomagik Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 Hmmm, this further confirms my need to seek political asylum in Squamish.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gambo Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor The Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq's capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. It is the world's first air strike against a nuclear plant. An undisclosed number of F-15 interceptors and F-16 fighter bombers destroyed the Osirak reactor 18 miles south of Baghdad, on the orders of Prime Minister Menachem Begin. The Israeli Government explained its reasons for the attack in a statement saying: "The atomic bombs which that reactor was capable of producing whether from enriched uranium or from plutonium, would be of the Hiroshima size. Thus a mortal danger to the people of Israel progressively arose." The Israelis said: " Under no circumstances will we allow an enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against our people." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 without delving into my personal feelings about the situation, i'd say it's all kinda predictable and understandable. US: bellicose. response: iran hardliners, bellicose. now US even more so. classic escalation. and after ahmadinejad's statements about israel's legitimacy as a nation, i really don't see how israel or the US wouldn't respond militarily if iran doesn't buckle to demands. maybe some face-saving maneuverings will take place, i don't know. certainly israel and the US have shown an eager willingness to use extreme force to address situations that otherwise could have been diplomatically addressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underworld Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 Scary shit, I wonder why there isn't any mainstream media on this? Because mainstream media is controlled by the bushes! :lmao: :lmao: ever look at the headlines? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 (edited) Seymour Hersh believes that the U.S. will use tactical nukes against Iran. At first I thought he was nuts. Now I believe him. I wonder how deep a shithole we'll dig for ourselves before a) Bush is out of office or b) someone puts a much needed bullet in the fucker? Edited January 23, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.