Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
iaapac

Bush says force last resort in Iran

294 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Richdog
Again somebody accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons, a a form of WMD, but are there any solid evidence of that, no, but hey, maybe we will see Condi  offer a smoking gun to the UN like Powell did with Iraq, of course that gun had more smoke than anything else.

So the UK and USA are worrying over nothing? They have no reason whatsoever to believe that iran is a thread to anyone despite having one of the largest intelligence networks in the world? They obviously believe there to be a threat.

If all it takes to be considered to be developing nuclear weapons is to have a nuclear programme then all countries that have a nuclear reactor of any kind is bound to be developing nuclear weapons, now aren't they. If Iran was out to harm the west why do they sell so much oil to us, not a very good thing to do to your enemy now is it.

Why do they sell oil to the west.... *drumroll* yes you guessed it folks... to make money! Iran is also politically hostile to the West... there is a very good possibility that they WOULD be developing nuclear armaments to remain competetive with the West. That should be a very obvious point that you should have considered. Their nuclear plants are also of a sophistication that is concurrent with something mroe advanced than simple power generation, not to mention discrepancies with what iran has told the UN about it's plans. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FOX306A.html

Yes, there are loads of british forces in the area, so what, is Iran an enemy of the new regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, not as far as I know, they were on the other hand enemies of the old regimes and worked against them in various ways.

Read this for some info on some fairly recent conflicts between Iran/Britain http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/july042004/fp2.asp Iran IS a threat, it houses countless thousands who would seek to harm the UK/USA.

There is a big difference between the UK being actively involved in any attack/war on Iran and standing by and letting the US do their thing.

They would clearly not stand by were the USA to become openly hostile against Iran.

Okey, have you got any arguments of your own, or are you going to continue letting other talk for you.

By the way... is the Guardian respectable enough for you? That kind of suggests there may be British support too... http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1549335,00.html

Ta-da... There's my argument! Your turn! rofl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
morpheas

-Post removed-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richdog
are we talking about the intelligence network that mistook a brazilian electrican for a terrorist then lied to the public about almost every detail of the incidence

Nope that would be the police who made grossly incompetent blunders on the day of that event, it has nothing to do with the intelligence surveillence in iran..

...and the same intelligence network which claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which could be detonated in 45 minutes? or the one which ignored the warnings of an attack by air in the US?  blink.gif

If you can find me a single intelligence network that operated flawlessly and without any mistakes in the history of the world I shall PayPal you £1000. They are subject to the same corruption and mistakes as any outfit... but a well funded and expert intelligence service can find out almost anything they want to. They have serious talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr_Strangelove
The sad thing is that I don't know that Hillary would really be up to handling any situation that comes up with Iran. I'm not particularly fond of Bill and Hillary either but I will grant that she might be the most politically viable candidate the Democrats could put forward. I just don't know that I want Hillary to be guiding our nuclear weapons policy.

Then again she might not do any worse than some of our previous presidents and we survived them.

801009[/snapback]

She might not have the "grab yer guns and yer balls" attitude of certain presidents, but that isn't necessarily something bad, it is not wise to run into things without being properly prepared. And we still don't know if there will be any "situation" with Iran as we don't know if they are trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Yup, the world have survived presidents like Carter and Ford, I don't think another Clinton will be any worse than what we have experienced so far.

801043[/snapback]

Actually I was thinking in terms of surviving Clinton...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zephyr
Iran IS a threat, it houses countless thousands who would seek to harm the UK/USA.

The US and the UK are threats, they house countless number of warmongering lunatics who seek to harm Iran! grin2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zephyr
No one is going to Declare War on Iran....however strategic military bombing of suspected nuclear sites is definitely on the drawing board...
That's a pretty wise thing to do, it would even be wiser if they kept those cynical plans stuck to the drawing boards for ever. yes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scoobysnack
Bush: Force last resort on Iran

Didn't Bush say force was the last resort for Iraq also. Then it came out with the downing street memo that we while Bush and blair were telling the people they were using dipomacy to solve the conflict they were actually preparing for war. Come on people, you think you know the truth as to why we are fighting wars in the middle east. Anyone in America will say yes, but they have no clue.

The plan is to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran, after the next 9/11 type attack on America.

According to Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, and member of cannistaro associates (an international security consultancy), in the August 2005 issue of The American Conservitive, page 27:

"In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran.  The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."
:shock:

I heard about this on a different forum, but didn't believe it until I went out and bought my own copy, today at the book store. It's not available online so I copied it out of the magazine word for word. For more information on how to get the magazine the article is in :

http://www.amconmag.com/

So, we now know that Bush plans on attacking Iran (probably Syria also) next. All we need now is another attack on the public, to be blamed on Arab terrorists to give Bush the justification to nuke Iran. I predict another false flag government sponsored terrorism event just like 9/11. Maybe this time they will use nukes on us, to give them the justification to use nukes on the Iranians.

"In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people (neo-conservatives) in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran." - Philip Giraldi

According to neo-con William Kristol:

"At one level it is the war that George Bush is talking about: a war against a brutal regime that has in its possession weapons of mass destruction. But at a deeper level it is a greater war, for the shaping of a new Middle East.  It is a war that is intended to change the political culture of the entire region. The way to fight the chaos is to create a new world order that will be based on freedom and human rights - and to be ready to use force in order to consolidate this new world. So that, really, is what the war is about. It (the war in Iraq/ war on terrorism) is being fought to consolidate a new world order, to create a new Middle East."

Here's what Thomas Friedman has to say.

"It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It's the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened."

source http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/Sh...l?itemNo=280279

My point in presenting this article is to show the plan for our next war. Also, I wanted to show that no matter who attacks us next, it will be used to justify attacking Iran, whether they were responsible or not. The point is that Bush's plan is to

BUSH SAID TO INTEND CHANGING REGIMES IN IRAN AND SYRIA - Senior Pentagon sources report that the President has informed SecDef Rumsfeld that his principal foreign policy objective during his second term will be to change the governments of both Syria and Iran, according to Philip Giraldi in his column Deep Cover, published in the fortnightly The American Conservative.

According to Giraldi, a former CIA officer and partner in Cannistraro Associates, an international security consultancy, Bush holds that the Unite States cannot allow Iran to acquire the capacity to make nuclear weapons and that contingency plans must be developed based on the expectation that non-military efforts will not succeed. The NSC staff is developing position papers that will set out the new policy, particularly concerning Iran.

Analyses generated by DoD, largely blocked by former Secretary of State Powell, will provide the backbone for the new policy initiative, which will be openly identified regime change. NIE studies on Iran’s WMD are also being prepared.

Bush hinted at his policy in his State of the Union address when he promised solidarity with those Iranians who opposed the theocratic dictatorship in Iran.

So far, however, the administration has avoided using the term "regime change" and Bush has repeatedly said diplomacy is his preferred method of coping with the mullahs' nuclear weapons ambitions. He has endorsed efforts by the European Union to negotiate with Tehran, but refused to have the United States join in the European effort. The White House does not believe British, French and German negotiators, known as the EU 3, will lead to a verifiable Iranian agreement on ceasing all efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

As in Iraq, says Giraldi, Bush believes that only a military option will bring about the desired result. (Order out of chaos)  Intel and reconnaissance activity directed at Iran is underway, including testing Iranian air defenses. As yet uncorroborated intel reports say Iran has acquired uranium hexafluoride from North Korea. This has added urgency to the situation as that material is used in a step in developing nuclear arms with which Iran has been having serious difficulties. (James A., DKR)

source: http://www.afio.com/sections/wins/2005-08.html

The war on terrorism is bogus. Just like when we started the war on drugs, we only saw more drugs. With the war on terrorism, we will only see more terrorism. This is somthing some Americans can't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
babayagafamiliar
Come on Iran, build a bomb...

you really did not make my day let me get that straight first off, you say that like you want WW3 to happen, well having family in Iran especially, i really dont want a war and millions of innocents to be killed, this is where we fundamentally differ hmm.gif

790333[/snapback]

You're talking with a proud member of the United States military-industrial establishment. I've been doing my part for years to be sure that if somebody uses a nuclear weapon against our country we annilate them. Just keep that in mind if Iran decides to build a bomb.

790368[/snapback]

Bravo! bounce.gif

792128[/snapback]

Bravo my ass- I hope Iran DOES build a bomb so you idiots can bomb each other to death and let the rest of the world take over what's left. That's MY agenda and I hope it happens. You think China was against the War in Iraq? It was salivating for it to happen, so the decline of America as a global power could start. My nation is doing it's part to aid the Chinese ascent by giving them FREE blueprints to the world's biggest Hydrolelectric plant (which they intend to make a copy of). All they need to do is clean up their banking system off a few bad loans,continue the military buildup, and trade war, and they will defeat America in any war by 2012. No more Cowboy lunatic bullsh*t- peace at last.

Edited by babayagafamiliar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
morpheas

-Post removed-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
babayagafamiliar

OK, I -DO- care about all the people about to be bombed in the next mad war, but I feel no pity for the rednecks and lunatics who decide to wage genocide from their little ivory towers or trailers. I only see this in America, everywhere I go people discuss how peace can be settled, not how a war can be mounted (and I lived in the middle east by the way). It's the wretched mentality which get's to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zephyr
So, we now know that Bush plans on attacking Iran (probably Syria also) next. All we need now is another attack on the public, to be blamed on Arab terrorists to give Bush the justification to nuke Iran
That`s a confused warmonger since Iran ia not an Arab country. Before using hyper-intelligent weapons, the lunatics in Washington need to follow some elementary geography courses. yes.gif Bush and his warmongers might like to do a lot of crazy things to Iran, the real question is whether or not they are capable of it. Judging by how they've screwed up in Iraq and their failure to control a few foreign terrorists there, their capability to aggress Iran remains just a dream that the warmongers will take to their graves with them; inshallah! wink2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr_Strangelove
Bravo my ass- I hope Iran DOES build a bomb so you idiots can bomb each other to death and let the rest of the world take over what's left.

what a warm person you are caring so much about the innocent civilian lives lost on both sides, almost as caring as babs was when the thought popped into her head of what it would be like to nuke mecca thumbsup.gif

they will defeat America in any war by 2012.

and europe aswell?

801482[/snapback]

I don't know that they will have to do anything to Europe. What I'm seeing where I'm at is the gradual economic decline of most of Europe. I don't see most of the Europeon nations having that much real influence in the world in the future. Now the Pacific rim nations and India; there is were the future might well be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mekorig

The world is going to interesting time, has the chinese curse some. But in the end i prefer more superpowers than a USA hegemony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pannkakskungen
So the UK and USA are worrying over nothing?  They have no reason whatsoever to believe that iran is a thread to anyone despite having one of the largest intelligence networks in the world?  They obviously believe there to be a threat.

Why do they sell oil to the west.... *drumroll* yes you guessed it folks... to make money!  Iran is also politically hostile to the West... there is a very good possibility that they WOULD be developing nuclear armaments to remain competetive with the West.  That should be a very obvious point that you should have considered.  Their nuclear plants are also of a sophistication that is concurrent with something mroe advanced than simple power generation, not to mention discrepancies with what iran has told the UN about it's plans. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FOX306A.html

Read this for some info on some fairly recent conflicts between Iran/Britain http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/july042004/fp2.asp  Iran IS a threat, it houses countless thousands who would seek to harm the UK/USA.

They would clearly not stand by were the USA to become openly hostile against Iran.

Okey, have you got any arguments of your own, or are you going to continue letting other talk for you.

By the way... is the Guardian respectable enough for you? That kind of suggests there may be British support too... http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1549335,00.html

Ta-da... There's my argument! Your turn! rofl.gif

801101[/snapback]

The US have a very selective kind of worrying, they are worrying about Iran when there is no evidence of them developing nuclear weapons, but does not worry about pakistan that already got nuclear weapons, is absolutely crowded with "fundamentalists and supports terrorism. So Im not sure what to say about their intelligence service, the same intelligence service that knew of several of the 9/11 terrorists but did nothing. The same intelligence service that said time after time that Iraq was developing WMDs, don't come and say that it is not the same thing, it is the same intelligence service.

No, are they making money, geez, I didn't know that, thanks for telling me, so they are supplying their mortal enemies with the resources they need to wage war against them, great strategy.

Uhhmm, how is developing nuclear weapons going to keep Iran competitive with the west?

Blame the russians then for supplying to advanced reactors, in what way are they too advanced then?

Yes, there are probably loads of people in Iran who would like to injure the US/UK, but guess what, so are there in the US/UK. Besides that, what makes you think that these hostile individuals are in any position to influence those who run Iran?

How do you know how the UK would react if the US were foolish enough to start a war with Iran, do you have some inside information, maybe a spy inside number 10?

Nope that would be the police who made grossly incompetent blunders on the day of that event, it has nothing to do with the intelligence surveillence in iran..

If you can find me a single intelligence network that operated flawlessly and without any mistakes in the history of the world I shall PayPal you £1000.  They are subject to the same corruption and mistakes as any outfit... but a well funded and expert intelligence service can find out almost anything they want to.  They have serious talent.

801268[/snapback]

Wait a minute, not long ago you were defending these intelligence networks, telling us that we have to trust them with what they say, and now you are saying that they are corrupted and should not be trusted at all times, so why should we trust them with what they are saying about Iran then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr_Strangelove

Hey! The wife and I are on vacation right now driving across the Eastern United States burning up gasoline at about 25 MPG in our SUV. We will be passing near the Fort Meade headquarters of the NSA; anybody want me to drop their regards?

Maybe thank them for their fine efforts in the War on Terrorism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blackleaf

Does anyone get the impression that Iran is laughing at the "diplomacy" of the EU3 (Britain, Germany, France)?

Iran must be quaking in its boots (not) at the thought that the EU3 are desperate to use "soft power" against Iran. Iran knows that there's no chance of France and Germany using military power against it because they aren't able to and even if they were able to they still wouldn't do it, and it's because of that reason that Iran has already said "**** you!" to the EU.

I think it's inevitable, though, that Britain will use military power against Iran, if it needs to, along with the US and maybe Australia.

Britain has the msot c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
babayagafamiliar

Guess what- Iran cannot develop a nuke within 10 YEARS. That's according to the CIA. Israeli intel which is known to bull**** all the time say's it's 3 YEARS. Either way Bush is lying AGAIN to invade Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr_Strangelove
Guess what- Iran cannot develop a nuke within 10 YEARS. That's according to the CIA. Israeli intel which is known to bull**** all the time say's it's 3 YEARS. Either way Bush is lying AGAIN to invade Iran.

802555[/snapback]

Some people seem to think they can have a nuclear bomb tomorrow. Some people think it will take ten years, provided they really are trying at all.

I think we should be fair to Iran and not prejudge them on slim evidence. Once they demonstrate they have a nuclear weapon we simply target them with a few dozen of our own nukes and politely advise them of the potential consequences of rash actions.

This is what I believe we would do with any other new member of the nuclear club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mekorig

The game of the daggers in the throats of each other is good to keep the peace betewn nuclear powers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richdog
Wait a minute, not long ago you were defending these intelligence networks, telling us that we have to trust them with what they say, and now you are saying that they are corrupted and should not be trusted at all times, so why should we trust them with what they are saying about Iran then?

802444[/snapback]

Nah please try and use a bit of common sense when quoting me. If you can find one place where I said "they cannot be trusted at all times" and I will perosnally PayPal you £100. Please stop making things up, it never helps an argument.

What I said was, no intelligence network in the world was flawless, perfect, and immune to corruption. How you took that as "They are fully corrupt and never to be trusted" I shall never know. They are human and run by humans, therefore subject to the same failings and the same greatness as everyone else. thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nirwana

The idea itself of starting a war with Iran is nuts, Is Bush or whoever is behind him trying to start a world war!? US continues to produce nuclear devices and in my opinion they should be stopped, are they procuding more and more for what? BTW I agree with most of scoobysnack ideas.

Edited by Nirwana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zephyr
Iran knows that there's no chance of France and Germany using military power against it because they aren't able to and even if they were able to they still wouldn't do it, and it's because of that reason that Iran has already said "**** you!" to the EU.

I think it's inevitable, though, that Britain will use military power against Iran, if it needs to, along with the US and maybe Australia.

It's really naive to think that the US and the UK are able to use miltary force against Iran when they're up to their necks in the mess they made in Iraq. yes.gif Of course these naive thoughts are only the result of exposure to daily propaganda by cynical warmongers who, as usual, have no idea of what they would be getting themselves and the rest of the world into. disgust.gif I suggest chaining the warmongering lunatics before they hurt themselves and others. yes.gif

BTW, I never heard the Iranians use that four letter word on the EU, so don't lie in the form of quoting what others didn't say in order to drive home your pointless arguments. geek.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
It's really naive to think that the US and the UK are able to use miltary force against Iran when they're up to their necks in the mess they made in Iraq.

You seem to think that Iran is invincible and holds all the Aces in the deck of cards.

Iran is a mere Bishop in the game of World Chess.

What you need to understand is that we are not against you. We are for you. Your government is out of control...that is the problem...just like in Iraq, the government is the enemy...not the people. How many different forms of news do you get in Iran? How many forms of news do you get in Iran? I asked twice on purpose! You continue talking about how we are all subjects of our governments propaganda...how many different forms of news do you have in Iran? What is your main source of news? Al Jezere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zephyr
You seem to think that Iran is invincible and holds all the Aces in the deck of cards.

Iran is a mere Bishop in the game of World Chess

Iran might hold only a few aces, but they sure as hell are enough to keep the warmongers at bay! grin2.gif Iran might be a mere bishop in the game of world chess, but that could be enough for a check mate when the kings and the queens are driven by ignorant warmongers! grin2.gif

What you need to understand is that we are not against you.
I understand that, you just want to nuke me, that's all, nothing to get all excited about. grin2.gif

We are for you
We are for you too, joc! original.gif

Your government is out of control
So is yours; chains usually do miracles in these cases! grin2.gif

How many different forms of news do you get in Iran?
With satellite tv and internet, many. Watching Fox news is one of my favourite passtimes! grin2.gif

You continue talking about how we are all subjects of our governments propaganda
I didn't talk about everybody, just the naive ones who go for the far-fetched and fast becoming boring propaganda of the warmongers! grin2.gif

...how many different forms of news do you have in Iran?
Look up there, I already answered that, I watch many diferent forms of news but nothing beats Fox man! grin2.gif

What is your main source of news? Al Jezere?
Al Jazeera? That's a mouthpiece for the terrorists. They got kicked out of Iran for inciting violence. Besides, I'm a Persian, I don't speak Arabic, so you understand that it would be kind of hard for me to rely on Al Jazeera as my 'main source of news'. grin2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richdog
It's really naive to think that the US and the UK are able to use miltary force against Iran when they're up to their necks in the mess they made in Iraq. yes.gif

Umm actually no it's not. They have the capability. Do some research?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.