Is it on?

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

Y-S

Sicc OG
Dec 10, 2005
3,765
0
0
#1


Bush's Iran 'attack plan'

GEORGE Bush will launch missiles against Iran if it is proved to be behind attacks on US soldiers in Iraq, it was claimed last night.

He has ordered plans for air strikes to disable Iran’s entire military structure, the BBC said.

Senior officials in Washington have pinpointed targets including missile bases, command and control centres and air defences.

Action would also be triggered if Tehran is close to developing nuclear weapons.

The Beeb claimed military action would be masterminded from Central Command in Florida.

Four nuclear sites would also be hit. US military strategists claimed the air attacks could be carried out without affecting ongoing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some 30 US warships are already in the Gulf.

Washington insisted last night it was NOT planning military strikes.

But the contingency plans put greater diplomatic pressure on Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Mr Bush believes Iran is arming insurgents in Iraq but has yet to prove the link.

Professor Anthony Cordesman, of the Centre of Strategic Studies, said: “About 75 per cent of US military resources could easily be mobilised and used against Iran without affecting the campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq in a significant way.”

But Sir Richard Dalton, the British ambassador to Iran from 2002 to 2006, said an attack would backfire badly and would probably encourage the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.

He said: “The only circumstances which would justify an attack on Iran would be if there was an imminent threat and that's not the case at present.”

Meanwhile, the United Nations warned Iran could be just six months away from enriching uranium — a key step in building a nuclear bomb.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007080330,00.html

Another article -

US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.
It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.

The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions.

But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.

That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.

Two triggers

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran.

Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.

The BBC's Tehran correspondent France Harrison says the news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians.

Authorities insist there is no cause for alarm but ordinary people are now becoming a little worried, she says.

Deadline

Earlier this month US officials said they had evidence Iran was providing weapons to Iraqi Shia militias. At the time, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the accusations were "excuses to prolong the stay" of US forces in Iraq.

Middle East analysts have recently voiced their fears of catastrophic consequences for any such US attack on Iran.

Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.

Last year Iran resumed uranium enrichment - a process that can make fuel for power stations or, if greatly enriched, material for a nuclear bomb.

Tehran insists its programme is for civil use only, but Western countries suspect Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.

The UN Security Council has called on Iran to suspend its enrichment of uranium by 21 February.

If it does not, and if the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms this, the resolution says that further economic sanctions will be considered.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm
 
May 14, 2002
6,278
6,950
113
43
#2
US military strategists claimed the air attacks could be carried out without affecting ongoing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They talk about this like it is nothing.

If the US does decide to attack Iran I hope it back-fires so hard on them. (sorry for the folks with fam in the army but this shit needs to stop) The US needs to stop meddeling with other countries, makes me sick. (talking about the ruling part of the US)

Isn't Iran responsible for a large % of the US oil supply?
 
Dec 8, 2005
669
0
36
#5
this would never be a cold war, this is a hot war, we will tactically nuke iran shortly, they just said fuck you to the latest deadline, oh saddam, where are you when we need you buddy...
 
Dec 4, 2006
17,451
7,543
113
48
#6
u all know Russia will get into this war right? Russia's president already said it...that they will be big repercussions if the U.S. attacks Iran..
 

Y-S

Sicc OG
Dec 10, 2005
3,765
0
0
#9
nhojsmith said:
this would never be a cold war, this is a hot war, we will tactically nuke iran shortly, they just said fuck you to the latest deadline, oh saddam, where are you when we need you buddy...
but they welcome any kinds of negotiations........what do you think they would be or what they want?
 
Mar 18, 2003
5,362
194
0
45
#10
iaoish said:
They talk about this like it is nothing.
How do you or I know that it's not just "nothing". I personally never thought our military was jeapordized or "stretched too thin" as many on here have said. I have much faith in our military strategists. With that said, I do not want our country to attack Iran, or even be in Iraq in the first place.
 

I AM

Some Random Asshole
Apr 25, 2002
21,001
86
48
#13
abyss5150 said:
It's not going to happen. At least not any time in the near future.
I beg to differ. You don't seem to understand the situation that our country is in. I mean, we pretty much assassinated Saddam. And don't say we didn't, the US put him in power, and when he turned on the US, they took him out of his power, and put him on trial....even though the US didn't give a shit that he was killing people 6-7 years ago. The US gotta have they oil or they get cranky!

Bush will say that Iran is responsible, and that they have "official reports" just like when we went to IRAQ! No matter what REALLY happens, this fuck will tell the American people what they "want" to hear, in order to keep their dreams alive about this country being completely FREE, which is a crock of SHIT....

We dont' even fucking have habeas corpus anymore. So if you're a "threat" to this country, say goodbye to your friends and family for the rest of your life.
 

I AM

Some Random Asshole
Apr 25, 2002
21,001
86
48
#14
Ethereal said:
How do you or I know that it's not just "nothing". I personally never thought our military was jeapordized or "stretched too thin" as many on here have said. I have much faith in our military strategists. With that said, I do not want our country to attack Iran, or even be in Iraq in the first place.
Well then, you should probably start paying attention to the official reports about Iraq coming out of our own government, and from our own generals that are IN IRAQ.

It's been this way for years. When some people have to go back for a 4th-5th time, you know there's not enough people. They started out and didn't even have the proper fucking supplies. End of story.
 
Feb 8, 2006
3,435
6,143
113
#15
It's an easy solution, push the agenda and tell people their unpatriotic and unsupportive of the troops if they disagree.
 
Dec 8, 2005
669
0
36
#16
GTS said:
It's an easy solution, push the agenda and tell people their unpatriotic and unsupportive of the troops if they disagree.
its even easier if you push the agenda, and kill the people that dont follow your ideals. the same thing is happening in both places. not every iranian supports mahmoud, and clearly hardly anyone supports bush anymore.
 
Dec 8, 2005
669
0
36
#17
Y-S said:
but they welcome any kinds of negotiations........what do you think they would be or what they want?
they want to be like us, have unrexstrained power and control over their society. the west is fuckin with em though and not letting them handle shit on there own terms. the power vacuum we created when took avoer iraq in a few days was unforseen by our people in power. sadaam would definatley not stand for this shit that iran is pulling and the world community would proabbnly support him, but since its bush who is going after them all these faggots cry foul. the UN is a fucking joke.
 
Mar 18, 2003
5,362
194
0
45
#19
I AM said:
Well then, you should probably start paying attention to the official reports about Iraq coming out of our own government, and from our own generals that are IN IRAQ.
I do pay attention. Are you saying I should believe everything I read? Or only when it supports what I believe to be true..

I AM said:
It's been this way for years. When some people have to go back for a 4th-5th time, you know there's not enough people. They started out and didn't even have the proper fucking supplies. End of story.
I know people enlisted that have never even been there.

I don't see your point.
 

I AM

Some Random Asshole
Apr 25, 2002
21,001
86
48
#20
Ethereal said:
I don't see your point.
That's because what you are doing is reading what I say, and applying it to yourself...rather than reading what I say, and trying to understand it from MY perspective. That is how we effectively communicate, which pretty much doesn't happen very often on here.