|
|
Will Iran attack?
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status:
Offline
|
|
Iran warns of preemptive strike to prevent attack on nuclear sites
Now that M. Bush started the dance, by using the concept of preemptive strikes, is it possible that other nations might use the same arguments, considering similar (if not more justified) conditions to use the same strategies?
08/19/04 "Agence France Presse"_
DOHA : Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned that Iran might launch a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.
"We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly," Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.
"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq," said Shamkhani, speaking in Farsi to the Arabic-language news channel through an interpreter.
"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.
(...)
He also warned that Iran would consider itself no longer bound by its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the event of an attack.
"The execution of such threats (to attack Iran's nuclear installations) would mean that our cooperation with the IAEA led to feeding information about our nuclear facilities to the attacking side, which (in turn) means that we would no longer be bound by any of our obligations" to the nuclear watchdog, he said.
Here is an overview of Iran's known nuclear capabilities.
(
Last edited by angaq0k; Aug 21, 2004 at 10:26 AM.
)
|
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status:
Offline
|
|
The Warlords of America
John Pilger
08/20/04 -- Most of the US's recent wars were launched by Democratic presidents. Why expect better of Kerry? The debate between US liberals and conservatives is a fake; Bush may be the lesser evil._
On 6 May last, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution which, in effect, authorised a "pre-emptive" attack on Iran. The vote was 376-3. Undeterred by the accelerating disaster in Iraq, Republicans and Democrats, wrote one commentator, "once again joined hands to assert the responsibilities of American power".
Ah?
|
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status:
Offline
|
|
If Iran is threatening to attack Americans - then we should kick Iran's ass.
I'm sure a lot of liberals would rather wait until Americans were dead before we responded, but that's why they're liberals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
If Iran is threatening to attack Americans - then we should kick Iran's ass.
I'm sure a lot of liberals would rather wait until Americans were dead before we responded, but that's why they're liberals.
Apparently you have a fundamentalist Iranian counterpart who posted the following on an Iranian discussion forum:
Mullah Spliffdaddiya wrote: "If America is threatening to attack Iran - then we should kick America's ass. I'm sure a lot of moderates would rather wait until Iranians were dead before we responded, but that's why they're moderates."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
Apparently you have a fundamentalist Iranian counterpart who posted the following on an Iranian discussion forum:
Mullah Spliffdaddiya wrote: "If America is threatening to attack Iran - then we should kick America's ass. I'm sure a lot of moderates would rather wait until Iranians were dead before we responded, but that's why they're moderates."
|
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yeah, I'm sure Iran is going to attack the US. It would be a dream come true for the Bush administration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status:
Offline
|
|
Will Israel attack?
Sharon on the warpath
JERUSALEM
Ariel Sharon may be on the warpath again and the target is Iran. In the past, the Israeli prime minister has focused attention on Iran by claiming that it presents the greatest threat to Israel. More than once, defense officials in Jerusalem have said that Israel might attack Iran's nuclear facilities. In response, Iran's defense minister, Ali Shamkhani, warned that should Israel do so, his country would wipe out Israel.
Now Israel, claiming to prepare against a possible "hit on its nuclear reactor," has started distributing antiradiation pills to civilians in townships surrounding it. In a country that has always sought to keep its nuclear activities out of the spotlight, that is a highly unusual step.
(...)
Numerous foreign sources have claimed that to counter the perceived threat from Iran, Israel has deployed missiles on land and at sea that are capable of inflicting awesome damage on Iran. Should Israel decide to strike at the Iranian nuclear installations, though, it is more likely to use its F-15 fighter-bombers.
The only country whose reaction to such a strike would carry great weight with Israel is the United States. Because Iran is suspected of supporting at least some of the insurgents in Iraq, many U.S officials might privately welcome an Israeli strike on Iran, just as they welcomed Israel's destruction in 1981 of the nuclear reactor that Saddam Hussein was building near Baghdad. With the United States now in the midst of a hotly disputed election campaign, if Sharon wanted to act, the time to do so would be between now and November.
And so the pieces may be falling into place, one by one. If Israel strikes, Iran may react by launching its own missiles at Israel, but this is unlikely. Tehran may ask Hezbollah's leader, Sheik Nasrallah, to open fire on Israel, in which case it is very likely that hostilities would not be limited to Lebanon but would spread to Syria as well. It remains to be seen how Egypt would react if Israel attacked Syria. In the past, President Hosni Mubarak has said Egypt would not take such an action lying down.
In the end, it all depends on Ariel Sharon - an old war-horse who, back in 1982, led Israel into a disastrous invasion of Lebanon. One can only hope that this time he will think twice.
Martin van Creveld, a professor of history at Hebrew University, Jerusalem, is author of the forthcoming book "Defending Israel." His books "Transformation of War" and "The Sword and the Olive"are classics in the field of military strategy.
Seems like not much would change anyway...
|
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status:
Offline
|
|
I welcome a strike on Iran, regardless if it is by Israel or the USA or the two operating in tandem. Iran won't get far with their nuke dreams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by PacHead:
I welcome a strike on Iran, regardless if it is by Israel or the USA or the two operating in tandem. Iran won't get far with their nuke dreams.
Would you participate? It seems as if you're in an awful hurry to commit other people's lives.
|
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by KarlG:
Would you participate? It seems as if you're in an awful hurry to commit other people's lives.
An attack on Iran is the saving of lives, in the long run.
Anyhow, an attack on Iran's nuke facilities will consist of dropping bombs. No ground troops required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by PacHead:
Anyhow, an attack on Iran's nuke facilities will consist of dropping bombs. No ground troops required.
Nothing like a good'ole terrorist attack by a big bully!
"They hate our Freedom" What a joke...
|
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by KarlG:
Would you participate? It seems as if you're in an awful hurry to commit other people's lives.
If he pays taxes and votes, then he participates. Also, those "other people" have volunteered to fight for our nation as the nation sees fit. That's what they get paid to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by angaq0k:
Nothing like a good'ole terrorist attack by a big bully!
"They hate our Freedom" What a joke...
If you don't like it you are welcome to go over there and act as a human shield, if one is to use the same reasoning as you use against me.
And striking against a terrorist country is not an act of terrorism. This is war and Iran is on the list of enemies. You of course would obviously welcome Iran developing nukes and having these detonate in a US city, when they give it to one of the many terror groups which operate out of Iran.
You are far more willing to sacrifice lives than I am. I am speaking of American lives of course. The left sees no danger from maniac terrorist supporting countries, but they see the current admin as evil. Go figure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by PacHead:
If you don't like it you are welcome to go over there and act as a human shield, if one is to use the same reasoning as you use against me.
And striking against a terrorist country is not an act of terrorism. This is war and Iran is on the list of enemies. You of course would obviously welcome Iran developing nukes and having these detonate in a US city, when they give it to one of the many terror groups which operate out of Iran.
You are far more willing to sacrifice lives than I am. I am speaking of American lives of course. The left sees no danger from maniac terrorist supporting countries, but they see the current admin as evil. Go figure.
Tiime for you to open your History book on Iran...
Maybe it is better to see things in their context.
Regarding your caring for American lives, you make me laugh very hard; if its was not so much of your involvement in the Middle East, Iran would probably never care about America, and actually, the situation would certainly be quite different.
Under the Shah, which was a puppet of the UK as well as the US, Iran started to develop their Nuclear program.
Iran possesses five research reactors and two partially constructed power reactors at Bushehr. It acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1970. In the mid-1970s, Iran initiated a nuclear power program, though there are reports that it also began a small nuclear weapon research program at the same time. The 1979 revolution ended all nuclear efforts until 1984, when Iran revived the nuclear power program and reportedly began covert procurement for a nuclear weapon program.
And:
Iran began pursuing its nuclear program long before the revolution of 1979. Shah Reza Pahlevi took the first step in 1957, signing a nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States.
From the very start, the shah wanted a self-sufficient Iranian program to encompass all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, and he gave scientists considerable autonomy--and the necessary facilities--to experiment as they wished.
But as it struggled to achieve self-sufficiency, Iran continually drew on expertise at foreign universities and nuclear training centers. From the late 1950s to 1979, many young Iranians went abroad, particularly to the United States and Europe, to earn scientific and engineering degrees and to gain work experience in nuclear technologies. U.S. analyst George Quester reported in 1975 that Iran had advisers from the United States, Britain, and India, and that it intended to send some 300 students to West Germany, the United States, France, and Britain for nuclear training the following year.
In the early to mid-1970s, Iran experienced a major inflow of trained scientists, engineers, and technicians. Iranian universities benefited from this growth, which stimulated the development of indigenous training and research facilities in various fields related to nuclear energy.
Maintaining that ruler in that country created the radical movement that you see today. It is only a comeback from foreign policies by your country and mostly the UK... In other words, you created that threat, as usual...
|
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by angaq0k:
Maintaining that ruler in that country created the radical movement that you see today. It is only a comeback from foreign policies by your country and mostly the UK... In other words, you created that threat, as usual...
And your point is ? We should allow ourselves to be attacked, because we supported the Shah of Iran in the seventies ?
You just play into the usual anti-American sentiment, which consists of everything bad in the world having being caused or created by the USA at one time.
It's quite simple: Iran = bad, evil country today, and they will have to be dealt with. Talking about ancient history doesn't change this fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status:
Offline
|
|
And your point is ? We should allow ourselves to be attacked, because we supported the Shah of Iran in the seventies ?
*SMACK_DOWN*
That's exactly the logic he used - put in a clear concise sentence. Good Job!.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by PacHead:
And your point is ? We should allow ourselves to be attacked, because we supported the Shah of Iran in the seventies ?
You just play into the usual anti-American sentiment, which consists of everything bad in the world having being caused or created by the USA at one time.
It's quite simple: Iran = bad, evil country today, and they will have to be dealt with. Talking about ancient history doesn't change this fact.
I think you should A P O L O G I Z E.
|
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status:
Offline
|
|
You're right.
A twenty megaton apology is in order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Occasionally Quoted
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Francisco
Status:
Offline
|
|
(
Last edited by daimoni; Sep 12, 2004 at 01:00 PM.
)
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by angaq0k:
I think you should A P O L O G I Z E.
From Bush's speech at Whitehall last November:
We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.
As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its victims, and our great democracies should oppose tyranny wherever it is found. (Applause.)
Full Speech
|
Safe in the womb of an everlasting night
You find the darkness can give the brightest light.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Joshua:
From Bush's speech at Whitehall last November:
Full Speech
Hypocrisy 101.
All industrialized countries and their populations have benefited from the populations subversion in other countries.
They are still benefitting from it. Business opportunities with a big cut for profit is often oppression of the poors in those countries.
The day people will understand that everywhere and refuse that kind of treatment applied to other people like they would not accept it for themselves will be a great day.
Don't get me wrong: I am all for business and getting good deals. Capitalism is necessary. But it cannot be an instrument of abuse. When industrialized countries conspire to support a dictatorship in a country full of resources so that their population can benefit on the back of the locally oppressed, that is just plain wrong. The middle East is a good example, imho, of the exploitation of resources by a few who turn out to be dictators of their own population. And when we use the military to preserve those so call "interests", we become accomplices.
Religious integrism, in all its ugliness, lowers the bar for everyone, like communism did. It is oppression, but almost everyone is in the same s***. What is bad is when we collaborate to this. That is not acceptable.
No wonder those population are easy to feed in hatred towards us. What is unfortunate, is that the US is singled out. But the reality is that most likely, all countries with a membership on the WTO have cooperated to that state of situation. But there are many historical precedents of colonialism and exploitation. If it hyappened then, why should it stop now?
Terrorism is not acceptable. But we need to understand what leads people to believe it is their only solution. Until then, we will all pay the price, in innocent victims and military everywhere. A big and shameful waste of human lives.
(
Last edited by angaq0k; Aug 21, 2004 at 08:55 PM.
)
|
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Plainview, NY
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by PacHead:
And your point is ? We should allow ourselves to be attacked, because we supported the Shah of Iran in the seventies ?
tough talk from iran is just that. it is an attempt to point out the u.s. government's own ridiculous policy that pre-emptive strikes are justified to further one's own interests. believing that iran is going to attack unless we strike first is simply caving in to the administration's attempts to get the public frothing at the mouth through fearmongering and deception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
I find it quite ironic that the ideas of democracy and diplomacy get branded by the same (self anointed) 'pro american' people as 'anti-american'.
Though 'pre-emptive attack', and 'state-sanctioned terrorism', and even attacking civilian targets have been considered to be 'american' in various threads around here.
I'm still scratching my head to figure out when the US switched from a country where Reagan won the cold war without asking congress for a declaration of war... to a country where a statistical majority of it's citizens approve of pre-emptive attacks, and are against an international ban on terrorism (which would limit the CIA's ability to train idiginous forces to do our dirty work).
Pretty sad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by spacefreak:
If he pays taxes and votes, then he participates. Also, those "other people" have volunteered to fight for our nation as the nation sees fit. That's what they get paid to do.
Does that mean that he would be a legitimate target for an attack? Since he participates.....
|
"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by PacHead:
An attack on Iran is the saving of lives, in the long run.
Anyhow, an attack on Iran's nuke facilities will consist of dropping bombs. No ground troops required.
Will you send inpsectors afterward to make sure the nukes have been destroyed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm more in favor of a preemptive strike on North Korea. They are, IHMO, much more of a thread to us and our allies than Iran.
|
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Logic:
Does that mean that he would be a legitimate target for an attack? Since he participates.....
Yay! Logic!
Okay, since you're so attached to Iran, it seems like no matter how bad they are, they're good. Your quote screams out your true intentions: you hate Americans and you'd choose the death of them over the destruction of a theocracy.
One more story like this and some pressure should be applied to them�
If they attack us, I'm all for their ass to be kicked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|