Do you think the US has a plan to attack Iran? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ASU2003 · 04-10-2006, 09:31 PM

Bush says we don't:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060411/..._pr_wh/us_iran

I'm not sure. It does seem like we were making it up as we went along in Iraq. But, I would hope that the military budget would cover something like creating a strategy.

If we have a plan to attack Canada, I would hope they could draft something up.
http://www.glasnost.de/hist/usa/1935invasion.html

*Yes, there are a few definitions of the word 'plan'.

*I have nothing against the Iranian people. I'm not a big fan of them getting nuclear weapons, though I doubt they would use one. I bet if one did go off in the region, there would be conspiracy theorists saying that the US/Israel blew it up and blamed it on Iran. And then their leader is a little messed up, but you almost have to be to lead a country.

Anexkahn · 04-10-2006, 10:02 PM

i dont know... it seems this whole thing is getting blown pretty big by people and alot of it seems to be paranoia for the most part. I'm personally not overly worried, but then again i dont consider myself much of a politically minded person.

I'm quite certain there is a plan in place to use force against iran, whether or not the US is currently planning on using it in the near future is more the question.

pan6467 · 04-10-2006, 11:45 PM

I believe there will be issues with Iran. The more we discuss it, the more Bush denies it and laughs it off, the more nervous and defensive Iran will become. Eventually, it we find a peace.will have to reach a point where we either attack, they attack or a peace is found at the last minute.

My feeling has always been we'llantagonize and maybe "accidently" cross their border which will cause them to "strike first" and thus we will have "reason" to go in.

But then again, Iran maybe prepared for that and not easily fall into that trap.

highthief · 04-11-2006, 03:53 AM

I'm sure there is a "plan" - whether it is one that is being actively contemplated for implementation is another matter. I doubt it.

ubertuber · 04-11-2006, 04:18 AM

I'll reference my post in host's Helen Thomas thread. Having plans to attack someone isn't the same as planning to attack them. I'm sure we've got plans to attack Iran - I'm not yet convinced we're planning to attack them.

Of course, hindsight on our plans to attack Iraq do lead me to wonder...

Charlatan · 04-11-2006, 04:21 AM

I would be shocked if they didn't have a plan to attack Iran. Hell, I'd be shocked if they didn't have a plan to attack Canada...

Now don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting they are going to attack either nation but isn't that the military's job? To plan for any possibility.

The real question is, as highthief suggests, is are these plans being actively considered at this moment. I'd say that, as far as Iran is concerned they are keeping their options open.

The_Jazz · 04-11-2006, 04:43 AM

I'd venture to say that pretty much every option is under consideration now. Unfortunately (as discussed on the Helen Thomas thread), that seems to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. The administration has publicly stated that that particular option is not off the table.

Opening any sort of campaign against Iran (including the air-only option) would most likely result in a battlefield roughly 2000 miles by 500 miles stretching from Jordan's eastern border to Pakistan's western one. If we were lucky, the Iranians would only respond in a conventional way (i.e. with ground or air forces), but most likely they would use their contacts within Hamas and similar organizations to declare open warfare on Americans where ever we can be found. I don't think that the US military is prepared to be fighting 3 spearate campaigns along with our other obligations around the world. I completely agree that nuclear-armed Iranians are a seriously bad idea, but so is any sort of US or Israeli attack (see Helen Thomas thread for more on that).

roachboy · 04-11-2006, 08:11 AM

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/world...ol_1.html#more

the idea is obviously being floated.
no way to know if it is being seriously entertained---the link above is to a range of international press reponses to the floating proposal/threat, from this morning's washington post. the article is full of links, so i'll leave it this way.

i think this idea is profoundly misguided.
particularly the tactical nuke option.
i find the idea that the americans are considering a first-strike use of a nuclear weapon to be unbelievable. particularly when the considerations are taking place in the context of an administration, the incompetence of which in terms of planning for actual contingencies (rather than planning for only what they want to see, what they wish for) is self-evident.

Paq · 04-11-2006, 12:46 PM

.....
plan?
the US govt does not budget for these ..."Plans" you speak of

seriously, though, i am about 99% certain that the gov't has considered going into iran, either voluntarily or involuntarily.

i just HOPE they put more effort into this 'plan" than they did into the "plan" to go into Iraq.

Charlatan · 04-11-2006, 12:48 PM

Paq... the plan to go into Iraq was genius. The problem was the plan for getting out of Iraq.

djtestudo · 04-11-2006, 01:08 PM

I can almost guarentee there is a plan to attack Iran. I can also almost guarentee that there are plans to attack Saudi Arabia, France, Canada, Switzerland, and the Vatican.

If not, our tax dollars are being sorely misspent, as we should be prepared for any contingency. Not to say we would USE any of these plans, but how many people 20 years ago thought that between then and now we would have fought two wars with Iraq?

There should ALWAYS be a plan, whether there is a real need in the present or not.

Paq · 04-11-2006, 01:13 PM

charlatan...maybe my idea of a "plan" is different..i kinda expect a beginning, middle and end...not, "we go in...we're hailed as liberators, and we leave a democracy in place" that is not a "plan" imho

wish it worked that way, though...

Elphaba · 04-11-2006, 04:01 PM

Seymour Hersh appears to be one of the sources of the "wild speculation" concerning a military intervention in Iran. Decide for yourself:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040906Y.shtml

wolf · 04-12-2006, 10:29 AM

I have no doubt they have a plan to attack Iran. Heck any country which may pose any sort of threat to us, even if it's an imaginary threat in George Bush's head, will have a plan of attack if not cemented than certainly in the works. I have a theory, once Bush is out of office, Bin Laden will be caught in a matter of months. When the Saudis get all pissed off, Bush can look up from his latest hooked on phonics book and say "Wasn't me..." then give one of those big shit eating grins he likes to give; then go right back to learning how not to end a sentence with a preposition.

host · 04-12-2006, 11:46 AM

It looks like they're spinning the same hysteria message that they used to do the "Iraq Op", with the same "playas"!

Background: There was a "reorgantization" at the State Dept. that eliminated any dissent. It was led by:
Robert Joseph: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/47252.htm

Robert Joseph's role in the Iraq, pre-invasion "spin":

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
Iraq Flap Shakes Rice's Image
Controversy Stirs Questions of Reports Unread, Statements Contradicted

By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 27, 2003; Page A01

....Three days later, then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Rice told him she was not referring to the State of the Union address, as she had indicated, but to Bush's October speech. That explanation, however, had a flaw: The sentence was removed from the October speech, not cleared.

In addition, testimony by a CIA official before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence two days after Fleischer's clarification was consistent with the first account Rice had given. The CIA official, Alan Foley, said he told a member of Rice's staff, Robert Joseph, that the CIA objected to mentioning a specific African country -- Niger -- and a specific amount of uranium in Bush's State of the Union address. Foley testified that he told Joseph of the CIA's problems with the British report and that Joseph proposed changing the claim to refer generally to uranium in Africa.

White House communications director Dan Bartlett last Monday called that a "conspiracy theory" and said Joseph did not recall being told of any concerns.

Staff writer Walter Pincus contributed to this report.

Report on the Robert Joseph directed reorganization:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022001198.html
Administration Critics Chafe at State Dept. Shuffle
Merger Has Brought Appointees Into Conflict With Longtime Workers, Who Say They Are Sidelined

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 21, 2006; Page A04

A State Department reorganization of analysts involved in preventing the spread of deadly weapons has spawned internal turmoil, with more than half a dozen career employees alleging in interviews that political appointees sought to punish long-term employees whose views they considered suspect.....

.......Robert Joseph, the undersecretary of state for arms control, who oversaw the reorganization, and Henrietta H. Fore, the undersecretary for management, said in interviews that political motives were not a factor, adding that any change is going to cause distress. Fore said she has listened to employee concerns, reviewed the implementation and determined that "all steps were taken according to the law."

"None of these allegations stand up," Joseph said. "You have got a small group of individuals who are resisting the changes. I am not surprised by that. Change is difficult, but change is absolutely necessary."

The employees who say that they have been targeted once had a back channel to then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, who they said would on occasion ask them to bypass their superior, John R. Bolton, now the ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton, with backing from allies in the Pentagon and the vice president's office, frequently battled the rest of the State Department on policy issues.

But Joseph, who worked for Rice at the White House, is an ideological soul mate of Bolton's and retained much of Bolton's staff -- and now officials say the policy disputes that characterized Powell's State Department have largely faded under Rice's tenure. The back channel that these employees used to alert senior management to their problems with Bolton no longer exists, the career officials said........

There was some doubt that Stephen Rademaker, backed by John Bolton, would get the promotion:

Quote:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2005_04.php
April 07, 2005
Chris Nelson: Carl Ford Rep "Impeccable" -- Hagel Studying Bolton Questions -- May be Reconsidering His Position

....Finally, it may be that Bolton's plan to turn over the consolidated non-proliferation Assist. Secretary slot to protege Steve Rademaker may be undone by his successor, and presumed ally, former NSC non-proliferation boss Bob Joseph. Word is that Undersecretary-nominee Joseph wants to bring over his guy for A/S, NSC staffer Will Tobey.

For those trying to follow the reorganization, both Powell and Rice approved combining the non-proliferation and arms control bureaus, so that, at least, is not seen as "payback" by Bolton for all those softies he constantly battled........

Evidently, Stephen Rademaker "won" the competition:

Quote:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/12813.htm
BIOGRAPHY

Stephen G. Rademaker
Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation
Term of Appointment: 09/13/2005 to present

Stephen G. Rademaker currently heads the newly-created Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation of the Department of State. This Bureau was created on September 13, 2005, upon the merger of the Bureau of Arms Control and the Bureau of Nonproliferation. Mr. Rademaker was sworn in on August 12, 2002, as Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, and in February 2005 he was also named as head of the Bureau of Nonproliferation pending merger of the two Bureaus.....

Here is the new Bush, pre-Iran attack "spin Op", in response to Sy Hersh's New York Magazine article, led by... Stephen Rademaker ! Same Shit...Different Day...different, scapegoated, oil rich country:

Quote:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...top_world_news
April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, which is defying United Nations Security Council demands to cease its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days if it goes ahead with plans to install thousands of centrifuges at its Natanz plant, a U.S. State Department official said.

``Natanz was constructed to house 50,000 centrifuges,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow. ``Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days.''....

...... ``It was a deeply disappointing announcement,'' Rademaker said of Ahmadinejad's statement.

Weapons-Grade Uranium

Rademaker said the technology to enrich uranium to a low level could also be used to make weapons-grade uranium, saying that it would take a little over 13 years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon with the 164 centrifuges currently in use. The process involves placing uranium hexafluoride gas in a series of rotating drums or cylinders known as centrifuges that run at high speeds to extract weapons grade uranium.

Iran has informed the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz next year, Rademaker said.

``We calculate that a 3,000-machine cascade could produce enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon within 271 days,'' he said.

While the U.S. has concerns over Iran's nuclear program, Rademaker said ``there certainly has been no decision on the part of my government'' to use force if Iran refuses to obey the UN Security Council demand that it shuts down its nuclear program.

Rademaker is in Moscow for a meeting of his counterparts from the Group of Eight wealthy industrialized countries. Russia chairs the G-8 this year.

I'm disgusted with this POTUS and his "one note" NEOCON band...and I wasn't fooled the last time.....

Ustwo · 04-12-2006, 12:58 PM

If we didn't have a plan, GWB would not be doing his job as president.

Iran is a threat, as such it is the governments job to figure out how to elminate that threat, including a military plan.

Now the real question should be does the U.S. plan to attack Iran. That I would have to say is no, the American people have been demoralized by the constant attacks on the Iraq invasion by the left and their press-allies long enough that it has crippled our ability to react militarily to any conflict. This also shows how the whole 'weapons of mass destruction' doesn't really matter to the left. Saddam did or didn't have them depending on who you want to believe, but they were not found, hense we had 'no reason' to invade Iraq to the leftist mind (not that it mattered then). Now Iran, an equally wack job nation is openly working on building nuclear weapons, and that doesn't matter to them either. I'm not sure what matters to them beyond self-loathing and blaming republicans for all the worlds problems. Imaginary plots by GWB are high on their minds, terrorist supporting nations building nuclear weapons, not so high. I don't understand it.

That being said the administration MUST look as if it is willing to use military force if there is any hope of a negotiated solution. The toothless EU has been worthless in this, now we need to pretend we are still willing to use our teeth.

Pediction:Our posturing will fail, Iran is run by assholes not idiots.
Hope: Israel

ubertuber · 04-12-2006, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

...Now Iran, an equally wack job nation is openly working on building nuclear weapons, and that doesn't matter to them either.

I've got to say this - I don't think they're wack-jobs in Iran. They're just looking out for their own interests, which clearly don't coincide with ours. If I was the Iranian president, I might be trying to get nukes too - I just wouldn't be so blatant about it. It doesn't really seem fair or realistic to expect other countries to act in OUR best interests, especially when they think those interests are counter to their own.

Willravel · 04-12-2006, 01:15 PM

There is no proof that Iran is a nuclear threat and there is proof to the contrary. Until we see proof (not just the claim that there is proof), I will not support any action against them.

Using nuclear weapons is wrong, and using nuclear weapons to prevent people from getting nuclear weapons is the worst kind of insane.

Ustwo · 04-12-2006, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

There is no proof that Iran is a nuclear threat and there is proof to the contrary. Until we see proof (not just the claim that there is proof), I will not support any action against them.

Using nuclear weapons is wrong, and using nuclear weapons to prevent people from getting nuclear weapons is the worst kind of insane.

Mmmm I find it odd that you require such proof here, when lots of hersay is good enough to show 9/11 was some big government plot to you. What kind of proof do you require?

Willravel · 04-12-2006, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Mmmm I find it odd that you require such proof here, when lots of hersay is good enough to show 9/11 was some big government plot to you. What kind of proof do you require?

Something beyond Condelezza coming on and saying, "We have proof." I'd like to see pictures, testimony, physical evidence and such (the same type of evidence in the 9/11 thread, if you'd care to look instead of occasionally badmouthing me in politics).

tecoyah · 04-12-2006, 02:48 PM

There is no need to take this to a personal level gentlemen....no need at all

Willravel · 04-12-2006, 03:05 PM

My main concern is that we will continue to utilize the military instead of having multilateral talks with mutual allies. *IF* we are in any kind of danger from Iran (which remains to be seen), we should seek a peaceful resolution. We all know what happened the last time we tried to preemptively strike a potential threat. We don't have a good track record with going into a country that hasn't attacked us first.

There is a solution to this problem that will be to a benifit to the American people and the Iranian people. That solution isn't the solution that the current US administration is seeking, though. I doubt it is the solution that the Iranian government is seeking, also. If only one of these governments were run of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-12-2006, 03:14 PM

Isn't Iran party to the nuke non-proliferation treaty? THerefore shouldn't any argument in which they end up with Nuclear Weapons be moot? It's funny the double standard in application of Global will and this so called "International law" to America vs. A terrorist state with a total nutbar as their leader with the worst kind of repressive government supporting him.

Willravel · 04-12-2006, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Isn't Iran party to the nuke non-proliferation treaty? THerefore shouldn't any argument in which they end up with Nuclear Weapons be moot? It's funny the double standard in application of Global will and this so called "International law" to America vs. A terrorist state with a total nutbar as their leader with the worst kind of repressive government supporting him.

North Korea has a Jr. Nutbar (fun size, if you will) as it's leader, and we never planned on invading. Also, it should be known that the NPT does not take away the state's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Elphaba · 04-12-2006, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Isn't Iran party to the nuke non-proliferation treaty? THerefore shouldn't any argument in which they end up with Nuclear Weapons be moot? It's funny the double standard in application of Global will and this so called "International law" to America vs. A terrorist state with a total nutbar as their leader with the worst kind of repressive government supporting him.

Mojo, Bush's deal with India is another odd double standard in non-proliferation.

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-12-2006, 04:18 PM

Agreed, but since India doesn't seem to have any alliances with known Anti-American Anti-Israel Anti-West terrorist organizations, isn't a culture where America is professed as the Great Satan, and led by a leader who is convinced he is to usher in Armageddon with Nulcear War against Israel, I think I'll let it side until something pressing arises from the situation

hunnychile · 04-12-2006, 04:48 PM

....does the Pope wear a beanie?

Yes, of course the US does have a plan in place and it's unfolding even as I type this message.....

host · 04-12-2006, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

.....That I would have to say is no, the American people have been demoralized by the constant attacks on the Iraq invasion by the left and their press-allies long enough that it has crippled our ability to react militarily to any conflict. This also shows how the whole 'weapons of mass destruction' doesn't really matter to the left. Saddam did or didn't have them depending on who you want to believe, but they were not found, hense we had 'no reason' to invade Iraq to the leftist mind (not that it mattered then). Now Iran, an equally wack job nation is openly working on building nuclear weapons, and that doesn't matter to them either. I'm not sure what matters to them beyond self-loathing and blaming republicans for all the worlds problems. Imaginary plots by GWB are high on their minds, terrorist supporting nations building nuclear weapons, not so high. I don't understand it.........

Ustwo, I want to help you understand it. There is a record of the quotes that members of the Bush admin. made, after the March, 2003 invasion of Iraq, where they referenced trailers found in Iraq that they linked to the manufacturing or processing of biological weapons. They, including POTUS Bush. made these statements, even after the time that they appear to have known that this "story" was not confirmed by their own investigators in the field...in Iraq, and....even after intelligence reports told them that no such trailers existed.

The Duelfer report on the ISG search of Iraq for WMD, did not discover any trailers linked to biological weapons making. Scott McClellan's Jan. ,2005 confirmation is displayed at the bottom of this post.

I invite you, again, to consider not posting accusations and assertions, concerning the opinions and their alleged impact on U.S. policy, of those of us who you disagree with, since you make no effort to back up your "A and A's" with references.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041101888.html
Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War
Administration Pushed Notion of Banned Iraqi Weapons Despite Evidence to Contrary

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 12, 2006; Page A01

.....A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.

The authors of the reports were nine U.S. and British civilian experts -- scientists and engineers with extensive experience in all the technical fields involved in making bioweapons -- who were dispatched to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency for an analysis of the trailers. Their actions and findings were described to a Washington Post reporter in interviews with six government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had direct knowledge of it.

None would consent to being identified by name because of fear that their jobs would be jeopardized. Their accounts were verified by other current and former government officials knowledgeable about the mission. The contents of the final report, "Final Technical Engineering Exploitation Report on Iraqi Suspected Biological Weapons-Associated Trailers," remain classified. But interviews reveal that the technical team was unequivocal in its conclusion that the trailers were not intended to manufacture biological weapons. Those interviewed took care not to discuss the classified portions of their work.......

Because the folks quoted below made all of the displayed statements, cited as "proof" that WMD had been found in Iraq after the March, 2003, U.S. invasion, and it is now known that none of the statements were accurate, some of us don't believe anything that these folks tell us, anymore.....

....We were taught, since we were little children, that people who tell lies, hurt themselves, because, after a while, no one believes what they say, anymore. That's what happened to Mr. Bush and to his friends. It's sad....but it isn;t our fault, it's theirs.....

Quote:

BUSH: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. <a href="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:1rrV_XdVWFYJ:www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html+%22We+found+the+weapons+of+mass+destruction.+We+found+biological+laboratories.%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1">[Bush on Polish TV, 5/29/03]</a>

RUMSFELD: We have teams of people that are out looking. They've investigated a number of sites. And within the last week or two, they have in fact captured and have in custody two of the mobile trailers that Secretary Powell talked about at the United Nations as being biological weapons laboratories. We have people who are telling that they worked in these vehicles. And they look at panels and say, 'That was my work station in that panel, and that's what it's for.'<a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030529-secdef0230.html"> [5/29/03]</a>

WOLFOWITZ: We have found those biological vans that the defector in Germany told us about. They seem to be exactly what he said they would be. And I would think that would pretty well corroborate the rest of his story which is they were for the production of biological weapons. <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030531-depsecdef0234.html"> [5/31/03]</a>

WOLFOWITZ: We -- as the whole world knows -- have in fact found some significant evidence to confirm exactly what Secretary Powell said when he spoke to the United Nations about the development of mobile biological weapons production facilities that would seem to confirm fairly precisely the information we received from several defectors, one in particular who described the program in some detail. But I wouldn't suggest we've gotten to the bottom of the whole story yet.<a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030603-depsecdef0242.html">[6/03/03]</a>

FEITH: Now in time, we'll learn the truth about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. But given what we knew the Iraqi regime had and did -- for example, its use of poison gas against Iranians and Kurds, its program to deceive the U.N. inspectors, its cooperation with terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, and its failure to account for known WMD items, including the mobile biological weapons labs -- the danger of WMD in Saddam's hands appeared grave.<A HREF="http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030707-0362.html">[7/7/03]</a>

POWELL: We have already discovered mobile biological factories of the kind that I described to the Security Council on the 5th of February. We have now found them. There is no question in our mind that that’s what their purpose was. Nobody has come up with an alternate purpose that makes sense. <a href="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:IxKhJNRGEMwJ:lists.state.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-USIAINFO.EXE%3FA2%3Dind0306a%26L%3Dus-iraqpolicy%26H%3D1%26O%3DD%26P%3D2373+We+have+already+discovered+mobile+biological+factories+of+the+kind+that+I+described+to+the+Security+Council+on+the+5th+of+February.+We+have+now+found+them.+There+is+no+question+in+our+mind+that+that%27s+what+their+purpose+was.+Nobody+has+come+up+with+an+alternate+purpose+that+makes+sense.&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a">[Powell, 6/2/03]</a>

WOLFOWITZ: We — as the whole world knows — have in fact found some significant evidence to confirm exactly what Secretary Powell said when he spoke to the United Nations about the development of mobile biological weapons production facilities that would seem to confirm fairly precisely the information we received from several defectors, one in particular who described the program in some detail. <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030603-depsecdef0242.html">[Wolfowitz, 6/3/03]</a>

RICE: But let’s remember what we’ve already found. Secretary Powell on February 5th talked about a mobile, biological weapons capability. That has now been found and this is a weapons laboratory trailers capable of making a lot of agent that–dry agent, dry biological agent that can kill a lot of people. So we are finding these pieces that were described. … This was a program that was built for deceit and concealment. <a href="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:IESHKYdi6PIJ:www.bushoniraq.com/rice4.html+That+has+now+been+found+and+this+is+a+weapons+laboratory+trailers+capable+of+making+a+lot+of+agent+that%E2%80%93dry+agent,+dry+biological+agent+that+can+kill+a+lot+of+people&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a">[CNBC, 6/3/03]</a>

JOHN BOLTON: And I think the presentation that Secretary Powell made to the Security Council some months ago, which he worked on day and night for four or five days before going up to New York, is actually standing up very well to the test of reality as we learn more about what was going on inside Iraq. He explained to the Security Council and, indeed, showed diagrams of mobile biological weapons production facilities. We have already found two such laboratories. <a href="http://www.iranwatch.org/government/US/Congress/Hearings/hirc-060403/us-hirc-postiraqnonprolif-060403.htm">[Testimony before House International Relations Committee, 6/4/03]</a>

BUSH: We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents. <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030605-1.html">[Bush, 6/5/03]</a>

POWELL: And I would put before you exhibit A, the mobile biological labs that we have found. Now, people are saying, well, are they truly mobile biological labs? Yes, they are. <a href="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:kN8MY_tWOBAJ:www.taipeitimes.com/news/2003/06/10/story/2003054699/+%22Now,+people+are+saying,+well,+are+they+truly+mobile+biological+labs%3F+Yes,+they+are%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a">[Fox News Sunday, 6/8/03]</a>

POWELL: I believe that they did have them and still have them, and I am confident that as we continue our efforts we will find these weapons, as well as the programs that supported these weapons. The mobile biological laboratories that were found and presented to the world, I think, is a further evidence of this. <a href="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:vBnTM3OdX2gJ:www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/21962.htm+%22The+mobile+biological+laboratories+that+were+found+and+presented+to+the+world,+I+think,+is+a+further+evidence+of+this%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3&client=firefox-a">[Powell on al-Arabiyya, 6/23/03]</a>

POWELL: [The State Department’s intelligence analysts’] confidence level is increasing. … And so we have been in complete open analysis with, you know, having a complete open analysis with the CIA, and the Director of Central Intelligence remains confident of his judgment. And frankly, I haven’t seen anything to suggest that that judgment is wrong. <a href="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:U-fp_vV1My0J:www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/21984.htm+%22Their+confidence+level+is+increasing.+They+still+have+some+questions,+and+those%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a">[Powell, 6/26/03]</a>

POWELL: I reviewed that presentation that I made on the 5th of February a number of times, as you might imagine, over recent weeks, and it holds up very well. It was the solid, coordinated judgment of the intelligence community. Some of the things that I talked about that day we have now seen in reality. We have found the mobile biological weapons labs that I could only show cartoons of that day. We now have them. <a href="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:zJDUbQmGkioJ:www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/22047.htm+%22We+have+found+the+mobile+biological+weapons+labs+that+I+could+only+show+cartoons+of+that+day.+We+now+have+them%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a">[NBC Today Show, 6/30/03]</a>

CHENEY: We had intelligence reporting before the war that there were at least seven of these mobile labs that he had gone out and acquired. We’ve, since the war, found two of them. They’re in our possession today, mobile biological facilities that can be used to produce anthrax or smallpox or whatever else you wanted to use during the course of developing the capacity for an attack. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/">[Meet the Press, 9/14/03]</a>

POWELL: And even though there are differences within the overall intelligence community, the Director of Central Intelligence, examining all of the material with respect to that van and examining counter-arguments as to what it might be, stands behind the judgment that what we found was positive evidence of a mobile biological weapons lab, and it has not been discounted sufficiently. <a href="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:TMS3pkJURR0J:www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/24597.htm+%22behind+the+judgment+that+what+we+found+was+positive+evidence+of+a+mobile+biological+weapons+lab,+and+it+has+not+been+discounted+sufficiently%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a">[ABC This Week, 9/28/03]</a>

Quote:

<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050112-7.html#1">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050112-7.html#1</a>

Excerpt from Scott McClellan Press Briefing, Jan. 12, 2005

Q The President accepts that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, he said back in October that the comprehensive report by Charles Duelfer concluded what his predecessor had said, as well, that the weapons that we all believed were there, based on the intelligence, were not there. And now what is important is that we need to go back and look at what was wrong with much of the intelligence that we accumulated over a 12-year period and that our allies had accumulated over that same period of time, and correct any flaws.

Q I just want to make sure, though, because you said something about following up on additional reports and learning more about the regime. You are not trying to hold out to the American people the possibility that there might still be weapons somewhere there, are you?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I just said that if there are -- if there are any other reports, obviously, of weapons of mass destruction, then people will follow up on those reports. I'm just stating a fact.

Pacifier · 04-13-2006, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Isn't Iran party to the nuke non-proliferation treaty?

Yes, but the treaty deals with the spread of nuclear weapons, Iran claims to use nuclear technology peacefully which would be legal (in Fact Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005.(Link)). The US say Iran wants "the bomb", so the questions is, have you proofs to back this claim up?

89transam · 04-13-2006, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

That I would have to say is no, the American people have been demoralized by the constant attacks on the Iraq invasion by the left and their press-allies long enough that it has crippled our ability to react militarily to any conflict.

Yes . That is the reason the american people have been demoralized, the media. God damn leftist media and thier questions!

Ustwo · 04-13-2006, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Something beyond Condelezza coming on and saying, "We have proof." I'd like to see pictures, testimony, physical evidence and such (the same type of evidence in the 9/11 thread, if you'd care to look instead of occasionally badmouthing me in politics).

Will can you explain to me why a nation who sits on the second largest natural gas reserve is so gung ho to enrich uranium and won't let the UN inspect? The Iranian president boasted today how they will have 1000's of enrichement cetrifuges going today. I'll lay off the 9/11 stuff, I've already posted my debunking where it belongs on that other board.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I've got to say this - I don't think they're wack-jobs in Iran. They're just looking out for their own interests, which clearly don't coincide with ours. If I was the Iranian president, I might be trying to get nukes too - I just wouldn't be so blatant about it. It doesn't really seem fair or realistic to expect other countries to act in OUR best interests, especially when they think those interests are counter to their own.

Uber if a bunch of white men got together and had an international meeting to claim the holocaust was a lie, said that Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth and sponcered a anti-Semitic cartoon contest would they be 'wack jobs'? Well thats just what Iran just did, cept they weren't white so its ok I guess.

Willravel · 04-13-2006, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Will can you explain to me why a nation who sits on the second largest natural gas reserve is so gung ho to enrich uranium and won't let the UN inspect? The Iranian president boasted today how they will have 1000's of enrichement cetrifuges going today. I'll lay off the 9/11 stuff, I've already posted my debunking where it belongs on that other board.

I'm sure they'd like to export their largest natural resource in order to support their econemy. I'm sure you're familiar with opportunity cost. If they burned their oil and gas internally, they would miss out on the revenue from exporting them. Besides, even conservative estimates say that oil will be exhausted in roughly 100 years. What idiot would put the future of their econemy on a good that has a shelf life that short? Oh wait...

Back in August 2005, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. That's Iranian law.

This is the same type of situation that lead up to the failed Iraq war: the US makes bogus claims about how a country on the other side of the world that coincedentally has very valuable natural resources is a danger to us, so we have to go and stop them! Well guess what, there is still NO proof that the Iranians are persuing nuclear weapons, and plenty of proof that they are seeking nuclear power, which isn't just 100% legal, it's also very smart.

Nimetic · 04-13-2006, 03:25 PM

I agree. There is no proof. There rarely is in life.

But we also need to look at the context. After Afghanistan and Iraq, which are of course quite different situations, there is some skepticism out there.

In the context of proof vs Iraq, the nuclear deal with India, the situation with NK, and the ownership of nuclear weapons by the US - I would be looking for a consistent moral argument to come from Washington, before in any way supporting action.

And I think that's got to be true for many others around the world (and probably locally in the states?).

I don't like the idea of a nuclear armed Iran, but I think that if the US bombs Iran - it'll piss enough people off that new enemies will rise to take their place. At some point, you'll find that you can't attack them all.

Knight Dragon · 04-16-2006, 06:54 PM

When we invaded Grenada, many people hadn't heard of that country and thought we made up a plan and then carried it out. Actually, we already had a plan on the shelf, dusted it off, updated it and executed it.

We have plans for every possible contingency.

As someone pointed out earlier, having attack plans is not the same as planning to attack. When the military is not at war, it is preparing for it in terms of planning and training.

I don't think we will attack Iran immediately. I think we will see the whole sequence of diplomacy, UN sanctions, etc unfold before there's any real military action unless the Iranians do something so monumentally stupid that we have no choice but to attack. Read that to mean any terrorist act that is tied to Iran. I'm not sure the Iranian leadership understands that.

As for the recent rhetoric coming from Iran, that's just the way they talk. It truly is. We're dealing with the culture that originated The Tales of the Arabian Nights. The language is imbedded with colorful adjectives and adverbs meant to emphasize and exaggerate meanings; it is not to be taken literally. The problem is that our culture often overreacts to such hyperbole and rhetoric, especially when it comes from the Iranian leadership.

Elphaba · 04-17-2006, 09:23 AM

Richard Clark is very familiar with previous confrontations with Iran and has been critical of Bush's push for war with Iraq. I find his analysis in the following article very disturbing.

Hosted by Truthout

Quote:

Bombs That Would Backfire
By Richard Clarke and Steven Simon
The New York Times

Sunday 16 April 2006

White House spokesmen have played down press reports that the Pentagon has accelerated planning to bomb Iran. We would like to believe that the administration is not intent on starting another war, because a conflict with Iran could be even more damaging to our interests than the current struggle in Iraq has been. A brief look at history shows why.

Reports by the journalist Seymour Hersh and others suggest that the United States is contemplating bombing a dozen or more nuclear sites, many of them buried, around Iran. In the event, scores of air bases, radar installations and land missiles would also be hit to suppress air defenses. Navy bases and coastal missile sites would be struck to prevent Iranian retaliation against the American fleet and Persian Gulf shipping. Iran's long-range missile installations could also be targets of the initial American air campaign.

These contingencies seem familiar to us because we faced a similar situation as National Security Council staff members in the mid-1990's. American frustrations with Iran were growing, and in early 1996 the House speaker, Newt Gingrich, publicly called for the overthrow of the Iranian government. He and the C.I.A. put together an $18 million package to undertake it.

The Iranian legislature responded with a $20 million initiative for its intelligence organizations to counter American influence in the region. Iranian agents began casing American embassies and other targets around the world. In June 1996, the Qods Force, the covert-action arm of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, arranged the bombing of an apartment building used by our Air Force in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans.

At that point, the Clinton administration and the Pentagon considered a bombing campaign. But after long debate, the highest levels of the military could not forecast a way in which things would end favorably for the United States.

While the full scope of what America did do remains classified, published reports suggest that the United States responded with a chilling threat to the Tehran government and conducted a global operation that immobilized Iran's intelligence service. Iranian terrorism against the United States ceased.

In essence, both sides looked down the road of conflict and chose to avoid further hostilities. And then the election of the reformist Mohammad Khatami as president of Iran in 1997 gave Washington and Tehran the cover they needed to walk back from the precipice.

Now, as in the mid-90's, any United States bombing campaign would simply begin a multi-move, escalatory process. Iran could respond three ways. First, it could attack Persian Gulf oil facilities and tankers - as it did in the mid-1980's - which could cause oil prices to spike above $80 dollars a barrel.

Second and more likely, Iran could use its terrorist network to strike American targets around the world, including inside the United States. Iran has forces at its command that are far superior to anything Al Qaeda was ever able to field. The Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah has a global reach, and has served in the past as an instrument of Iran. We might hope that Hezbollah, now a political party, would decide that it has too much to lose by joining a war against the United States. But this would be a dangerous bet.

Third, Iran is in a position to make our situation in Iraq far more difficult than it already is. The Badr Brigade and other Shiite militias in Iraq could launch a more deadly campaign against British and American troops. There is every reason to believe that Iran has such a retaliatory shock wave planned and ready.

No matter how Iran responded, the question that would face American planners would be, "What's our next move?" How do we achieve so-called escalation dominance, the condition in which the other side fears responding because they know that the next round of American attacks would be too lethal for the regime to survive?

Bloodied by Iranian retaliation, President Bush would most likely authorize wider and more intensive bombing. Non-military Iranian government targets would probably be struck in a vain hope that the Iranian people would seize the opportunity to overthrow the government. More likely, the American war against Iran would guarantee the regime decades more of control.

So how would bombing Iran serve American interests? In over a decade of looking at the question, no one has ever been able to provide a persuasive answer. The president assures us he will seek a diplomatic solution to the Iranian crisis. And there is a role for threats of force to back up diplomacy and help concentrate the minds of our allies. But the current level of activity in the Pentagon suggests more than just standard contingency planning or tactical saber-rattling.

The parallels to the run-up to to war with Iraq are all too striking: remember that in May 2002 President Bush declared that there was "no war plan on my desk" despite having actually spent months working on detailed plans for the Iraq invasion. Congress did not ask the hard questions then. It must not permit the administration to launch another war whose outcome cannot be known, or worse, known all too well.

--------

Richard Clarke and Steven Simon were, respectively, national coordinator for security and counterterrorism and senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council.

host · 04-24-2006, 10:48 AM

My last post on this thread involved Robert Joseph, the man responsible for the infamous "sixteen words" in Bush's January, 2003 SOTU address, ("Iraq...obtain uranium from Africa...blah...blah").

Of course, in the upside down, neocon world, Robert Joseph was promoted for helping Bush mislead America into a costly and avoidable Iraq war, and to trigger the Plame investigation, which has already led to the indictment of Cheney's COS, Scooter Libby, and now seems about to ensnare Karl Rove...

Here's a well documented background diary;
<a href="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:vBpndLlbZR0J:www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/9/61415/59497+Alan+Foley+%22robert+joseph%22+%22sixteen+words%22+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9">Nukes: The Hail Mary in the Bush Team's Playbook</a>
on Robert Joseph, and here are his latest lies...designed to justify more contrived war....this time in Iran. It is "hard work" to find and groom new liars to shill for this outlaw U.S. administration's new war ambitions. It's funny and pathetic to watch as they trot out previously exposed liars...retread "con men" to pitch their unfounded, fear mongering....

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/23/iran.nuclear/
Iran: Nuclear program is 'irreversible'
U.S. lawmakers say intelligence information is lacking

Sunday, April 23, 2006; Posted: 11:17 p.m. EDT (03:17 GMT)

.........Senior officials from the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council met Wednesday and failed to agree on imposing sanctions against Iran.

As part of what Burns said would be an intensified period of diplomacy on Iran, the group will meet again on May 2 in Paris.

The G-8 group of industrialized countries is also expected to focus on the Iran issue at its July summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, he said.

Robert Joseph, the State Department's top arms control official, said that Iran has "both feet on the accelerator" in its nuclear development.

He was referring to Ahmadinejad's claims of uranium enrichment at its Natanz facility in concentrations he said were capable of running a nuclear power plant -- a level far below that needed for a nuclear weapon..........

Quote:

Rumsfeld casts doubt on estimate of Iran's nuclear progress
By Jonathan S. Landay
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The State Department's top arms control official charged Friday that Iran is speeding up its efforts to master the process of enriching uranium on an industrial scale and may be close to surmounting all of the technological barriers.

"We are very close to that point of no return," said Robert Joseph, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. ......

.......... Joseph's comments coincided with the Pentagon's release of an interview transcript in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said that he has no confidence in the current U.S. intelligence estimate that Iran is at least five years away from having a nuclear weapon.

The remarks by Rumsfeld and Joseph underscored concerns within the top ranks of the Bush administration that Iran is overcoming the most complex technological hurdles to enrichment faster than anticipated, bringing the nation closer to producing weapons. .........

......... Some U.S. officials and independent experts question last week's Iranian claim and believe that Iran is still years away from building a nuclear warhead.

"We believe that it is still a number of years off before they are likely to have enough fissile material to assemble into or to put into a nuclear weapon, perhaps into the next decade," Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte said Thursday during a speech in Washington. .......

Does anyone believe that Robert Joseph is a "truth teller"? This is a "groundhog day", "Op", just like the one "served up", three yearsx ago to discredit intelligence estimates that turned out to be accurate, concerning Iraqi WMD.

Are we going to let cheerleader Robert Joseph, lead us into another unnecessary war? What does Robert Joseph's job promotion and his return to the pre-Iran war, propaganda "limelight", after his key role in guiding Bush to utter the "sixteen words", which misled the American people, and falsely bolstered justification for attacking Iraq....say about the folks who promoted him, and allow him to speak for this administration, now?

Mojo_PeiPei · 04-24-2006, 11:43 AM

What is true about Iran is that as a country they have been THE state which has sponsored attacks against America, Beirut, Khobar Towers, and Involvement in 9/11 (something which has not been publically an issue).

As for their nuclear endeavors they have been enriching Uranium for 25 years; they claim they have successfully done it to 3.5% a number that is significantly lower than what is necessary for a nuclear weapon. In reality soil samples around Iran were found at much high levels, Iran claims that it was due to contaminated material which they had purchased, from Pakistan or namely Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist who was caught for selling nuclear technology, nuclear materials, and nuclear weaponry outlines to Libya, he has been implicated in dealings with Iran, two people underneath him were arrested for the same charges. Throw in several inconsistencies within their programs, for example underground enrichment facilities that pop up out of nowhere. All of this is just the tip of the iceberg, I'm too lazy at this minute to bring up all the other inconsistencies regarding the situation, I figured these few will provide an ample picture of why it is such an issue.

As it goes in any practical sense Diplomacy will fail because the IAEA is a joke, Russia and China will not support any legit action that might accomplish reining Iran in, and Iran will probably just end up removing itself from any treaty that will prevent it from going forward.

I'm omitting a big list of grievances as it relates to Iran's involvement in Iraq, somethign that is rather significant because they are actively working against America there. As a country I think Iran should've been the country that we went in and took out, but as it goes now I don't know if America would support another war, even if it were justified.

Ustwo · 04-24-2006, 11:44 AM

So host, good buddy, do YOU think Iran is pushing their nuclear program forward and telling the free world to fuck off because they are looking for civilian power?

Oh and nice KOS link, that gives me the greenlight to use LGF

roachboy · 04-24-2006, 12:31 PM

what is true about the united states at the moment is that you have an administration in power that is plumbing new depths in terms of collapsing public support.
what is true about the united states is that the republicans are in serious danger of losing control of congress in the midterm elections, which will no doubt spell disaster for the bush squad.
what is true about the bush administration is that it has squandered any crediblity that it might have had, particularly in a situation like this because it is clear that they are trying to set up a reversion to form-- doctoring intel to suit its political purposes--with one result being that even if the claims about iran are true, this administration is not in a position to do anything about them.
what seems also to be true is that the political situation facing these people is dire enough that nothing short of another war would work to enable it to regain traction--which of course simply plays directly into the circle outlined above.
this administration has backed itself into a thoroughly untenable corner. such are the wages of a wholesale squandering of credibility.

what is true about iran is that it is as logical a target for arbitrary assertions of american imperial illusions as was iraq, this as a function of the revolution itself.
what is true about iran is that the americans have systematically demonized the country since 1979. this has created a readymade idoeological context that i see the administration trying to figure out ways to exploit for its own purposes.
what is also true about iran is that its present administration acts in ways that are the mirror image of the bush administration----what is true about iran and the united states is that the present administrations in both places appear to be hoping to gain some degree of legitimacy by playing chicken with each other.

i think that host's post above poses real problems. i do not see anything approaching a coherent counter to it from either mojo or ustwo.

at least mojo's is coherent, however: it attempts to shift the problems onto different terrain than they really are, in that he would prefer to bracket the disaster that is the bush administration, the entire internal political logic that makes it a real and present danger to all of us, and think instead, for some reason, that the questionable intel on iran's nuclear program is accurate (i do not see the basis for this) and then to outline an argument for unilateral american action based on a series of arbitrary (to my mind) assertions about organizations like the iaec. these assertions are arbitrary even if you take the iraq war as an example--what was faulty was not the iaec's assessment of iraqi nuclear capabilities----rather what was faulty turned out to be was positions like his that rooted themselves in a level of credulity with reference to bushclaims that those claims obviuosly did not merit.

normally i am not interested in what arthur schlesinger has to say, but the edito from this morning's washington post speaks to these same issues and seems to me germaine:

Quote:

Bush's Thousand Days

By Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
Monday, April 24, 2006; A17

The Hundred Days is indelibly associated with Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the Thousand Days with John F. Kennedy. But as of this week, a thousand days remain of President Bush's last term -- days filled with ominous preparations for and dark rumors of a preventive war against Iran.

The issue of preventive war as a presidential prerogative is hardly new. In February 1848 Rep. Abraham Lincoln explained his opposition to the Mexican War: "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure [emphasis added]. . . . If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us'; but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.' "

This is precisely how George W. Bush sees his presidential prerogative: Be silent; I see it, if you don't . However, both Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, veterans of the First World War, explicitly ruled out preventive war against Joseph Stalin's attempt to dominate Europe. And in the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962, President Kennedy, himself a hero of the Second World War, rejected the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a preventive strike against the Soviet Union in Cuba.

It was lucky that JFK was determined to get the missiles out peacefully, because only decades later did we discover that the Soviet forces in Cuba had tactical nuclear weapons and orders to use them to repel a U.S. invasion. This would have meant a nuclear exchange. Instead, JFK used his own thousand days to give the American University speech, a powerful plea to Americans as well as to Russians to reexamine "our own attitude -- as individuals and as a nation -- for our attitude is as essential as theirs." This was followed by the limited test ban treaty. It was compatible with the George Kennan formula -- containment plus deterrence -- that worked effectively to avoid a nuclear clash.

The Cuban missile crisis was not only the most dangerous moment of the Cold War. It was the most dangerous moment in all human history. Never before had two contending powers possessed between them the technical capacity to destroy the planet. Had there been exponents of preventive war in the White House, there probably would have been nuclear war. It is certain that nuclear weapons will be used again. Henry Adams, the most brilliant of American historians, wrote during our Civil War, "Some day science shall have the existence of mankind in its power, and the human race shall commit suicide by blowing up the world."

But our Cold War presidents kept to the Kennan formula of containment plus deterrence, and we won the Cold War without escalating it into a nuclear war. Enter George W. Bush as the great exponent of preventive war. In 2003, owing to the collapse of the Democratic opposition, Bush shifted the base of American foreign policy from containment-deterrence to presidential preventive war: Be silent; I see it, if you don't. Observers describe Bush as "messianic" in his conviction that he is fulfilling the divine purpose. But, as Lincoln observed in his second inaugural address, "The Almighty has His own purposes."

There stretch ahead for Bush a thousand days of his own. He might use them to start the third Bush war: the Afghan war (justified), the Iraq war (based on fantasy, deception and self-deception), the Iran war (also fantasy, deception and self-deception). There is no more dangerous thing for a democracy than a foreign policy based on presidential preventive war.

Maybe President Bush, who seems a humane man, might be moved by daily sorrows of death and destruction to forgo solo preventive war and return to cooperation with other countries in the interest of collective security. Abraham Lincoln would rejoice.

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042301014.html

04-10-2006, 09:31 PM	#1 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	Do you think the US has a plan to attack Iran? Bush says we don't: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060411/..._pr_wh/us_iran I'm not sure. It does seem like we were making it up as we went along in Iraq. But, I would hope that the military budget would cover something like creating a strategy. If we have a plan to attack Canada, I would hope they could draft something up. http://www.glasnost.de/hist/usa/1935invasion.html Yes, there are a few definitions of the word 'plan'. I have nothing against the Iranian people. I'm not a big fan of them getting nuclear weapons, though I doubt they would use one. I bet if one did go off in the region, there would be conspiracy theorists saying that the US/Israel blew it up and blamed it on Iran. And then their leader is a little messed up, but you almost have to be to lead a country.

04-10-2006, 11:45 PM	#3 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I believe there will be issues with Iran. The more we discuss it, the more Bush denies it and laughs it off, the more nervous and defensive Iran will become. Eventually, it we find a peace.will have to reach a point where we either attack, they attack or a peace is found at the last minute. My feeling has always been we'llantagonize and maybe "accidently" cross their border which will cause them to "strike first" and thus we will have "reason" to go in. But then again, Iran maybe prepared for that and not easily fall into that trap. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

04-11-2006, 03:53 AM	#4 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	I'm sure there is a "plan" - whether it is one that is being actively contemplated for implementation is another matter. I doubt it. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

04-11-2006, 04:18 AM	#5 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	I'll reference my post in host's Helen Thomas thread. Having plans to attack someone isn't the same as planning to attack them. I'm sure we've got plans to attack Iran - I'm not yet convinced we're planning to attack them. Of course, hindsight on our plans to attack Iraq do lead me to wonder... __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

04-11-2006, 04:21 AM	#6 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I would be shocked if they didn't have a plan to attack Iran. Hell, I'd be shocked if they didn't have a plan to attack Canada... Now don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting they are going to attack either nation but isn't that the military's job? To plan for any possibility. The real question is, as highthief suggests, is are these plans being actively considered at this moment. I'd say that, as far as Iran is concerned they are keeping their options open. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

04-10-2006, 10:02 PM	#2 (permalink)
Anexkahn Crazy Location: whOregon	i dont know... it seems this whole thing is getting blown pretty big by people and alot of it seems to be paranoia for the most part. I'm personally not overly worried, but then again i dont consider myself much of a politically minded person. I'm quite certain there is a plan in place to use force against iran, whether or not the US is currently planning on using it in the near future is more the question.

04-11-2006, 04:43 AM	#7 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I'd venture to say that pretty much every option is under consideration now. Unfortunately (as discussed on the Helen Thomas thread), that seems to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. The administration has publicly stated that that particular option is not off the table. Opening any sort of campaign against Iran (including the air-only option) would most likely result in a battlefield roughly 2000 miles by 500 miles stretching from Jordan's eastern border to Pakistan's western one. If we were lucky, the Iranians would only respond in a conventional way (i.e. with ground or air forces), but most likely they would use their contacts within Hamas and similar organizations to declare open warfare on Americans where ever we can be found. I don't think that the US military is prepared to be fighting 3 spearate campaigns along with our other obligations around the world. I completely agree that nuclear-armed Iranians are a seriously bad idea, but so is any sort of US or Israeli attack (see Helen Thomas thread for more on that). __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-11-2006, 08:11 AM	#8 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	http://blog.washingtonpost.com/world...ol_1.html#more the idea is obviously being floated. no way to know if it is being seriously entertained---the link above is to a range of international press reponses to the floating proposal/threat, from this morning's washington post. the article is full of links, so i'll leave it this way. i think this idea is profoundly misguided. particularly the tactical nuke option. i find the idea that the americans are considering a first-strike use of a nuclear weapon to be unbelievable. particularly when the considerations are taking place in the context of an administration, the incompetence of which in terms of planning for actual contingencies (rather than planning for only what they want to see, what they wish for) is self-evident. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-11-2006, 12:46 PM	#9 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	..... plan? the US govt does not budget for these ..."Plans" you speak of seriously, though, i am about 99% certain that the gov't has considered going into iran, either voluntarily or involuntarily. i just HOPE they put more effort into this 'plan" than they did into the "plan" to go into Iraq. __________________ Live. Chris

04-11-2006, 12:48 PM	#10 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Paq... the plan to go into Iraq was genius. The problem was the plan for getting out of Iraq. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

04-11-2006, 01:08 PM	#11 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	I can almost guarentee there is a plan to attack Iran. I can also almost guarentee that there are plans to attack Saudi Arabia, France, Canada, Switzerland, and the Vatican. If not, our tax dollars are being sorely misspent, as we should be prepared for any contingency. Not to say we would USE any of these plans, but how many people 20 years ago thought that between then and now we would have fought two wars with Iraq? There should ALWAYS be a plan, whether there is a real need in the present or not. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

04-11-2006, 01:13 PM	#12 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	charlatan...maybe my idea of a "plan" is different..i kinda expect a beginning, middle and end...not, "we go in...we're hailed as liberators, and we leave a democracy in place" that is not a "plan" imho wish it worked that way, though... __________________ Live. Chris

04-11-2006, 04:01 PM	#13 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Seymour Hersh appears to be one of the sources of the "wild speculation" concerning a military intervention in Iran. Decide for yourself: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040906Y.shtml

04-12-2006, 10:29 AM	#14 (permalink)
wolf Ravenous Location: Right Behind You	I have no doubt they have a plan to attack Iran. Heck any country which may pose any sort of threat to us, even if it's an imaginary threat in George Bush's head, will have a plan of attack if not cemented than certainly in the works. I have a theory, once Bush is out of office, Bin Laden will be caught in a matter of months. When the Saudis get all pissed off, Bush can look up from his latest hooked on phonics book and say "Wasn't me..." then give one of those big shit eating grins he likes to give; then go right back to learning how not to end a sentence with a preposition. __________________ Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as Gods. Cats have never forgotten this.

04-12-2006, 12:58 PM	#16 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	If we didn't have a plan, GWB would not be doing his job as president. Iran is a threat, as such it is the governments job to figure out how to elminate that threat, including a military plan. Now the real question should be does the U.S. plan to attack Iran. That I would have to say is no, the American people have been demoralized by the constant attacks on the Iraq invasion by the left and their press-allies long enough that it has crippled our ability to react militarily to any conflict. This also shows how the whole 'weapons of mass destruction' doesn't really matter to the left. Saddam did or didn't have them depending on who you want to believe, but they were not found, hense we had 'no reason' to invade Iraq to the leftist mind (not that it mattered then). Now Iran, an equally wack job nation is openly working on building nuclear weapons, and that doesn't matter to them either. I'm not sure what matters to them beyond self-loathing and blaming republicans for all the worlds problems. Imaginary plots by GWB are high on their minds, terrorist supporting nations building nuclear weapons, not so high. I don't understand it. That being said the administration MUST look as if it is willing to use military force if there is any hope of a negotiated solution. The toothless EU has been worthless in this, now we need to pretend we are still willing to use our teeth. Pediction:Our posturing will fail, Iran is run by assholes not idiots. Hope: Israel __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

04-12-2006, 01:15 PM	#18 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	There is no proof that Iran is a nuclear threat and there is proof to the contrary. Until we see proof (not just the claim that there is proof), I will not support any action against them. Using nuclear weapons is wrong, and using nuclear weapons to prevent people from getting nuclear weapons is the worst kind of insane.

04-12-2006, 02:48 PM	#21 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	There is no need to take this to a personal level gentlemen....no need at all __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

04-12-2006, 03:05 PM	#22 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	My main concern is that we will continue to utilize the military instead of having multilateral talks with mutual allies. IF we are in any kind of danger from Iran (which remains to be seen), we should seek a peaceful resolution. We all know what happened the last time we tried to preemptively strike a potential threat. We don't have a good track record with going into a country that hasn't attacked us first. There is a solution to this problem that will be to a benifit to the American people and the Iranian people. That solution isn't the solution that the current US administration is seeking, though. I doubt it is the solution that the Iranian government is seeking, also. If only one of these governments were run of the people, by the people, and for the people.

04-12-2006, 03:14 PM	#23 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Isn't Iran party to the nuke non-proliferation treaty? THerefore shouldn't any argument in which they end up with Nuclear Weapons be moot? It's funny the double standard in application of Global will and this so called "International law" to America vs. A terrorist state with a total nutbar as their leader with the worst kind of repressive government supporting him. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-12-2006, 04:18 PM	#26 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Agreed, but since India doesn't seem to have any alliances with known Anti-American Anti-Israel Anti-West terrorist organizations, isn't a culture where America is professed as the Great Satan, and led by a leader who is convinced he is to usher in Armageddon with Nulcear War against Israel, I think I'll let it side until something pressing arises from the situation __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

04-12-2006, 04:48 PM	#27 (permalink)
hunnychile Alien Anthropologist Location: Between Boredom and Nirvana	....does the Pope wear a beanie? Yes, of course the US does have a plan in place and it's unfolding even as I type this message..... __________________ "I need compassion, understanding and chocolate." - NJB

04-13-2006, 03:25 PM	#33 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	I agree. There is no proof. There rarely is in life. But we also need to look at the context. After Afghanistan and Iraq, which are of course quite different situations, there is some skepticism out there. In the context of proof vs Iraq, the nuclear deal with India, the situation with NK, and the ownership of nuclear weapons by the US - I would be looking for a consistent moral argument to come from Washington, before in any way supporting action. And I think that's got to be true for many others around the world (and probably locally in the states?). I don't like the idea of a nuclear armed Iran, but I think that if the US bombs Iran - it'll piss enough people off that new enemies will rise to take their place. At some point, you'll find that you can't attack them all.

04-16-2006, 06:54 PM	#34 (permalink)
Knight Dragon Upright	When we invaded Grenada, many people hadn't heard of that country and thought we made up a plan and then carried it out. Actually, we already had a plan on the shelf, dusted it off, updated it and executed it. We have plans for every possible contingency. As someone pointed out earlier, having attack plans is not the same as planning to attack. When the military is not at war, it is preparing for it in terms of planning and training. I don't think we will attack Iran immediately. I think we will see the whole sequence of diplomacy, UN sanctions, etc unfold before there's any real military action unless the Iranians do something so monumentally stupid that we have no choice but to attack. Read that to mean any terrorist act that is tied to Iran. I'm not sure the Iranian leadership understands that. As for the recent rhetoric coming from Iran, that's just the way they talk. It truly is. We're dealing with the culture that originated The Tales of the Arabian Nights. The language is imbedded with colorful adjectives and adverbs meant to emphasize and exaggerate meanings; it is not to be taken literally. The problem is that our culture often overreacts to such hyperbole and rhetoric, especially when it comes from the Iranian leadership.

04-24-2006, 11:43 AM	#37 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	What is true about Iran is that as a country they have been THE state which has sponsored attacks against America, Beirut, Khobar Towers, and Involvement in 9/11 (something which has not been publically an issue). As for their nuclear endeavors they have been enriching Uranium for 25 years; they claim they have successfully done it to 3.5% a number that is significantly lower than what is necessary for a nuclear weapon. In reality soil samples around Iran were found at much high levels, Iran claims that it was due to contaminated material which they had purchased, from Pakistan or namely Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist who was caught for selling nuclear technology, nuclear materials, and nuclear weaponry outlines to Libya, he has been implicated in dealings with Iran, two people underneath him were arrested for the same charges. Throw in several inconsistencies within their programs, for example underground enrichment facilities that pop up out of nowhere. All of this is just the tip of the iceberg, I'm too lazy at this minute to bring up all the other inconsistencies regarding the situation, I figured these few will provide an ample picture of why it is such an issue. As it goes in any practical sense Diplomacy will fail because the IAEA is a joke, Russia and China will not support any legit action that might accomplish reining Iran in, and Iran will probably just end up removing itself from any treaty that will prevent it from going forward. I'm omitting a big list of grievances as it relates to Iran's involvement in Iraq, somethign that is rather significant because they are actively working against America there. As a country I think Iran should've been the country that we went in and took out, but as it goes now I don't know if America would support another war, even if it were justified. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 04-24-2006 at 11:46 AM..

04-24-2006, 11:44 AM	#38 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	So host, good buddy, do YOU think Iran is pushing their nuclear program forward and telling the free world to fuck off because they are looking for civilian power? Oh and nice KOS link, that gives me the greenlight to use LGF __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.