DescentBB

There's more confirmation that an attack on Iran is coming and it's from a Daily Kos diary of all places:

I have a friend who is an LSO on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of Hormuz. (LSO: Landing Signal Officer- she directs carrier aircraft while landing) She told me we are going to attack Iran. She said that all the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished. That means that all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth.

...

\"We’re not stupid. Most of the members of the fleet read well enough to know what is going on world-wise. We also realize that anyone who has any doubts is in danger of having a long military career yanked out from under them. Keep in mind that most of the people I serve with are happy to be a part of the global war on terror. It’s just that the touch points are what we see since we are the ones out here who are supposedly implementing this grand strategy. But when you liason with administration officials who don’t know that Iranians don’t speak Arabic and have no idea what Iranians live like, then you start having second thoughts about whether these Administration officials are even competent.\"

I asked her about the attack, how limited and so forth.

\"I don’t think it’s limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning every damn Tomahawk we have in inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden, like thousands of targets. I believe that no American will know when it happens until after it happens. And whatever the consequences, whatever the consequences, they will have to be lived with. I am sure if my father knew I was telling someone in a news organization that we were about to launch a supposedly secret attack that it would be treason. But something inside me tells me to tell it anyway.\"

...

She had to hang up. She left by telling me that she believes the attack is a done deal. \"It’s only a matter of time before their orders come and they will be sent to station and told to go to Red Alert. She said they were already practicing traps, FARP and FAST.\" (Trapping is the act of catching the tension wires when landing on the carrier, FARP is Fleet Air Combat Maneuvering Readiness Program- practice dogfighting- and FAST is Fleet Air Superiority Training).

She seemed lost. The first time in my life I have ever heard her sound off rhythm, or unsure of why she is doing something. She knows that there is something rotten in the Naval Command and she, like many of her associates are just hoping that the election brings in someone new, some new situation, or something.

\"Yes. We're gong to hit Iran, bigtime. Whatever political discussion that are going in is window dressing and perhaps even a red herring. I see what's going on below deck here in the hangars and weapons bays. And I have a sick feeling about how it's all going to turn out.\"

The parts I skipped are the ones where the diarist's friend questions why the US should be attacking Iran at all. To me, at least, the answer seems obvious: Because if Iran is not stopped now it's going to harm US interests. And not 'just' Israel.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:32 PM

-----------------

I'm just wondering how this will play out. Iran's leadership may have collapsed from within, but it would have taken more time than the US or Israel were willing to wait. What worries me is that the Russians have been trying to establish new bases in Syria and Iran has some loose ties with Russia as a weapons client state. Will Vladimir Putin do something when Iran and, most probably, Syria are drawn into this? Putin has been very reckless and bold in his recent behavior (although many of you would argue that Bush has been far more reckless) in power- openly assasinating people outside of his own country and seizing whatever he sees fit to take (oil resources, the arctic ocean floor, on and on.) Putin has restored nuclear bomber patrols that haven't been in operation for 15 years or so and has been threatening to respond to the west's missle shield.

Any ideas?

Hearsay.

Dubya has been spoiling for a fight with Iran ever since they stopped accepting payment for their oil in U.S. Dollars. Saddam Hussien comitted the same sin.

From the Sunday Times online: Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran

Kyouryuu wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:...

Heresay.

i wouldn't even give it that respect.

I'd be surprised if the pentagon hasn't had a plan to attack Iran in the last 30 years.

Oh, they have plans for all sorts of stuff like that. Every government does. It doesn't mean they INTEND on using them.

weeeelllll

Every government that really matters does. If we (New Zealand) have that kind of thing I would be surprised...

If you have any doubts look up some information on NZ's military and compare it to Australia, China or the US.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem

LOL.

So long as you're quoting Daily Kos:

Kos himself wrote:Don't believe everything you read on the internets
by kos
Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 12:59:12 PM PDT

Seriously, just because something online confirms your own viewpoint or prejudices or whatnot, it does not mean it's true.

Skepticism is a virtue.

Now the right-wingers are laughing at the gullibility of those who recommend Maccabee's diaries.

And they are quite justified in doing so.

"Maccabee's diaries" are what TB quoted above, as you can see in the LGF screenshot.

I dunno if anyone thought of this, but has anyone thought of the consequences of doing such a rash act would be?

Ferno wrote:has anyone thought of the consequences of doing such a rash act would be?

Invading Iran has consequences?

...











.
.
.
.
.
really?

...















.
.
.
.
.
I'm going to have to think on that a bit more.
...















OK, how's this:
yes, I'm sure the relevant military planning types have thought about the consequences of invading Iran. I'm sure their plans are incomplete, as all battle plans are (the battle plan never survives contact with the enemy.) I personally think I have a decent idea of what the consequences would be, given my estimation of what the battle plan would be, but of course without being "in" on the battle plan, the best I can do is guess.

But, I don't think this specific statement of an impending attack is remotely credible, so regardless of the actual consequences, I'm going to laugh at this Kos diarist.

Consequence might be that Iran will not have nuclear weapons?

Ho-hum ... just another fear-mongering thread ...

Ho-hum x2.

woodchip wrote:Consequence might be that Iran will not have nuclear weapons?

If you believe that, then I have some of saddam's 'nooklear' bombs to sell you.

More ho-hum fear mongering: Phase III of Bush's war.

Somehow, I don't find nukes in the hands of mullahs, or religious fanatics, comforting. And yes, even though I see you guys looking at the bright side, I am still worried.

Bettina

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:Consequence might be that Iran will not have nuclear weapons?

If you believe that, then I have some of saddam's 'nooklear' bombs to sell you.

3000 centrifuges so they can make all the fuel they need for bombs or to power reactors. Ummm...why the centrifuges when the UN offered to supply their reactor fuel?

woodchip wrote:3000 centrifuges so they can make all the fuel they need for bombs or to power reactors. Ummm...why the centrifuges when the UN offered to supply their reactor fuel?

Pride?

woodchip wrote:Ummm...why the centrifuges when the UN offered to supply their reactor fuel?

So they can hide their true intent. To build Nuclear weapons for the mullahs.

Bee

There is certainly some noise about that lately..

Bet51987 wrote:Somehow, I don't find nukes in the hands of mullahs, or religious fanatics, comforting.

And the Bee in Iran would say she doesn't find nukes in the hands of the USA very comforting either. Doesn't make it right, but stop pretending nuclear fear works in one direction.

Kyouryuu wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Somehow, I don't find nukes in the hands of mullahs, or religious fanatics, comforting.

And the Bee in Iran would say she doesn't find nukes in the hands of the USA very comforting either. Doesn't make it right, but stop pretending nuclear fear works in one direction.

Yeah, looking at it from the other people's perspective puts a different spin on it. We're waaay bigger, got much more money, and carry a lot of waaay bigger sticks... so what do we do? We try to tell them they can't have even a medium sized stick. It just ain't fair. ... and we all trust that we'll always use those big sticks for the right reasons. (uh, right)

I'm not saying it's OK for them to get nukes. NOBODY should have nukes. Our problem is that we already have nukes (so many that we have to destroy the extras) and therefore can't go back ... so we try to be the good neighbor and say (in so many political actions) .. "don't make our mistake by making nukes".

... somehow it just seems a bit ... wrong.

woodchip wrote:
3000 centrifuges so they can make all the fuel they need for bombs or to power reactors. Ummm...why the centrifuges when the UN offered to supply their reactor fuel?

"why should I buy fuel when I can make my own?"


hey.. can anyone name the country that used nuclear weapons on a civilian population? anyone?

woodchip wrote:3000 centrifuges so they can make all the fuel they need for bombs or to power reactors. Ummm...why the centrifuges when the UN offered to supply their reactor fuel?

You of all people should recognize the value of being independent from other countries' help.

AFAIK, access to unlimited energy was one of THE important promise Ahmadinejad made to his people. Think about it: imagine your fridge, your computer and your TV works only a few hours a day, can't use the machines you want in your factory, you might not even be able to cook your water before drinking it. See for instance here about how lack of electricity affects Iraq, with the power grid being online only 6 hours a day even in Baghdad.

Unlimited electricity is THE one factor that enables progress and economical growth in a developing country --- and now the West walks up to you and says: sorry you can't have that, you could use it for "evil intents". For Iranian eyes, this must look like a cheap excuse to prevent them from becoming truly independent economy.

Cheap excuse? I'm sorry but didn't the president of that country swear to obliterate another country?

Ferno, the US did in a time of horrendous war. I don't see any global wars where Iran is involved, but I know that there are plenty of people in there that would like to set off nukes indiscriminately in a few dozen other countries. No one in this country has any desire to drop a nuke just because we don't like them.

None of these nutjob Arab countries should have even the slightest ability for nuclear weapons, because the second they do, they WILL use them.

Pandora, isn't Iran a very oil-rich nation? How much oil does Iraq have under it's sand? Nuclear generation of electricity hardly seems necessary, does it? There's no reason that either country should ever not have electricity. Well there is now that we blew up most of one of them. The fact they didn't have it to start with is because their leader squandered all the money on himself and let the people rot.

Testiculese wrote:sn't Iran a very oil-rich nation? How much oil does Iraq have under it's sand? Nuclear generation of electricity hardly seems necessary, does it?

Oh come on. Getting electricity from oil is much harder. There is a reason why oil only contributes only about 3% to the U.S. electricity supply. Add to that that a growing economy needs all the power it can get, that oil is a finite resource, and that much of the countries economy depends on exporting it --- can you then not understand it that they want to go nuclear like all the other wealthy nations?

The US burns a few million tons of coal to generate electricity, no need to burn oil.

Why can't they burn oil to power generators? Why can't they use the untold billions they've pissed away on improving infrastructure, and setting up better ways to generate electricity?

If they go nuclear, do you know where the reactor waste is going to go? I do. New York. Philadelphia. London. Sydney.

Testiculese wrote:Cheap excuse? I'm sorry but didn't the president of that country swear to obliterate another country?

Ferno, the US did in a time of horrendous war. I don't see any global wars where Iran is involved, but I know that there are plenty of people in there that would like to set off nukes indiscriminately in a few dozen other countries. No one in this country has any desire to drop a nuke just because we don't like them.

Ding! but you forgot the most important part. Japan was ready to surrender before the two nukes were dropped.

None of these nutjob Arab countries should have even the slightest ability for nuclear weapons, because the second they do, they WILL use them.

Pandora, isn't Iran a very oil-rich nation? How much oil does Iraq have under it's sand? Nuclear generation of electricity hardly seems necessary, does it? There's no reason that either country should ever not have electricity. Well there is now that we blew up most of one of them. The fact they didn't have it to start with is because their leader squandered all the money on himself and let the people rot.

you've watched too many movies

On the subject of the bombs used against Japan, the first bomb was a slight bit reasonable because the Japanese started the war against America without giving a fair warning, and the war had dragged on much too long.
But the second bomb was just outrageous! They didn't even give the Japanese a chance to properly considering surrendering first!

TechPro wrote:Our problem is that we already have nukes (so many that we have to destroy the extras) and therefore can't go back ... so we try to be the good neighbor and say (in so many political actions) .. "don't make our mistake by making nukes".

No... no.
You can go back and disassemble the bomb, just like South Africa did! There isn't really anything stopping you aside from your own fear and greed.
And you're not just saing "don't make our mistakes". You're quite distinctly cutting off an entire country from badly needed electricity, because you think they might use it as a weapon; dispite the fact that the only country to ever use a nuclear bomb outside of testing and demonstrations was your own country, and dispite that their country knows well enough that if they were to attack, they would get horribly destroyed instantly!

Skyalmian wrote:

Testiculese wrote:Cheap excuse? I'm sorry but didn't the president of that country swear to obliterate another country?

Are you referring to his "wiped off the map" comment in reference to Israel? He never said that, only the LameStreamMedia did.

I need more proof than an antiwar web site. According to Al-Jazeera...he said just that, quoting the ayatollah.

Kyouryuu wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Somehow, I don't find nukes in the hands of mullahs, or religious fanatics, comforting.

And the Bee in Iran would say she doesn't find nukes in the hands of the USA very comforting either. Doesn't make it right, but stop pretending nuclear fear works in one direction.

Where did I pretend? The only thing you said was that there are two frightened "Bees" only this Bee doesn't want the next nuke blast to have the approval of Allah.

Ferno wrote:you've watched too many movies

And you sound overly complacent like the people who fail to see warning signs. I wish I could take that stance, but I can't.

Bee

TIGERassault wrote:On the subject of the bombs used against Japan, the first bomb was a slight bit reasonable because the Japanese started the war against America without giving a fair warning, and the war had dragged on much too long.
But the second bomb was just outrageous! They didn't even give the Japanese a chance to properly considering surrendering first!

I find your statement outrageous. We killed thousands of women, children, and babies that had nothing to do with the war and no justification or excuse of how many allied soldiers were saved is ever going to cut it for me. We purposely bombed civilians and I found it sickening.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:I find your statement outrageous. We killed thousands of women, children, and babies that had nothing to do with the war and no justification or excuse of how many allied soldiers were saved is ever going to cut it for me. We purposely bombed civilians and I found it sickening.

Bee

Agreed, the intentional targeting of civilian areas in WWII (not just the atom bombs, but the fire-bombing of Tokyo and Dresden) is plain inconscionable, and I sincerely hope it never happens again.
This is a concern to me when it comes to something like this; I think some politicians would claim that an attack on a power like Iran would warrant the use of nuclear weapons.

Disclaimer: I don't believe the US is going to attack Iran anytime soon; the powerful in this country have too much to lose politically and economically.

Bet51987 wrote:Where did I pretend? The only thing you said was that there are two frightened "Bees" only this Bee doesn't want the next nuke blast to have the approval of Allah.

Ok, I'm just gonna ask this first: how many gods do you believe in? I would have thought you only would have believed in the christian god if any, but now you believe in Allah too?

Bet51987 wrote:I find your statement outrageous. We killed thousands of women, children, and babies that had nothing to do with the war and no justification or excuse of how many allied soldiers were saved is ever going to cut it for me. We purposely bombed civilians and I found it sickening.

So, invading an entire country that wasn't attaking you is okay because...
Oh right, because they're religious! How could I forget that...

TIGERassault wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Where did I pretend? The only thing you said was that there are two frightened "Bees" only this Bee doesn't want the next nuke blast to have the approval of Allah.

Ok, I'm just gonna ask this first: how many gods do you believe in? I would have thought you only would have believed in the christian god if any, but now you believe in Allah too?

Tiger, come on. You know enough to know Bet is making a point about religious extremists with the power of a nuclear weapon, not professing a belief in Allah.

Foil wrote:Tiger, come on. You know enough to know Bet is making a point about religious extremists with the power of a nuclear weapon, not professing a belief in Allah.

I'm like the grammar version of Mobius!

Bet51987 wrote:

Skyalmian wrote:

Testiculese wrote:Cheap excuse? I'm sorry but didn't the president of that country swear to obliterate another country?

Are you referring to his "wiped off the map" comment in reference to Israel? He never said that, only the LameStreamMedia did.

I need more proof than an antiwar web site. According to Al-Jazeera...he said just that, quoting the ayatollah.

is right, it was Ahamamdfhasdadad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ah ... .22_speech
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/ar ... veId=15816

Might as well pitch in my thoughts and get wiped off the descentbb by both sides of the argument.

Ahmafdsad will never get rid of his nukes on his own because he believes that we are the evil ones, and that we are the evil opressors. In technical terms, we shouldn't be telling him to disarm, because that is unfair that we get nukes, and he doesn't. However, the reason we don't want him to have nukes is that he is a NUTJOB who will use it.

It's like passing a gun around a group of six people. One of them is a mentally unstable psycho. To be fair, you should let him hold the gun, but if he does he could blow you away faster than Paris Hilton in the bedroom.

Should we invade his country and take down his government: Yes. Unlike Iraq, he is not only a dictator but a nutjob who does support terrorism and actually has/is developing a WMD.

Is it reasonable: No. We are already stretched thin as it is. We had to shift focus to Iraq, and Al-Queda is moving into Afganistan again. We couldn't do another nation-building thing while we can't do two others.

I wouldn't mind some cruisemissiles headed toward any place that is making WMD's however.

I wouldn't mind some cruisemissiles [from every country in the world, not just the US] headed toward any place that is making WMD's however.

I think that would be a more fair statement.