Attack on Iran

[Scott]

YouTube - Webster Tarpley (Part 1 - 50 Mins.) Air date: 09-14-07

I've always thought the US wouldn't attack Iran because Russia and China would probably get involved and they knew they'd be biting off more than they could chew. This video made me wonder though.

[PatrickHenry]

There are forces we aren't aware of.

Pro-war and anti-war.

It all depends on who is winning the chess game.

[Milton Bradley]

Hmmm, very interesting link.


I'd heard of Web before, but I had no idea we had so much common ground. I agree on a wide range of topics including 9/11, Neocons, and the potential that they will attack us again, the banking institutions, the Democrats, and Republicans, the state of finances in the US.


Certainly a lot being talked about in part one. Going to finish this up later, and comment further.

[Ibn_Sina]

Iran thinks it is Israel that may strike her first... for obvious reasons. Israel has a better excuse (wiping off the map thang) and her president is not under as much pressure as Bush.

[Scott]

When we talk about Iran we have to keep the big picture in mind.

These articles explain the details of how the US put the shah in power and why.
Iran 1953 KH
Overthrowing the government of Iran

These videos talk about why we really want to go into Iran.
War and Globalization - The Truth Behind September 11 (9/11)
The Petro Dollar, Iraq, Oil and Bush

This guy does a good job of explaining things.
Michel Chossudovsky: War Propaganda
Michel Chossudovsky: Fabricating an Enemy

Enter "Iran" in this search engine for more good stuff.
ht://Dig WWW Search

media, American ignorance, foreign policy Iraq, Iran, & the Vanishing Context in American News by Anthony DiMaggio
Oil, Geopolitics, and the Coming War with Iran by Michael T. Klare

Here's part two of the video in the first post.
YouTube - Webster Tarpley (Part 2- 10 min.) - Air date: 09-14-07

[PatrickHenry]

Chossudovsky's site is my home page, Scott.

[Scott]

Chossudovsky seems to know what's going on. He implies that 9/11 was an inside job but I've never seen him say it directly. I think these anti-establishment pundits are afraid to say what they think about 9/11. Their grandchildren might start having "Accidents", if they go too far. It's just a theory. What do you think?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Don't you think even mentioning that you know the government has perpatrated the biggest cover up of a crime in history is more than enough to earn you and your entire family a one way ticket to "accidentville" If I'm the government, I've killed pretty much everyone in a position to find out by now.

[PatrickHenry]

Michel Chossudovsky is Canadian and resides in Canada.

Of course, Uncle Sam has a long arm...

[Gods_Mercenary]

Yah, god forbid those CIA agents cross the border.

[kharmajunkie]

So Ahmajenajad was involved in taking the hostages at our Embassy in 79; how about we have a judge swear out a warrant for his arrest and take him into custody for kidnapping, conspiracy, etc. for his part in it. He's on American soil and, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't an Embassy considered sovereign to whatever nation it represents? So he committed crimes on American soil and I don't think there's a statute of limitations on kidnapping and I don't remember how many if any were killed but obviously there's no statute of limitations on murder. I keep hearing about how our current administration is tough on terror, I want to see them prove it because I don't believe it. In fact, I think they're the opposite, a cowardly bunch that only fights (sends others to fight) when it fits their agenda. I believe he's in NY right now, or later this week. Someone tell me where I'm wrong on this.

[Keith Hamburger]

So, I went on a search for Sunfire missiles in Iran to do a reply to the "invade Canada" thread. Interestingly, less than a year ago, I was able to find a number of articles on these weapons, but, today, pretty much nothing.

As I understand, a Sunfire missile, is a Russian design that our navy is virtually defenseless against. One missile can take out any ship within a couple hundred miles. Iran has a large number of these missiles, purchased from the Russians.

The moral of this story is, if we were to attempt to invade Iran, all of our naval ships in the Persian Gulf, and nearby, would be destroyed. One wrong move on our part that even implies an act of war against Iran would result in the loss of a significant portion of our naval forces.

If anyone can find anything on these weapons, it would be greatly appreciated. I would hate to be accused of being paranoid for such references having disappeared from the interweb, but things are looking quite strange in this regard.

Keith

[The Decider]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger So, I went on a search for Sunfire missiles in Iran to do a reply to the "invade Canada" thread. Interestingly, less than a year ago, I was able to find a number of articles on these weapons, but, today, pretty much nothing. As I understand, a Sunfire missile, is a Russian design that our navy is virtually defenseless against. One missile can take out any ship within a couple hundred miles. Iran has a large number of these missiles, purchased from the Russians. The moral of this story is, if we were to attempt to invade Iran, all of our naval ships in the Persian Gulf, and nearby, would be destroyed. One wrong move on our part that even implies an act of war against Iran would result in the loss of a significant portion of our naval forces. If anyone can find anything on these weapons, it would be greatly appreciated. I would hate to be accused of being paranoid for such references having disappeared from the interweb, but things are looking quite strange in this regard. Keith

The Russian "Sunburn" anti-ship missile did, for a while, pose a significant threat to the US Navy. Apparently, the threat was "neutralized" in 2003 by the SeaRAM anti-missile defense system.

Still, Iran doesn't need cutting edge technology to inflict grievous harm on US interests. Medium range shore-to-ship missiles, like the Iranian built C-802 used successfully by Hezbollah against the Israeli Navy last year, are relatively low-tech and inexpensive options for Iran. Just the threat of such an attack would halt Persian Gulf oil shipping indefinitely. If we attack Iran, crude oil prices will skyrocket to (perhaps) $100 per barrel or more. If the American government decides that it can live with such an economic hit, war with Iran may indeed happen. It will make the Iraq debacle look like a stroke of genius.

Russian "Sunburn" anti-ship missle threat neutralized...
Defense Tech: Hezbollah's Surprise Weapons

[DebaterU]

Iraq was a typo.

[bishop]

jesus christ... someone needs to give that host/moderator guy a hot cup of shut the f... up. these continuous interruptions make it impossible for me to follow along.

edit: alright.. he eventually shuts up. not sure how much credence i'd give to this guy, although it'd be interesting to do a fact check on what he's saying.

[bishop]

well, there is definitely something to the story.. (i've been convinced for some time that the establishment is going to attack iran anyways.)

Not Just A Last Resort?

Global strike has become one of the core missions for the Omaha-based Strategic Command, or Stratcom. Once, Stratcom oversaw only the nation's nuclear forces; now it has responsibility for overseeing a global strike plan with both conventional and nuclear options. President Bush spelled out the definition of "full-spectrum" global strike in a January 2003 classified directive, describing it as "a capability to deliver rapid, extended range, precision kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations) effects in support of theater and national objectives." This blurring of the nuclear/conventional line, wittingly or unwittingly, could heighten the risk that the nuclear option will be used. Exhibit A may be the Stratcom contingency plan for dealing with "imminent" threats from countries such as North Korea or Iran, formally known as CONPLAN 8022-02. CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posits a small-scale operation and no "boots on the ground." The typical war plan encompasses an amalgam of forces -- air, ground, sea -- and takes into account the logistics and political dimensions needed to sustain those forces in protracted operations. All these elements generally require significant lead time to be effective. (Existing Pentagon war plans, developed for specific regions or "theaters," are essentially defensive responses to invasions or attacks. The global strike plan is offensive, triggered by the perception of an imminent threat and carried out by presidential order.)

embedded in this plan is the option to use nuclear weapons in an offensive capacity.

and, it'd be particularly interesting to hear what nspd 35 entails - and whether/not it has anything to do with the fact that we seem to be deploying nuclear weapons..

B-52 mistakenly flies with nukes aboard - Military News, news from Iraq, photos, reports from the war - Military Times

A B-52 bomber mistakenly loaded with six nuclear warheads flew from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., on Aug. 30, resulting in an Air Force-wide investigation, according to three officers who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the incident.

barksdale is a major staging area for forces going off to the middle east..

[bishop]

listened to both parts... this guy's all over the place.

good info on the first part about iran, but he seems out to lunch with the rest of his sermon - with these incessant tangents.

[xyzer]

I fidgeted through several minutes of this nonsense and agree with bishop...the moderator wouldn't shut up and the interviewee was talking in unproven opinions? He may be qualified as a local dog catcher but thats the extent?

What Cheney Doctrine? The one this guy invented to use?
The US is shipping unclear weapons to the middle east? So they can be fired a a few hundred miles or directed at a US population center to start a nuclear war?? Really, what happened to our long rang missile capability? Where are these nuclear weapons being stored in the middle east? What country is involved in our hidden nuke weapons conspiracy?
This conspiracy rot is so way out as to be over the edge! Sure there are contingency plans for just about any area of the world and any given situation. Thats what the Joint Chiefs of Staff and their staffs are doing on a full time basis.

Balderfdash and nonsense!

That said I would agree with the use of military force against Iran if it continues to use military force to kill US troops in Iraq! I think if Iraq continues threatening Israel and attempting to build nuclear devices to use on Israel..the Israelis will bomb Iranian sites just as they recently bombed Syrian stockpiles!

[Osborn F Enready]

xyzer said: That said I would agree with the use of military force against Iran if it continues to use military force to kill US troops in Iraq!

Do you have any proof this has happened?

Are you talking about Iran supposedly shipping arms to people fighting the U.S. in Iraq?

[bishop]

not to mention that the IAEA is working closely with iran, and has stated in the past that their program appears to be for civilian purposes only.

the IAEA's issuing a report in october, that may very well be exactly what the bush administration doesn't want to hear. i wonder if they'll try to preempt the report, or simply ignore it. i believe the latter's more likely the case.

Quote by: xyzer That said I would agree with the use of military force against Iran if it continues to use military force to kill US troops in Iraq!

don't worry, just rejoice that a war with iran is inevitable, regardless of whatever reasons" are given.. :rolleyes: