|
(Nuking Iran) Beating Flea To The Punch; Before September 4th
|
|
Topic Started: Sep 2 2005, 02:14 PM (206 Views)
|
|
The 1 Not Fooled
|
Sep 2 2005, 02:14 PM
Post #1
|
Licensed & Board-certified!
- Posts:
- 6,130
- Group:
- Contributor
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- June 6, 2005
|
This is premature, I know, but let me be the first to say Thank God the Guns of August plans were not carried out. I never “hoped” it would –as Flea claimed – but found it a little too convenient that shortly after we hear about it, Iran is in the news for its nuclear capabilities. Anyways, in the meantime, I'm thinking of seeing if I can't donate some clothes to some of the Katrina victims...
|
|
|
| |
|
flea dip
|
Sep 2 2005, 02:27 PM
Post #2
|
Rock Star From Mars
- Posts:
- 35,793
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- June 2, 2005
|
You've jumped the gun, I was going to be extra generous and wait until Sept 10th or maybe later. - Quote:
-
This is premature, I know, but let me be the first to say Thank God the Guns of August plans were not carried out. Dick Cheney never had any such plans. Lyndon LaRouche had no proof, only his musings.- Quote:
-
I never “hoped” it would –as Flea claimed But it would provide much needed proof for your conspiracy theory... if not proof exactly, it would add a tiny bit of credence to it.
|
|
|
| |
|
flea dip
|
Nov 13 2007, 03:16 AM
Post #3
|
Rock Star From Mars
- Posts:
- 35,793
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- June 2, 2005
|
US Strike at Iran "Not in the Offing" - Nov 12, 2007
US Strike at Iran "Not in the Offing" Rick Moran Admiral William Fallon, head of the US Central Command in the Middle East told the Financial Times that an attack on Iran's nuclear sites was not imminent: “None of this is helped by the continuing stories that just keep going around and around and around that any day now there will be another war which is just not where we want to go,” he said.
“Getting Iranian behaviour to change and finding ways to get them to come to their senses and do that is the real objective. Attacking them as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being not the first choice in my book.”
Adm Fallon did not rule out the possibility of a strike at some point. But his comments served as a shot across the bows of hawks who are arguing for imminent action. They also echoed the views of the senior brass that military action is currently unnecessary, and should only be considered as an absolute last resort. The Times is being just a bit disingenuous above when they say that Fallon's words were a "shot across the bow" of Iran hawks in the administration.
When Fallon refers to "continuing stories that just keep going around and around and around that any day now there will be another war" he is talking about left wing agitprop perpetrated by writers like Seymour Hersh who have been warning of an Iran strike for years.
Prominent left wing blogs and commentators like Keith Olbermann have also been sounding the alarm - and have been for years.
But the point is well made by Fallon.
And the brass at the Pentagon really doesn't want to deal with the fallout from an Iran strike - unless it's absolutely necessary. There are some like retired General John Abizaid who say that we should be prepared to live with a nuclear Iran but that seems to be a minority viewpoint.
At the same time, it appears that Fallon's position is probably a consensus one from the military point of view.
To buttress that point, Defense Secretary Gates has authorized the release of 9 Iranians held on suspicion of aiding elements in Iraq attacking American troops: In another sign that the Pentagon is trying to reduce tensions with Iran, the US military this week released nine Iranians it had been holding in Iraq.
The move came after Robert Gates, defence secretary, confirmed that Tehran had told the Iraqi government it would be willing to stop sending weapons to militias in Iraq.
Speaking to the FT before the release, Adm Fallon said there had “certainly been a downturn” in roadside bomb attacks on US forces, but that the “jury is still out” on whether Iran had reduced its support for militias in Iraq. The military will carry out the orders of the Commander in Chief regardless of their own personal point of view. Their reluctance to engage in war with Iran highlights the fact that they believe it would be a "strategic mistake" to do so.
|
|
|
| |
|
flea dip
|
Dec 13 2008, 12:33 AM
Post #4
|
Rock Star From Mars
- Posts:
- 35,793
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- June 2, 2005
|
Notice that nuking Iran did not happen under G. W. Bush's watch, but it might happen with Obama:
Report: Obama to Offer Israel 'Nuclear Umbrella' Against Iran- U.S. president-elect will offer Israel a strategic pact designed to fend off any nuclear attack on the Jewish state by Iran, an Israeli newspaper reports.
Dec 11, 2008
President-elect Barack Obama will offer Israel a strategic pact designed to fend off any nuclear attack on the Jewish state by Iran, an Israeli newspaper reported on Thursday.
Haaretz, quoting an unnamed source, said the Obama administration would pledge under the proposed "nuclear umbrella" to respond to any Iranian strike on Israel with a "devastating U.S. nuclear response."
Granting Israel a nuclear guarantee would essentially suggest the U.S. is willing to come to terms with a nuclear Iran, the paper reported.
According to the paper's source, Obama's nuclear guarantee would be backed by a new and improved Israeli anti-ballistic missile system. The Bush administration took the first step by deploying an early-warning radar system, which enhances the ability to detect Iranian ballistic missiles.
No immediate comment from Israeli officials or the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv was offered.
Iran denies its nuclear program has military designs. But tough anti-Israel rhetoric from Tehran has spread fears that the Israelis, who are believed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, could attack their arch-foe pre-emptively.
The source, according to Haaretz, noted that the discussion of the possibility of a nuclear Iran undermines efforts to prevent Tehran from acquiring such arms.
A senior Bush administration source reportedly said the nuclear umbrella was ridiculous and lacked credibility.
"Who will convince the citizen in Kansas that the U.S. needs to get mixed up in a nuclear war because Haifa was bombed? And what is the point of an American response, after Israel's cities are destroyed in an Iranian nuclear strike?," he said.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|