Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Telegraph : US Plans For Attack Of Irans's Sites  
User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2414 times:

Following an article in the Daily Telegraph ,the US Strategic Aircommand is setting up detailed plans to destroy Iran's nuclear sites.
Since it appears the news have been leaked intentionally,it might be targeted as last attempt to oblige Tehran to accept a settled and diplomatic solution.
Should that fail,the US would strike by nthemselves,since the UK are extremely reluctant to support any further military action in the Middle East,that could spark a major revolution among the british muslim comunity.
Muslims in the USA seem far less well organized and better integrated into the US society ,so ther would be no danger of any major domestic unrest within the USA.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portal/2006/02/12/ixportaltop.html


Please respect animals - don't eat them...
31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMSYtristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2406 times:

Well, just my opinion, but this is pretty stupid if you ask me.

Who knows if the report is valid, but the concept of attacking Iran is foolish at best at this point in time. I don't see Iran invading other countries. Sure their president has made some pretty idiotic remarks as of late, but you know, if they want nuclear power, let them have it. I doubt they're stupid enough to actually go on the offensive and start WW3.

Who's next Bush?


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2406 times:

I submit that this isn't news . . . in that I'll make a solid wager right now these "plans" have been in place for a very long time.

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
Since it appears the news have been leaked intentionally,it might be targeted as last attempt to oblige Tehran to accept a settled and diplomatic solution.
Should that fail,the US would strike by nthemselves,since the UK are extremely reluctant to support any further military action in the Middle East,that could spark a major revolution among the british muslim comunity.
Muslims in the USA seem far less well organized and better integrated into the US society ,so ther would be no danger of any major domestic unrest within the USA.

Of course, all of the section of your post I just quoted is supposition on your part . . . not part of the article I just read . . . . you probably ought to make that indication . . . you know your opinion, rather than a fact.

Quoting MSYtristar (Reply 1):
I don't see Iran invading other countries.

Doesn't prevent them from blowing them to hell and back with a nuclear weapon . . . delivered via missile or covertly.

[Edited 2006-02-12 14:57:23]

User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2399 times:

Lets see the evidence of Irans nuclear weapons program that so far has been sorely lacking. Any attack without proven and reliable evidence is simply putting more bad light onto the US and its allies.

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26812 posts, RR: 75
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2399 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 2):
Doesn't prevent them from blowing them to hell and back with a nuclear weapon . . . delivered via missile or covertly.

Like he said, Iran has not been shown to be an aggressor nation.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2396 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 4):
Like he said, Iran has not been shown to be an aggressor nation.

No, my friend, what he said is . . . .

Quoting MSYtristar (Reply 1):
I don't see Iran invading other countries.

There is a difference between invading another country and being an aggressor.

I don't see them invading either. I'm not convinced they aren't an aggressor.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26812 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2390 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 5):
There is a difference between invading another country and being an aggressor.

I don't see them invading either. I'm not convinced they aren't an aggressor.

Aggressor nations do the invading. They start the wars. Iraq has been an aggressor nation. The US has been an aggressor nation. Germany has been an aggressor nation. Israel has been an aggressor nation. Iran has been the victim of aggression multiple times but not the aggressor in this century



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2384 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 2):
Of course, all of the section of your post I just quoted is supposition on your part . . . not part of the article I just read . . . . you probably ought to make that indication . . . you know your opinion, rather than a fact.

Correct ! Just an opinion of mine -but forums are meant to display opinions in addition to pure facts and figures.
Situation quite odd with Iran,in that the madman in Tehran seems immune to all reasonable attempts to come back to normal ,inernational community standards.
Iran with nukes is a quite frightening situation and not really comparable with Israel as a nuclear power. Israel-despite all critics - is a democracy with educated leaders.
And those leaders have -so far-shown restraint as to the use of their nuke-muscle.(This has nothing to do with the way the deal with the Palestinians..)
There is though an element where Russia can play a role as to the provisioning to Iran of nuclear fuel for pure civil nuclear-electric applications.
One can not refuse the use of nuclear technology for civil use under supervision of the IAO in Vienna.Should those attempts by Moscow fail- well it's the sole responsibility of the "chosen leader" in Tehran to cope with the west's reaction...

[Edited 2006-02-12 15:15:25]

[Edited 2006-02-12 15:16:20]


Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2384 times:

Semantics.


Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 2):
Doesn't prevent them from blowing them to hell and back with a nuclear weapon . . . delivered via missile or covertly.

Iran's hard-line president accused the United States and Europe of being "hostages of Zionism" and said they should pay a heavy price for the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad that have triggered worldwide protests.

that Israel should be "wiped off the map."


http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/arti...53709990003&ncid=NWS00010000000001

Sounds "aggressive" to me.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2365 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 8):
Sounds "aggressive" to me.

Sounds less agressive than attacking multiple countries in 5 years, and threatening others.

Infact, those quotes sound about equally agressive as Bush did in multiple speeches to Congress and other groups regarding Iraq befor ethe 2003 invasion.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2352 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 9):
.

Well, Richard, I don't see any desire to do anything with Israel visa vi Iran. No rebuilding, no change of government, no nothing - except . . .

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 8):
that Israel should be "wiped off the map."

Helluva difference there . . . .


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26812 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2346 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 8):
Sounds "aggressive" to me.

Except that, once again, Ahmadinejad has no power to carry out any of that, Rafsanjani (the one you should take seriously) has said that Iran would never be so stupid as to do something like that and once again show me where Iran has invaded/attacked militarily a sovereign nation.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2326 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 4):
Like he said, Iran has not been shown to be an aggressor nation.

Is this a joke?

Ahmadinejad - the President, leader of the government and hence someone with power - said Israel should be 'wiped off the map', and called the Holocaust 'a myth'.

After saying this, Iran has gone on to end voluntary co-operation with the IAEA.

Iran isn't Iraq. Despite the vast majority of Iranians being pretty moderate, and having vastly differing and more pro-Western views than the Arab world, a country with such a volatile and aggressive leadership should not be allowed nuclear weapons. The burden of proof is solely upon Iran to show that they're not making nuclear weapons - refusing to co-operate with the IAEA, combined with the usual anti-Israel/anti-West nonsense doesn't exactly look good.

Let's be pragmatic about it. A country that wants a soverign nation 'wiped off the map' simply because of the religion of its citizens should not have nuclear weapons. If Iran doesn't comply with the IAEA, the UN and the international community, then the world - not just the US - has to take a stand.

Surely, N1120A, you agree that if the proper actions are acomplished through the UN, that a NATO/UN force is appropriate to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons? As long as the consequencies are made clear to the Iranian government, and as long as the Iranian government continues to ignore the international community and specifically the IAEA, then the threat of action is most definately justified.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2318 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 2):
I submit that this isn't news . . . in that I'll make a solid wager right now these "plans" have been in place for a very long time.

There's no doubt of this. The Pentagon is always updating and modifying plan for any kind of military action. It's not uncommon for "war games" to be set up inside the Pentagon to devise possible strategy in case of a conflict almost anywhere. This isn't news. It's called "just in case" planning, nothing else.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 12):
Quoting N1120A (Reply 4):
Like he said, Iran has not been shown to be an aggressor nation.

Is this a joke?

Ahmadinejad - the President, leader of the government and hence someone with power - said Israel should be 'wiped off the map', and called the Holocaust 'a myth'.

Exactly. That's being aggressive.


User currently offlineNWOrientDC10 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1404 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2297 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
Should that fail,the US would strike by nthemselves,since the UK are extremely reluctant to support any further military action in the Middle East,that could spark a major revolution among the british muslim comunity.

If it comes to this, I can't help but wonder if France would join the US in such an operation.


http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,396282,00.html

Russell



Things aren't always as they seem
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26812 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2287 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 12):
Ahmadinejad - the President, leader of the government and hence someone with power - said Israel should be 'wiped off the map', and called the Holocaust 'a myth'.

Apparently you STILL have no idea about the power structure in Iran. Does that teetering 82 year old man who walked arm in arm with Jacques Rogge last night at the Olympics have any power in Italy simply because he has the title "president". No, he doesn't, Silvio Berlusconi is the one who runs that country. Does Horst Koehler have power in Germany? No, Andrea Merkel does. Does Mary McAlesse in Ireland? No, that would be Bertie Ahern. Does Elizabeth II have power in ANY country where she is the monarch (including your own)? Not a single one. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an a$$hole with no tact who knows how to appeal to poor people and is rather accomplished at running a large city. What he is not is the person who runs Iran.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2285 times:

Chirac just tries to make himself more important than he actually is ...
Jaques is close to his retirement and tried to boost his falling index-ratings by rattling the french "force de frappe" tool...
Should France ever consider to nuke any installations in Iran,hell would brake lose among the 4 Million muslims living in France.
There is a widespread consensus in France and Germany that non-nuclear interventions in global security conflicts are supported by the population but that nukes are basically a psychological deterrent .They would only be used in the case of any member-country of NATO being attacked by WMD from any outside force.Classical armor and weapons (bunker-busters ) will get potentially approval by the population in case Iran is becomming a tangibla threat (so far even "experts"- whoever they are - don't think Iran is even close to conceive the building of a nuklear device.)
BUT- there is always the possibility to use one of their long-range missiles to transport a dirty- nuclear device into Israel or southern Nato country territory.



Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2268 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
What he is not is the person who runs Iran.

What this has to do with the majority of my post is beyond me, but nevertheless...

Ali Khameni may be ultimate chief of state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and it can safely be assumed that he has probably ultimate formal or informal control of the nuclear weapons programme. The point is that Ali Khameni always wanted Ahmadinejad to come to power. It must be borne in mind that the presidency was the last position that a reformist held - with Ahmadinejad in power, hardline conservatives hold the chief of state and precidency positions, and are effectively in charge of the executive and legislative branches of the government.

While Ahmadinejad will probably never challenge the Guardian Council, he probably won't have to. Whether he's a puppet of others or not, the fact remains that the government of Iran is supremly hardline, anti-Israel, anti-Western, has pulled out of IAEA co-operation, has a dubious weapons programme, has very poor relations with the West (specifically the EU and the UK, which used to be very pro-Iran) and continues to surpress the media and freespeech.

I don't really get what point you're trying to make. Ahmedinejad may not have ultimate power, but it's clear that those who do share his views.

Are you going to bother to respond to the actual points now?


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2259 times:

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
Following an article in the Daily Telegraph ,the US Strategic Aircommand is setting up detailed plans to destroy Iran's nuclear sites.



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 2):
I submit that this isn't news . . . in that I'll make a solid wager right now these "plans" have been in place for a very long time.

The pentagon has a huge section devoted to drafting plans for various scenarios, and they have been doing this for a hundred years. The department used to be called War Plans, but it's now changed to some bland, non-descriptive bureaucratic name now. The department had been badly decimated during the Clinton administration, but is back to full strength now, again.

I believe it was detailed in the 9/11 Report, that when Bush asked Rumsfeld to pull out the plans for Afghanistan, they saw that they had not been updated since Bush's father was president.

There are even plans for an invasion by the U.S. of Spain, Great Britain, and Canada. Any good military makes such plans.

In fact, in my last year in the Swiss Army, I was involved in a plan to invade northern Italy, under the assumption that Northern Italian seperatists had seceeded from Italy and tried to regain some of their traditional territories in Austria and Switzerland. It was a fun wargame.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29836 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2221 times:

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
the US Strategic Aircommand is setting up detailed plans to destroy Iran's nuclear sites.

I may be crazy and nit-picking, but did anybody else pick up on the fact that SAC was disbanded about 15 years ago.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2214 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 20):
I may be crazy and nit-picking, but did anybody else pick up on the fact that SAC was disbanded about 15 years ago.

Don't you love it when conspiracy theorists get hoisted on their own mistakes?


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2202 times:

"Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt."

The original article does not mention the SAC at all.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2194 times:

This is just a filler piece in a newspaper.

Central Command and Strategic Command planners are identifying targets, assessing weapon-loads and working on logistics for an operation, the Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

This goes on all the time, and not just with Iran. What good would a military plan be if it wasn't updated on a continual basis?

They are reporting to the office of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, as America updates plans for action if the diplomatic offensive fails to thwart the Islamic republic's nuclear bomb ambitions.

Well they certainly wouldn't be reporting to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development!

"This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," said a senior Pentagon adviser. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months."

Well duhhhh, Iran and it's nuclear ambitions have kind of been a focus point lately. I'm sure that Iraq received the same scrutiny in 2002 and Afghanistan before that.

"The Bush administration has recently announced plans to add conventional ballistic missiles to the armoury of its nuclear Trident submarines within the next two years."

This is the only part I don't understand. Why would you go to the trouble to put what would have to be a pretty puny conventional warhead on ballistic missile? That's a lot of money to put not a lot of hurt on your enemy. Why not just use tomahawks with an increased range?

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
Following an article in the Daily Telegraph ,the US Strategic Aircommand is setting up detailed plans to destroy Iran's nuclear sites.

The Strategic Air Command was divided up in 1992. The non nuclear part was absorbed into what is now known as the Air Combat Command. The nuclear portion along with the Navy nuclear components were redesignated as USSSTRATCOM or, Unites States Strategic Command headquartered in the old SAC command center at Offut AFB. There, I just updated your battle plan!  wink 

All I see in this piece is that some (name a business) store backed out of it's ad deal and they had to fill the empty space.


User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2187 times:

U.S.Strategic command or SAC (SAC true-dismantled after the fall of the Berlin wall..) -names of military entities in charge of modelling or planing scenarios are not the importance ...
What is important is not the beating on specific terms or names but the result once those military actions are applied.
As suggested ,Iran like any other nation has the right to develop nuclear technology as long as it is note targeted to be converted into mil.technology.
Basically all european countries and the USA have participated in the early 80's to help Iran build sites like the Bushire plant....

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2006/Iran-US-Nuclear-Program31jan06.htm

There can only be a settled solution with Iran -and-as N1120A previously mentioned,Ahmadinejad has no power whatsoever to convert his rethoric into action.
@Gilligan- I don't need to update my "battleplan" since I don't think any battle will resolve this issue...



Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2184 times:

Beaucaire what does....  wink   wink   wink   wink   wink   wink   wink   wink   wink   wink   wink  mean to you? I stand by my post that this is a filler piece. Nothing here is remotely news.

25 DfwRevolution : This is far more an issue of national soverigenty than an issue of religion. I think the majority of American Muslims recognize that fact and would n
26 N1120A : I responded to EXACTLY the point you made, not just the majority. Try rereading what you wrote, what I quoted and my response and get back to me Actu
27 DC10GUY : This is toooo funny. Dc10guy
28 STT757 : Those Cartoons in the Danish Newspapers are causing more disturbance and up-roar in the Muslim world than any US military actions ever taken against
29 Post contains links Solarix : http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=78985 Tehran (dpa) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday that the Pale
30 PIA777 : I second that opinion. Very stupid. Innocent people always die. PIA777
31 Post contains images ANCFlyer : I'd say it's nice to see you posting again - but that'd be a lie. Just what do you find so humorous??? Expand your thought process a little and think
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The End Of All US Illusions For Iraq: Civil War!? posted Wed Mar 1 2006 10:20:46 by Sabenapilot
Nasty Reminder For All Of Us posted Wed Jan 22 2003 23:08:41 by Mirrodie
Warner Raps Iraqi Government For Lack Of Progress posted Fri Oct 6 2006 10:25:35 by AerospaceFan
US Preparing For War With Iran? posted Thu Sep 28 2006 17:16:10 by Rammstein
Should Israel Pay For Reconstruction Of Lebanon? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 12:35:24 by Tu204
Blog Makes Excuses For Rape Of 14 Year Old Iraqi posted Mon Jul 17 2006 17:22:12 by Clickhappy
Man Arrested For Suspicion Of Rape On Myspace posted Thu Jun 8 2006 03:11:36 by Jetjack74
Top 20 US Cities For Road Rage posted Wed May 17 2006 17:37:08 by DeltaGator
For Fans Of Lost That Know The Ending.. posted Wed May 10 2006 11:40:32 by BHXDTW
TBS Ads For Lord Of The Rings--- Hilarious! posted Thu Apr 6 2006 08:23:25 by STLGph