Bush To Bomb Iran?

[nutzbuster 7]

Heard some pretty well respected (one Dem, one Rep) talking heads today lament/surmise/rumor monger about a possible last act of aggression by Dubya.No specifics obviously, but these guys went on and on about it saying that this story is a well known fear/concern among the political circles. Just prior to Bush's departure, he would authorize a lightening strike of most of Iran's nuclear facilities, using any/all means necessary to take them out.Iran's president, ACK!my dinners bad!, would then retaliate in some manner, HOWEVER, Israel and SUADI ARABIA of all people would join alliances, swoop in, and destroy this assclown before he could get a shot off.Pretty fanciful stuff, and pretty alarming. I have not heard anything credible about this before.Just putting it out there. Probability...possibility....utter madness???Have a nice day.

[Nimue1995 1]

Heard some pretty well respected (one Dem, one Rep) talking heads today lament/surmise/rumor monger about a possible last act of aggression by Dubya.No specifics obviously, but these guys went on and on about it saying that this story is a well known fear/concern among the political circles. Just prior to Bush's departure, he would authorize a lightening strike of most of Iran's nuclear facilities, using any/all means necessary to take them out.Iran's president, ACK!my dinners bad!, would then retaliate in some manner, HOWEVER, Israel and SUADI ARABIA of all people would join alliances, swoop in, and destroy this assclown before he could get a shot off.Pretty fanciful stuff, and pretty alarming. I have not heard anything credible about this before.Just putting it out there. Probability...possibility....utter madness???Have a nice day.

All I can say is this is a horrifying possibility. Talk about leaving your successor with a bigger freaking mess than he already is. I really am starting to think of GW as a little Napoleon.

[kafkapoe 0]

Nuclear bombs have already been dropped and it would be foolish to think it is not going to happen again so it is only a matter of when not if.I had a conversation with a pentagon official off the record where he told me he thought that the next bomb would be dropped in the Kashmir region where clashes have been ongoing between Pakistan and India within 5 years.However, an Israel/Iran/USA triangle seems to be devoloping. Iran would have minimal strike back capabilities and would be put into submission very quickly just like Japan was. The loss of life would be massive and it would send the world into an uproar but it would not create a world war 3 because Iran has no strong allies.Keep in mind that Israel has already carried out a strike on Iraqi nuclear facilities over 25 years ago. So a unilateral strike on such facilities would also not be unprecedented.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Would he have the authority to do this?Surely it would have to get through your congress first.

[kafkapoe 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/3014623.stmHistory lesson for you guys.History always seems to repeat itself.Congressional authority...hahaha...that is so 1800's.1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactorThe Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq's capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. It is the world's first air strike against a nuclear plant. An undisclosed number of F-15 interceptors and F-16 fighter bombers destroyed the Osirak reactor 18 miles south of Baghdad, on the orders of Prime Minister Menachem Begin. The army command said all the Israeli planes returned safely.The 70-megawatt uranium-powered reactor was near completion but had not been stocked with nuclear fuel so there was no danger of a leak, according to sources in the French atomic industry. Mortal danger The Israeli Government explained its reasons for the attack in a statement saying: "The atomic bombs which that reactor was capable of producing whether from enriched uranium or from plutonium, would be of the Hiroshima size. Thus a mortal danger to the people of Israel progressively arose." It acted now because it believed the reactor would be completed shortly - either at the beginning of July or the beginning of September 1981. The Israelis criticised the French and Italians for supplying Iraq with nuclear materials and plegded to defend their territory at all costs. The statement said: "We again call upon them to desist from this horrifying, inhuman deed. Under no circumstances will we allow an enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against our people." The attack took place on a Sunday, they said, to prevent harming the French workers at the site who would have taken the day off. There have been no reported casualties. The Osirak reactor is part of a complex that includes a second, smaller reactor - also French-built - and a Soviet-made test reactor already in use. Iraq denies the reactor was destined to produce nuclear weapons.

[solderz 0]

All I can say is this is a horrifying possibility. Talk about leaving your successor with a bigger freaking mess than he already is. I really am starting to think of GW as a little Napoleon.

Since Napoleon was known for being so tall.

[kafkapoe 0]

Arguments for... Nov 20, 2007 20:47 | Updated Nov 21, 2007 9:44 Fundamentally Freund: Five reasons to bomb Iran nowBy MICHAEL FREUND Print Subscribe E-mail Toolbar Shape public opinion: What's this? Talkbacks for this article: 0 Have America and Israel suddenly gone soft on Iran's nefarious nuclear-weapons program? Despite sanctions and UN Security Council resolutions, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is gleefully pressing forward with his efforts to build a bomb, which Israeli military intelligence now believes he will succeed in doing by 2009. Indeed, just last Friday, the would-be Hitler of Persia boasted about how Teheran had "defied" Western opposition, and was now "moving toward the peaks of success step by step." Yet even as Iran continues to progress down the dangerous road to an atomic arsenal, the tough talk emanating from Washington and Jerusalem in recent months has suddenly and inexplicably melted away. And this should have us all very, very worried. It was just last month that US President George W. Bush declared at an October 17 press conference that, "If you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." Bush's statement was followed four days later by an equally emphatic Vice President Dick Cheney, who told the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions." Now, though, something appears to have changed. Various reports in recent days seem to indicate that US policy may have taken a sharp and terribly treacherous U-turn in the direction of acquiescence. According to the Britain's Sunday Telegraph, the US Defense Department has begun updating its deterrence policy based on the assumption that Iran will obtain nuclear weapons. The paper quoted a Pentagon adviser as saying that while "military strikes [against Iran's nuclear facilities] might set the program back a couple of years… current thinking is that it is just not worth the risks." Similarly, Admiral William Fallon, head of US Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, told the Financial Times last week (Nov. 12) that a preemptive attack against Iranian nuclear installations is not "in the offing." And, as Reuters reported, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is said to have instructed cabinet officials to draft proposals for how to deal with "the day after" Iran obtains the bomb. WHAT IS going on here? Are we really prepared to allow the tyrant of Teheran to threaten our very existence? It is possible, of course, that these reports are merely part of the overall game-plan, and that they are aimed at lulling the Iranians into a false sense of security prior to a surprise attack on their nuclear installations. Alternatively, it might reflect the shifting political realities in the US, where public opinion, goaded on by the mainstream liberal media, has turned against the war in neighboring Iraq. But whatever the reality of the situation is, one thing should be clear: Iran can not and must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. This is not an issue with shades of grey - it is about as black and white as they come. And here are five good reasons why: 1. An Iranian nuclear arsenal would transform the strategic dynamic of the entire Middle East, shifting the balance of power squarely in the direction of radical Shi'ite fundamentalism. An atomic Iran will be able to threaten the region and the world with nuclear blackmail and destruction, and they will use that leverage to further their fanatical and revolutionary aims. 2. A nuclear-armed Iran will pose an existential threat to Israel, and ultimately to the West too. Iranian leaders have repeatedly and explicitly promised to wipe Israel off the map and to strike at the United States. Teheran has been backing up its words with actions by steadily improving its ballistic missile capability. The Shihab-3 missile, with a range of 1,200 km, can hit all of Israel as well as US military targets in the Middle East. Iran is busy developing the Shihab-4, with a range of 2,000 km, that will put parts of Europe within striking distance. Teheran is also striving to build even longer-range intercontinental missiles that can hit the US as well. All of these weapons have the ability to deliver atomic warheads. 3. If Iran goes nuclear, it will inevitably tilt the neighboring Arab states further in the direction of extremism, as they seek to mollify the nuclear-armed ayatollahs. Whatever limited chances there might be of drawing at least some Arab states into the moderate camp are likely to be stymied rather quickly. 4. Failure to take action against Teheran will trigger a region-wide nuclear arms race, as countries throughout the Middle East will seek to achieve strategic and military parity. A number of states, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, have already announced plans to build their own nuclear power plants, and others will undoubtedly do so as well out of fear of being left behind. Permitting Iran to go nuclear essentially paves the way to a Middle East that will be brimming with atomic weapons. 5. If Iran were to develop "the bomb," what is to stop them from putting it into the hands of one of the myriad anti-Israel and anti-American terrorist groups that they support, such as Hizbullah or Islamic Jihad? Do we really want to take a chance that terrorists might at last be able to get their hands on nuclear weapons? This is not some "neocon nightmare scenario" or "warmonger wishful-thinking." It is the cold, hard reality staring us all squarely in the face, unless Washington or Jerusalem takes military action, and soon. CRITICS ARGUE that an attack on Iran would be logistically difficult, politically dangerous, and would result in some very serious consequences. But as former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton told the New York Times (November 9), "The choice is not between the world as it is today and the use of force. The choice is between the use of force and Iran with nuclear weapons." And when looked at in those terms, it becomes quite obvious that there really is no choice at all: the US and/or Israel must bomb Iran. They must act to remove the nuclear sword from the hand of the Persian executioner. And they should do so now - before it is too late.

[kafkapoe 0]

Could be us...Nuclear attack on D.C. a hypothetical disasterBy Gary EmerlingApril 16, 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------A nuclear device detonated near the White House would kill roughly 100,000 people and flatten downtown federal buildings, while the radioactive plume from the explosion would likely spread toward the Capitol and into Southeast D.C., contaminating thousands more.The blast from the 10-kiloton bomb — similar to the bomb dropped over Hiroshima during World War II — would kill up to one in 10 tourists visiting the Washington Monument and send shards of glass flying the length of the National Mall, in a scenario that has become increasingly likely to occur in a major U.S. city in recent years, panel members told a Senate committee yesterday."It's inevitable," said Cham E. Dallas, director of the Institute for Health Management and Mass Destruction Defense at the University of Georgia, who has charted the potential explosion's effect in the District and testified before a hearing of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. "I think it's wistful to think that it won't happen by 20 years."The Senate committee has convened a series of hearings to examine the threat and effects of a terrorist nuclear attack on a U.S. city, as well as the needed response.Yesterday's panel stressed the importance of state and local cooperation with federal authorities in the wake of an attack, assistance from the private business sector to aid recovery and the dire need to boost the capabilities of area hospitals.They recommended expanding emergency personnel by training physicians like pharmacists and dentists to aid in all-hazards care, monitoring the exposure of first responders to radiation and clearly disseminating information to the public."The scenarios we discuss today are very hard for us to contemplate, and so emotionally traumatic and unsettling that it is tempting to push them aside," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent and committee chairman. "However, now is the time to have this difficult conversation, to ask the tough questions, and then to get answers as best we can and take preparatory and preventive action."Ashton B. Carter, co-director of the Preventive Defense Project at Harvard University, said the likelihood of a nuclear attack on U.S. soil is undetermined, but it has increased with the proliferation of weapons by Iran and North Korea and the failure to secure Russia's nuclear arsenal following the Cold War.

[kafkapoe 0]

But looks like it will be them...Source: U.S. Strike on Iran Nearing Monday, April 14, 2008 9:37 PMBy: Jim Meyers Article Font Size Contrary to some claims that the Bush administration will allow diplomacy to handle Iran’s nuclear weapons program, a leading member of America’s Jewish community tells Newsmax that a military strike is not only on the table – but likely. “Israel is preparing for heavy casualties,” the source said, suggesting that although Israel will not take part in the strike, it is expecting to be the target of Iranian retribution. “Look at Dick Cheney’s recent trip through the Middle East as preparation for the U.S. attack,” the source said. Cheney’s hastily arranged 9-day visit to the region, which began on March 16, included stops in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Turkey, and the Palestinian territories. Tensions in the region have been rising. While Israel was conducting the largest homefront military exercises in its history last week, Israel’s National Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer warned Tehran about expected attacks on the Jewish state. “An Iranian attack will prompt a severe reaction from Israel, which will destroy the Iranian nation,” he said. He predicted that in a future war, “hundreds of missiles will rain on Israel,” but added that Iran “is definitely aware of our strength.” In addition to long-range missiles Iran has been developing to strike Israel, Israel’s military strategists see the Iranians using terror groups they back like Hamas operating from Palestine and Hezbollah from Lebanon to launch attacks. Iran has supplied Hezbollah with an arsenal that now contains “tens of thousands of missiles,” according to the Washington Post. Israel’s recent war exercises, including preparations for chemical and biological weapons attacks, drew a sharp response from Syria which held its own military drills. The Syrian government accused Israel of preparing for a war which Damascus predicted would be begin anytime between May 1 and the end of June. Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently told foreign journalists that Israel needs to confront the threat posed by Iran. Privately he has been telling associates his number one priority is have the Israeli military strike Iran if the U.S. is unwilling. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz disclosed that Israel is concerned that North Korea has transferred technology and nuclear materials to Iran to aid Tehran’s secret nuclear weapons program. Iran remains intransigent to international pressure that it offer full transparency relating to its nuclear program. On Sunday the head of Iran’s nuclear program “abruptly canceled a meeting with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, dealing a blow to the U.N. monitor's efforts to investigate allegations that Iran tried to make nuclear arms, an agency official said,” according to an AP report. “But a senior diplomat had told the AP that IAEA [international Atomic Energy Agency] head Mohamed ElBaradei likely planned to use the meeting with Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran's nuclear program, to renew a request for more information on allegations Tehran had tried to make atomic arms.” A number of signs indicate that, contrary to the belief President Bush is a lame duck who will not act before he leaves office, the U.S. is poised to strike before Iran can acquire nuclear weapons and carry out the threat of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to “wipe Israel off the map”: According to intelligence sources, the administration now rejects the National Intelligence Estimate report issued in December that asserted Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in late 2003. The French daily Le Monde reported in March that newly surfaced documents show that Iran has continued developing nuclear weapons. In late 2006, U.S. intelligence reportedly intercepted a phone conversation in Iran’s Defense Ministry in which the nuclear weapons program was discussed. The commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, Admiral William Fallon, resigned in March amid media reports that he broke with President Bush’s strategy on Iran and did not want to be in the chain of command when the order comes down from the President to launch a strike on the Islamic Republic. Democrats suggested he had been forced out because of his candor in opposing Bush’s Iran plans, and Esquire magazine contended that Fallon’s departure signaled that the U.S. is preparing to attack Iran. According to a Tehran-based Iranian news network, Press TV, Saudi Arabia is taking emergency steps in preparing to counter any “radioactive hazards” that may result from an American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Saudi newspaper Okaz disclosed that the Saudi government has approved nuclear fallout preparations, and the Iranian network reported that the approval came a day after Cheney met with the kingdom’s high-ranking officials, further stating that the U.S. “is now informing its Arab allies of a potential war.” The American commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, has stepped up criticism of Iran, telling Congress last week that Iranian support for Shiite militias posed the most serious threat to Iraq’s stability. He told senators : “Iran has fueled the violence in a particularly damaging way.” Last week, the U.S. said Iran was providing insurgents with missiles that were killing Americans and hitting targets within the U.S. occupied Green Zone in Baghdad. MSNBC Commentator Pat Buchanan said Petraeus’ remarks to Congress lay the groundwork for a U.S. attack on Iran. President Bush said in a speech at the White House on April 10 that Iran, along with al-Qaida, are “two of the greatest threats to America.” He said Iran “can live in peace with its neighbors,” or “continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups which are terrorizing the Iraqi people … If Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests and our troops and our Iraqi partners.” He later told ABC News that if Iran continues to help militants in Iraq, “then we’ll deal with them.” Members of Congress are said to have been briefed by the administration about the rising Iran threat. Iran did little to cool tensions when it announced that it had begun installing 6,000 new centrifuges at its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. Centrifuges can enrich uranium to a low level to produce nuclear fuel or a high level for use in weapons. The announcement of the new centrifuges by President Ahmadinejad came on April 8, Iran’s National Day of Nuclear Technology, which marked the second anniversary of Iran’s first enrichment of uranium. Iran already has about 3,000 centrifuges operating in Natanz, and the new announcement was widely seen as a show of defiance to international demands to halt a nuclear program that the U.S. and its allies insist is aimed at building nuclear weapons. © 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

[kafkapoe 0]

And do not be so naive as to think Bush is the key player here.The real question is whether international corporationalists and the foreign lobby will force the bombing of Iran. Bush is a figurehead so go beyond your boring partisan viewpoint on this one.

[Loismustdie 0]

And do not be so naive as to think Bush is the key player here.The real question is whether international corporationalists and the foreign lobby will force the bombing of Iran. Bush is a figurehead so go beyond your boring partisan viewpoint on this one.

But...but...but... that spits in the face of every argument you hear when it comes to exactly why there needs to be a democrat in office this time. Do you mean to tell me that Bush is not SOLELY responsible for the war in Iraq? Are you telling me that it's not entirely up to him? Wait, I am trying to just digest this, this is ROUGH...I suppose you are going to tell me now that a democratic run congress is partly to blame, right? You are going to say that now, I can just hear it. Take your lies elsewhere.

[kafkapoe 0]

I do not want to turn this into a democrat verse republican thing as I am an independent anyway,But anyone that thinks Hillary or Obama is pulling the troops out of Iraq, or even can for that matter, is deluding themselves. We still have troops in Germany, Japan, and Korea. The current democratic surge in congress was created by anti-war rhetoric, yet the democratic led congress has done nothing to end the war in Iraq. Ron Paul was the only guy who was serious about troop withdrawal and the public laughed him out of the race.It is easy to say you are anti-war because everyone in their heart is pro peace. Reality on the ground is another matter. And for you obama messiah people. Look at his recent comments about strike forces and reassessing his position with generals if he is elected. Have half a brain and read between the lines of what that means.

[Canuckickstan 2]

And do not be so naive as to think Bush is the key player here.The real question is whether international corporationalists and the foreign lobby will force the bombing of Iran. Bush is a figurehead so go beyond your boring partisan viewpoint on this one.

That move would be so -AV

[kafkapoe 0]

That move would be so -AV

I have not decided what the AV of action or inaction would be yet. It is an infinitely complex situation.

[Nimue1995 1]

I have not decided what the AV of action or inaction would be yet. It is an infinitely complex situation.

I'm curious about the website(s) you're pulling this information from. I tried to go to NewsMax and McCaffee warned me it was an unsafe site so I didn't go any further with that. And tell me about these writers too. What is their political bent? Can anyone else shed some light on this as well? I've seen too many weird conspiracy websites to trust anything on the internet without some backup proofs.

[kafkapoe 0]

I got these articles from fark.com which is a site like this but news related versus poker related.It is probably one of the top forum sites in the world.And nothing I posted is conspiracy related.Israel has bombed Iraq.There are people that think someone should bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.The USA faces its own nuclear risks.And a war with Iran, maybe just because of their support of militias that are killing US troops alone, seems likely.These are facts and not conspiracies.

[Nimue1995 1]

I got these articles from fark.com which is a site like this but news related versus poker related.It is probably one of the top forum sites in the world.And nothing I posted is conspiracy related.Israel has bombed Iraq.There are people that think someone should bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.The USA faces its own nuclear risks.And a war with Iran, maybe just because of their support of militias that are killing US troops alone, seems likely.These are facts and not conspiracies.

Okay I didn't say it was but I've become a bit suspicious of articles without any attribution posted is all. Been burned too many times. I did try the NewsMax website and my anti-virus programs said it was unsafe which put my radar on alert is all. However just for anyone else's information on Wikipedia, they refer to Newsmax as being: "Christopher W. Ruddy started Newsmax.com on September 16, 1998, supported by a group of conservative investors, including the family of the late CIA Director William J. Casey. Later Richard Mellon Scaife, his former employer at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and a supporter of conservative causes, invested in the fledging company."Therefore we can figure that Newsmax would have a conservative bent. That might not mean anything in the current subject however.

[kafkapoe 0]

I am an independent and feel that the articles I have provided allow for a non-partisan analysis of the situation.If you are unable to set aside your bias from the right or the left in this debate, as most people cannot, there is nothing I can do to assuage such a propensity.

[kafkapoe 0]

I am an independent and feel that the articles I have provided allow for a non-partisan analysis of the situation.If you are unable to set aside your bias from the right or the left in this debate, as most people cannot, there is nothing I can do to assuage such a propensity.

I will even put in an anti-war website for liberals and anti-war activists if you feel that view is not being represented. But I do not see how it affects the facts of the earlier articles.http://www.stopiranwar.com/

[BigLebowski 0]

fark.com

Could be the best website on the intertubes.Will getting involved in another middle eastern conflict have any affect on the psyche of the American people? Should it? If Bush Persian Rug bombs Iran I find it hard to believe some crazy wouldn't find a way to off him.

[Nimue1995 1]

I am an independent and feel that the articles I have provided allow for a non-partisan analysis of the situation.If you are unable to set aside your bias from the right or the left in this debate, as most people cannot, there is nothing I can do to assuage such a propensity.

Again I apologize if I was out of line to question your sources but I still believe in doing so since so many rumors and urban legends and very partisan fringe websites are out there preporting to tell the truth when they couldn't be farther from. From what I read in Wikipedia regarding Fark it seems that it's pretty non-partisan, pissing off both the right and the left which means it's probably right on,lol.

[kafkapoe 0]

Again I apologize if I was out of line to question your sources but I still believe in doing so since so many rumors and urban legends and very partisan fringe websites are out there preporting to tell the truth when they couldn't be farther from. From what I read in Wikipedia regarding Fark it seems that it's pretty non-partisan, pissing off both the right and the left which means it's probably right on,lol.

No need to apologize and you were not out of line. I was just answering your question.By the way, who is that girl in your avatar?

[checkymcfold 0]

the real issue regarding preeemptive strikes isn't whether this country or that country is out to get us. it's about setting a worldwide precedent that would ENTIRELY JUSTIFY countries like iran going after us because we're flexing our muscles at them. how people fail to see that is utterly flabbergasting. whether the US is justified in thinking it runs by its own rules isn't important. other countries don't think we can do that, and could easily use our strike against iraq and our impending one against iran to justify doing something terrible against another nation or the US. not acknowledging this is horribly shortsighted, and i wouldn't be surprised if it leads the world into WW3 at some point in our lifetime.

[kafkapoe 0]

Israel did it in 1981 for the betterment of their nation.You have to ask if we did it ourselves (or if Israel did it again) would it be better for the world to have a nuclear free Iran versus any trouble the strike might cause?You have to do the risk/reward analysis.

[checkymcfold 0]

Israel did it in 1981 for the betterment of their nation.You have to ask if we did it ourselves (or if Israel did it again) would it be better for the world to have a nuclear free Iran versus any trouble the strike might cause?You have to do the risk/reward analysis.

yes, israel has done some ****ed up shit before. the country is also basically constantly at war. go figure.