Iran Attack Likely

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Talking about it now on CNBC (energy discussion). Most analysts say we have 2 options because China and Russia won't allow sanctions. Either allow Iran to progress with their nuclear programs or attack them with missiles at selected facilities across the country. None of them believe any country will join us in attacking them except possibly Israel.

They predicted as soon as we attack them oil will immediately go to $100 and higher. All said the time this happens is growing ever nearer.

[Mile High Shack]

Talking about it now on CNBC (energy discussion). Most analysts say we have 2 options because China and Russia won't allow sanctions. Either allow Iran to progress with their nuclear programs or attack them with missiles at selected facilities across the country. None of them believe any country will join us in attacking them except possibly Israel.

They predicted as soon as we attack them oil will immediately go to $100 and higher. All said the time this happens is growing ever nearer.

either that or energy analysts need to pay their christmas bills and are trying to articially bump up the price like they usually do

[Bronco_Beerslug]

either that or energy analysts need to pay their christmas bills and are trying to articially bump up the price like they usually do

I don't think they were enjoying the idea we may be attacking yet another country. They all seemed pretty discouraged about the all the possible consequences.

[ak1971]

An interesting read if you have the time.

'The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse'
http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

[Mile High Shack]

I don't think they were enjoying the idea we may be attacking yet another country. They all seemed pretty discouraged about the all the possible consequences.

yeah
LOL

right

making about 75% more profit than they are making now, I'm sure it would break their heart

these energy traders and analysts are generally scum

it has been well documented that during Katrina, a lot of energy traders were heard saying "we are not going to have to work for a whole year after this"

[epicSocialism4tw]

Talking about it now on CNBC (energy discussion). Most analysts say we have 2 options because China and Russia won't allow sanctions. Either allow Iran to progress with their nuclear programs or attack them with missiles at selected facilities across the country. None of them believe any country will join us in attacking them except possibly Israel.

They predicted as soon as we attack them oil will immediately go to $100 and higher. All said the time this happens is growing ever nearer.

This is really frightening. Not just for the oil prices, but for the international consequences. Israel is a lightning rod and could be the cog that involves the rest of the middle east in the fight. Iran is a hope of theirs. Iran holds the nuclear key to an overthrow of the Jews. When all of these other nations get involved, the big boys enter the fray. Enter China. Scary circumstances.

[orangeatheist]

An interesting read if you have the time.

'The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse'
http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Now I'm downright terrified.

****.

I need to go buy a gun.

I need a remote cabin.

[Falconer]

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Now I'm downright terrified.

****.

I need to go buy a gun.

I need a remote cabin.

LOL

[Falconer]

An interesting read if you have the time.

'The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse'
http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

I just sunk all of my liquid assets into gold. Go Iran!

By the way, how much gold does $2.39 buy you?

[Old Dude]

I posted this about three years ago. Some of the predictions were off, some are still in progress.

http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml

[orangeatheist]

By the way, how much gold does $2.39 buy you?

About a gallon. Of bubblin’ crude. Oil that is! Black gold! Texas tea!

[ak1971]

I just sunk all of my liquid assets into gold. Go Iran!

By the way, how much gold does $2.39 buy you?


Just go buy a 40 oz. and sit on the curb at 7-11. Its much more satisfying.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

yeah
LOL

right

making about 75% more profit than they are making now, I'm sure it would break their heart

these energy traders and analysts are generally scum

it has been well documented that during Katrina, a lot of energy traders were heard saying "we are not going to have to work for a whole year after this"

These guys on today aren't traders. They are analysts in financial companies and universities.

[Boobs McGee]

I believe the correct pronounciation of black gold is "earl" for all you southern types

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

They predicted as soon as we attack them oil will immediately go to $100 and higher. All said the time this happens is growing ever nearer.

You can just see the folks who contributed the most to Bush/Cheney licking their chops, huh?

Talk about a return on their investments (read: campaign contributions.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

either that or energy analysts need to pay their christmas bills and are trying to articially bump up the price like they usually do

No doubt.

[SteveTensi13]

We won't attack Iran, Israel will. And if those slant eyes from China try to meddle in we take them out no problemo. They are a paper tiger with an antiquated military.

[ClevelandBronco]

We won't attack Iran, Israel will. And if those slant eyes from China try to meddle in we take them out no problemo. They are a paper tiger with an antiquated military.

I disagree. I think the U.S and British will attack Iran once the Russians throw up their hands in frustration over the Iranians refussal to accept the Russian way out of this mess. The Chinese really won't care one way or the other. Their opposition is just a play for the middle. They're hedging their bets for now. The serious Chinese run at us is still a couple of decades off, IMHO.

If Israel acts at all, her target will more likely be Syria. Israel may use the same opportunity to strike the Palestinian Authority, and if she chooses to act, she will act decisively (again, IMHO).

Pull up a seat. You won't want to miss this one. New maps will be available.

[Spider]

Talking about it now on CNBC (energy discussion). Most analysts say we have 2 options because China and Russia won't allow sanctions. Either allow Iran to progress with their nuclear programs or attack them with missiles at selected facilities across the country. None of them believe any country will join us in attacking them except possibly Israel.

They predicted as soon as we attack them oil will immediately go to $100 and higher. All said the time this happens is growing ever nearer.
Have to watch Russia and China ...........They are already saying the USA wants to dominate the world ............

[SteveTensi13]

Things are definitely heating up. Can't wait for the fireworks!!

[SteveTensi13]

Have to watch Russia and China ...........They are already saying the USA wants to dominate the world ............

You say that like that's a bad thing.

[Spider]

Things are definitely heating up. Can't wait for the fireworks!!
and who is going to pay for this ?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And if those slant eyes from China try to meddle in we take them out no problemo.

More words of wisdom from the neocon brain trust. :dummy:

[TheDave]

And if those slant eyes from China try to meddle in we take them out no problemo. They are a paper tiger with an antiquated military.

Please tell me your no older than 12...I just can't imagine stupidity like that lasting through puberty

US sees China as biggest military threat
By Washington correspondent Kim Landers

The United States has labelled China as its greatest military threat in a new report issued by the Pentagon.The Pentagon has released its strategic blueprint for dealing with anticipated security threats over the next 20 years. It says China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States and "field disruptive military technologies". The report also says the pace and scope of China's military build-up already puts regional military balances at risk, and in response the US will build new long-range weapons.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1562346.htm

China's standing armed force of some 2.8 million active soldiers in uniform is the largest military force in the world. Approximately 1 million reservists and some 15 million militia back them up. With a population of over 1.2 billion people, China also has a potential manpower base of another 200 million males fit for military service available at any time. In addition to this wealth of manpower, China is a nuclear power. It has enough megatonnage, missiles, and bombers to hit the United States, Europe, its Asian neighbors, and Russia.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/chinamil.pdf


Thats sounds like a little more than "No Problemo"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

We won't attack Iran, Israel will.

:stupid:

Based on its known military capabilities, the Israeli Air Force can possibly conduct surgical strikes at 1000 Km plus range, but it is incapable of a sustained air campaign against a full range of targets at such a distance. According to one estimate, there are about 19 alleged nuclear facilities dispersed throughout Iran with no guarantees that this number is definite. It is very difficult to find, in the Iranian nuclear program, one vulnerable point destroying which the Iranian program is stopped or stalled for a long time.

Furthermore, targets that are well-defended, like the Iranian nuclear facilities, have to be attacked by a larger aerial force composed of attack aircraft, interceptors that protect them, and other support elements for e.g. air refueling, electronic countermeasures support, communication, and rescue etc. etc. For a long term effect, therefore, any attempt to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities would necessitate sustainable operations on a relatively large number of targets and over an extended period of time.

Not having aircraft carriers of its own, taking out Iran's nuclear facilities comprehensively would entail Israel conducting its operations from the facilities of a friendly country like Turkey or India. These states also have friendly relationship with Iran and are, therefore, not likely to allow Israel to use their territories for the purpose. That, in turn, would suggest that to have any worth while effects the Israeli attack aircraft would have to take off from air bases in Israel, fly 1,500-1,700 kms to the targets, destroy them, and then fly back the same distance--a daunting prospect for a doubtful outcome.

Secondly, the perceived cost of a violent Iranian reaction may forbid the Israeli leaders from going this course, especially when it is clear that with her limited long range operational prowess only a progress delay in the Iranian nuclear program will be achieved. Iran does have a kind of balance of mutual deterrence with Israel. Groups like the Hezbollah, nurtured and supported by Iran, could be used to attack northern Israeli towns or Israeli interests all over the world. Then, Iran has already developed the long range Shihab series of ballistic missiles giving her the capability to strike directly at targets in Israel's territory.

In a nutshell, the option of getting Israel to attack Iranian installations is difficult because the probability of success is low, the risks are high, and reprisals are certain. Israel could attack only a few Iranian targets and that too not as part of a sustainable operation over time but as a one time surprise action for an unsure result.

That brings us to BushCo's next option of using Israeli effort as a part of a larger American effort. This one is a non-starter. If BushCo undertakes joint preemptive strikes with Israel against Iran, it is sure to reinforce the existing perception in the Muslim world of an anti-Islamic Judeo-Christian conspiracy. Additionally, such an attack, particularly if it did not achieve its planned objectives, would have a destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East--the fountainhead of BushCo's much cherished substance, the oil. It could also lead to further acceleration of the Iranian program and a chain of violent clashes between Iran and Israel, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs.

[footstepsfrom#27]

With a population of over 1.2 billion people, China also has a potential manpower base of another 200 million males fit for military service available at any time. In addition to this wealth of manpower, China is a nuclear power. It has enough megatonnage, missiles, and bombers to hit the United States, Europe, its Asian neighbors, and Russia.
Hmmm, that sounds like the book of Revelation, chapter 9, verse 16...which mentions the exact number of Chinese troops...200 million.
In a nutshell, the option of getting Israel to attack Iranian installations is difficult because the probability of success is low, the risks are high, and reprisals are certain. Israel could attack only a few Iranian targets and that too not as part of a sustainable operation over time but as a one time surprise action for an unsure result.
That sounds exactly like the situation in each of the wars Israel has fought against numerically superior Arab forces in the middle east. None of that stopped them from taking an attack response.

I don't think the US will have to urge Israel to go after the Iranians. I think they'll do it on their own whether we want them to or not.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That sounds exactly like the situation in each of the wars Israel has fought against numerically superior Arab forces in the middle east. None of that stopped them from taking an attack response.

I don't think the US will have to urge Israel to go after the Iranians. I think they'll do it on their own whether we want them to or not.

But they wouldn't be able to have much success without our help (if the objective is to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, etc.)

Herr Chimpenfuhrer is quickly painting himself into a corner: Iran is a major trading partner to both China (our banker) and Russia. No way these two countries support U.S. military action.

[footstepsfrom#27]

But they wouldn't be able to have much success without our help (if the objective is to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, etc.)

Herr Chimpenfuhrer is quickly painting himself into a corner: Iran is a major trading partner to both China (our banker) and Russia. No way these two countries support U.S. military action.
Israel has basically opened up a can of whoopass on the Arabs every time they wanted to start something. That's the best trained military force in the world IMO. They tend to do things premptively also. I don't know if they seek our help but we've said we'd give it if they were attacked. Would we join in an attack? I don't know but I wouldn't bet against it.

The better question is...can WE risk Iran having a nuke? It's not missiles that concern me. It's them sponsoring a suitcase bomber in downtown New York. The middle east is a tinder box and one spark is all it will take.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Israel has basically opened up a can of whoopass on the Arabs every time they wanted to start something. That's the best trained military force in the world IMO. They tend to do things premptively also. I don't know if they seek our help but we've said we'd give it if they were attacked. Would we join in an attack? I don't know but I wouldn't bet against it.

Yes, but Israel doesn't have the capability to wage a sustained, unilateral campaign against Iran where the objective is to take out all of Iran's nuclear facilities.

The better question is...can WE risk Iran having a nuke? It's not missiles that concern me. It's them sponsoring a suitcase bomber in downtown New York. The middle east is a tinder box and one spark is all it will take.

Iran claims its only goal is nuclear power. Is this true? Who knows, but this we do know: Iran welcomed inspections until Bush started up with the cowboy rhetoric and the saber-rattling again.

Meanwhile, in all probability, there are actual nuclear weapons and weapons-grade plutonium from the old Soviet Union floating around out there on the black market.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Another fact I find funny:

If BushCo is really concerned about nuclear proliferation in the ME, then why did it make no effort whatsoever to round up Iraq's WMD and nuclear scientists at the outset of the Iraq invasion?

Not one of these guys was captured, detained, or interrogated.

[Bronx33]

Ohhhh what suprise, Iran doesn't follow the rules.

VIENNA, Austria - The International Atomic Energy Agency reported Iran to the U.N. Security Council on Saturday over fears it wants to produce nuclear arms, raising the stakes in the diplomatic confrontation and prompting Tehran to threaten immediate retaliation.

Of the board's 35 member nations, 27 voted for referral, reflecting more than two years of intense lobbying by the United States and its allies _ and growing concerns about Iran's true nuclear aims.

Washington critics Cuba, Venezuela and Syria voted against referral, and the other five nations abstained.

Still, the near consensus came at a price for Washington. Long an advocate of firm Security Council action against Iran, including possible political and economic sanctions, the Americans had to settle for what is essentially symbolic referral, for now.

After years of opposition, Russia and China backed the referral last week, bringing support from other nations _ including India _ that had been waiting for their lead. But in return, Moscow and Beijing demanded that the Americans _ and France and Britain, the two other veto-wielding Security Council members _ agree to let the Iran issue rest until at least March.

That is when the IAEA board meets again to review the agency's investigation of Iran's nuclear program and its compliance with board demands that it renounce uranium enrichment. That process can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the material needed to build a warhead.

Iran remained defiant, threatening to do precisely what referral was meant to prevent. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered the resumption of uranium enrichment and an end to snap IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities, according to state television.

"As of Sunday, the voluntary implementation of the additional protocol and other cooperation beyond the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty has to be suspended under the law," Ahmadinejad said in a letter to Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh, who also is the head of the nation's nuclear agency.

Javed Vaeidi, deputy head of Iran's powerful National Security Council, also said his country "now has to implement fuller scale of enrichment."

Iran says it wants to enrich only to make nuclear fuel for generating electricity, but concerns that it might misuse the technology accelerated the chain of events that led to Saturday's referral to the Security Council. Tehran took IAEA seals off enrichment equipment Jan. 10 and said it would resume small-scale activities.

Vaeidi also said a proposal to enrich Iranian uranium in Russia was dead.

Moscow has suggested that Iran shift its plan for large-scale enrichment of uranium to Russian territory to alleviate international concern Iran might use the process to develop an atomic bomb.

Other Iranian comment reflected Tehran's fury at Washington. The Islamic Republic News Agency quoted Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar describing U.S. leaders as "terrorists and the main axis of evil in the world."

Najjar was responding to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who at a high-level security conference in Munich, Germany, repeated Washington's view of Iran as the "world's leading state sponsor of terrorism."

European leaders expressed support for the referral, through a resolution drafted by France, Britain and Germany on behalf of the European Union.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the vote showed "the international community's determination to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East."

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said through a spokesman that he hoped the vote would send "a clear signal to Iran that it must comply with the demands of the international community."

Russia's government urged Iran to "respond constructively" to the IAEA's decision, "including the restoration of a voluntary moratorium on all uranium enrichment works."

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said the "convincing" vote sent a "clear signal to Tehran" to take account of international concerns.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said he was "very concerned and upset" by Iran's decision to retaliate.

The IAEA resolution links Tehran's referral to the country's breaches of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the lack of confidence it is not trying to make weapons.

The text expresses "serious concerns about Iran's nuclear program" and recalls "Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations" to the arms control treaty. It also expresses "the absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes."

The resolution says IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei should "report to the Security Council" the steps Iran needs to take to dispel suspicions about its nuclear ambitions.

These include that it return to freezing uranium enrichment; consider stopping construction of a heavy-water reactor that could be the source of plutonium; formally ratify the agreement allowing the IAEA greater inspecting authority; and give the nuclear watchdog more power in its investigation of Iran's nuclear program.

The draft also asks that ElBaradei share with the Security Council his report to the March 6 IAEA board session and any subsequent resolution.

Chief British IAEA delegate Peter Jenkins urged Iran to heed the resolution before March, warning: "Should Iran fail to comply ... it will fall to the Security Council to bring additional pressure to bear."

His American counterpart, Gregory L. Schulte, indirectly acknowledged that the Security Council's hands were tied until March, saying: "We're not talking about sanctions at this stage."

But Straw said that if Iran failed to use the March window of opportunity, Security Council action would be "almost inevitable."

A senior European diplomat familiar with the issue said there was general agreement among the five permanent Security Council members that _ if Iran remains defiant beyond March 6 _ the council would slowly increase pressure.

A first step could be a council declaration urging Iran to comply with the resolution, the diplomat said on condition of anonymity because the strategy was confidential.

Agreement on the final wording of the text was achieved overnight, only after Washington compromised on a dispute with Egypt over linking fears about Tehran's atomic program to a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction _ an indirect reference to Israel.

The final resolution recognized "that a solution to the Iranian issue would contribute to global nonproliferation efforts and ... the objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery."

Israel, which is not an IAEA board member, welcomed Iran's referral and the call for a nuclear-free Middle East. Experts say Israel has the world's sixth-largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, but the Jewish state neither acknowledges nor denies having such a program.

[Rascal]

We will try the diplomatic route with the rest of the world, and then when action is deemed necessary the rest of the world (except for maybe Britain and most definetly not Israel) will stand back and expect us to take care of the situation.

China in the meantime is happier then hell at the situation as they just got guaranteed rights to Irans oil for as long as they want as Iran knows China is our biggest competitor and will want to ally themselves with the US's biggest threat.

Bush probably got lucky in this, but establishing Iraq as a foothold in the middle east, while expensive and bloody, is a critical step in the forthcoming standoff against China. That is my primary reason for us staying and finishing the job.

WWIII is looking more and more like a probability people and with the nukes that everybody has it is a very scary proposition. Reason why I say that is because China doesn't care about the casualties of a war as they don't value life as much as we do.

[Rascal]

Oh...and attacking with missles only will not get the job done. Either it will require nukes, something that we won't do, or we will have to send in the marines, rangers, etc. And it is going to be bloody, personally I wouldn't be suprised to see casualties #'s of 33% or possibly higher.

[AustinTXBronco]

America needs to stay out of the middle east.. i am starting to see a trend with the politics of the middle east... i say let isreal fight its own fights .. and get our boys out

[epicSocialism4tw]

America needs to stay out of the middle east.. i am starting to see a trend with the politics of the middle east... i say let isreal fight its own fights .. and get our boys out

The US has some huge interests in the middle east. It's not just about Israel.

[TheDave]

Oh...and attacking with missles only will not get the job done. Either it will require nukes, something that we won't do, or we will have to send in the marines, rangers, etc. And it is going to be bloody, personally I wouldn't be suprised to see casualties #'s of 33% or possibly higher.

and people say I'm a pessimist... :angel:

[epicSocialism4tw]

and people say I'm a pessimist... :angel:

nah...you're more like an irrationalist. :)

[Bronx33]

The US has some huge interests in the middle east. It's not just about Israel.


OIL and if it wasn't for oil we would give a cr@p about that shyt hole.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

OIL and if it wasn't for oil we would give a cr@p about that shyt hole.

We import 15% of our oil from the Middle East.

We could eliminate that 15% just by mandating improved fuel efficiency in all our vehicles.

But then the folks who give Bush his marching orders (read: Exxon Mobil) wouldn't be posting all those record profits right about now, would they?

I mean, every right-thinking, God-fearing American understands that making sure oil company execs can own five (not four) homes and a fleet of Bentleys is a more important national priority than piddling little things like jobs, healthcare and education, right?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Russia Warns Against Conflict With Iran

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press Writer
MOSCOW - Russia's foreign minister warned against threatening Iran over its nuclear program Monday after Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reportedly agreed with a German interviewer that all options, including military response, remained on the table.


http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060206/capt.ath10202061401.greece_russia_ath102.jpg?x=380&y=248&sig=86Oha8.BLvWLH7NuVUZEsQ--
Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov speaks during a news conference with his Greek counterpart Petros Molyviatis in Athens Monday, Feb. 6, 2006. Lavrov begins a two-day visit to Athens, where he will hold talks with Greek officials on energy cooperation and Iran's nuclear program, Greece's Foreign Ministry said. (AP Photo/Thanassis Stavrakis)


Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called for talks to continue with Tehran, which was reported to the
U.N. Security Council on Saturday by the
International Atomic Energy Agency.

"I think that at the current stage, it is important not to make guesses about what will happen and even more important not to make threats," Lavrov said during a visit to Athens, Greece.

Rumsfeld, in an interview with the German daily newspaper Handelsblatt, was asked if all options, including the military one, were on the table with Iran.

"That's right," Rumsfeld responded, according to Handelsblatt's print edition Monday.

Lavrov said the use of force would be possible only if the
United Nations consented.
(CONTINUED)
http://tinyurl.com/7zbkf

[Rascal]

Russia and China are just positioning themselves to get the reward of aligning themselves with Iran and their oil after we take out their facilities so you can expect more of these type of comments.

Bush had what I tought was a decent plan for the oil situation, now it's a matter of him actually doing it.

[Rascal]

and people say I'm a pessimist... :angel:

LOL

I've been studying the Iran situation for a while and I think it is almost impossible for us to invade them in an operation similar to Iraq. The guerilla warfare that would result would make Russia in Afghanistan and us in Vietnam look like a cake walk. The terrain is worse, they are a more determined enemy, and they have better weapons.

And Iran knows that we/Israel/whoever will be forced to destroy their nuclear operation plants so they are going to have them well defended, and there will be no benefit of suprise attack as when we take out their missile batteries to get our transport planes through they will know we are coming.

[defenseman]

This will be worked out diplomatically, I'm convinced Iran's constant "chest pounding" is calculated to solicit it's best possible posture following the completion of diplomatic talks. They have no interest in seeing their assets be blown to bits, it's all they have, and they need to expand. Nukes? Ain't happenin. Again, chest pounding at it's best...dman

[24champ]

LOL

I've been studying the Iran situation for a while and I think it is almost impossible for us to invade them in an operation similar to Iraq. The guerilla warfare that would result would make Russia in Afghanistan and us in Vietnam look like a cake walk. The terrain is worse, they are a more determined enemy, and they have better weapons.

And Iran knows that we/Israel/whoever will be forced to destroy their nuclear operation plants so they are going to have them well defended, and there will be no benefit of suprise attack as when we take out their missile batteries to get our transport planes through they will know we are coming.

I have to agree with you, Iran is a far more complex country to invade. We or Israel dont have the option of just taking out there nuke sites ( which there are approximately 70 of them and most are underground) it would have to be a full out invasion from the air. I alsothink all this depends on the intel we get ( this is where the Iraq War hurts us) about how far along the Iranians are getting a nuke, from the public reports they have not built a nuke.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush had what I tought was a decent plan for the oil situation, now it's a matter of him actually doing it.

He talks about renewable energy, but Bush is firing, not hiring researchers

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/03/politics/03energy.html?ex=1296622800&en=e2b8d5791a4280b5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[24champ]

Oh...and attacking with missles only will not get the job done. Either it will require nukes, something that we won't do, or we will have to send in the marines, rangers, etc. And it is going to be bloody, personally I wouldn't be suprised to see casualties #'s of 33% or possibly higher.
They said the same thing about going into Iraq, people were saying we should expect 10,000 americans to die in the invasion but we completely overwhelmed them. I believe that our airpower is getting stronger with the making of the f-22 raptor with its balance of increased speed and range, enhanced offensive and defensive avionics, and reduced observability.

[epicSocialism4tw]

He talks about renewable energy, but Bush is firing, not hiring researchers

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/03/politics/03energy.html?ex=1296622800&en=e2b8d5791a4280b5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss


What, hes cutting govt. funding? Is he not trying to get that done in the private sector?

[Rascal]

They said the same thing about going into Iraq, people were saying we should expect 10,000 americans to die in the invasion but we completely overwhelmed them. I believe that our airpower is getting stronger with the making of the f-22 raptor with its balance of increased speed and range, enhanced offensive and defensive avionics, and reduced observability.

The F-22 won't be used in a large numbers for the next several years IMO.

And Iran is much harder to invade then Iraq, and we whipped out their military force in Gulf War I so there wasn't much to worry about in GWII except for the biological weapons which weren't there. Iran has been building and preparing for us/Israel to go at them for years. Even the most optimistic military analysts say Iran is going to be very bloody.

[Spider]

Problem with attacking Iran ........... Fist it is about the size of Alaska ......Second its terrian is that of Alaska...The western part has 2rough and ragged mountian ranges,Zargos and the Albors, and happens to be the more populated part of the country ...........

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I have to agree with you, Iran is a far more complex country to invade. We or Israel dont have the option of just taking out there nuke sites ( which there are approximately 70 of them and most are underground) it would have to be a full out invasion from the air. I alsothink all this depends on the intel we get ( this is where the Iraq War hurts us) about how far along the Iranians are getting a nuke, from the public reports they have not built a nuke.

Where did you get this info?

[Rascal]

Problem with attacking Iran ........... Fist it is about the size of Alaska ......Second its terrian is that of Alaska...The western part has 2rough and ragged mountian ranges,Zargos and the Albors, and happens to be the more populated part of the country ...........

Third is that the are fanatical people who will not quit especially with an infidel attacking them.

Fourth they have a much better military then Iraq and a larger population.

[Spider]

Third is that the are fanatical people who will not quit especially with an infidel attacking them.

Fourth they have a much better military then Iraq and a larger population.
we would clean their clocks in a war , take alittle longer then Iraq , but we could never nation build Iran .......................

[Rascal]

we would clean their clocks in a war , take alittle longer then Iraq , but we could never nation build Iran .......................

So we would go in and destroy a bunch of stuff, kill some people, and then leave? If we don't nation build I'll be up for that. Problem is to invade Iran we have to be out of Iraq, and I don't see that happening for a while.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

we would clean their clocks in a war , take alittle longer then Iraq , but we could never nation build Iran .......................
You mean after we start the draft?

[Spider]

You mean after we start the draft?
damn near have to .....................

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Known locations of Iran's nuclear facilities...





http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/6559/nuc6sw.jpg

[24champ]

Where did you get this info?
Brookes said there were about 20 known nuclear sites across Iran but the final figure could be higher than 70.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060125/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpoliticsus_060125181958

[Bronco_Beerslug]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060125/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpoliticsus_060125181958

I think what we're worrying about right now is the 4 research facitilies and the 2 plants.

But I see a big problem with attacking Iran or any other Muslim nation. You can say goodbye to Iraq if we do. They will all unite against there and most likely throughout the world.

[defenseman]

LMFAO,,,,,'starting the draft'...ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ...you are f*&king cracking me up......dman:~ohyah!: :~ohyah!:

[24champ]

I think what we're worrying about right now is the 4 research facitilies and the 2 plants.

But I see a big problem with attacking Iran or any other Muslim nation. You can say goodbye to Iraq if we do. They will all unite against there and most likely throughout the world.
I think we need to wipe it out, not just damage the program. I would hope we learned our lesson with Saddam, we need to solve the problem all at once.

[defenseman]

Surgical strikes WOULD do the job. BUT, the key to whole thing, intelligence (I mean on the ground intelligence) INSURING we take out the proper items of interest. NOT some sort of "mirage" to put it bluntly. You could set them back , depending on accuracy and weapon of choice, 5 to 10 years. I'm sure others can do the math as well as I can. Draft?????Draft????ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! It'll never happen, short of WORLD WAR III. And if that happens, I better not have to ask anyone ot defend their country, at that point, none of us will have a choice.....dman

[Bronx33]

Surgical strikes WOULD do the job. BUT, the key to whole thing, intelligence (I mean on the ground intelligence) INSURING we take out the proper items of interest. NOT some sort of "mirage" to put it bluntly. You could set them back , depending on accuracy and weapon of choice, 5 to 10 years. I'm sure others can do the math as well as I can. Draft?????Draft????ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! It'll never happen, short of WORLD WAR III. And if that happens, I better not have to ask anyone ot defend their country, at that point, none of us will have a choice.....dman

Does iran even have a airforce?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Looks like Iran-Contra Criminal "Mr. Death Squad" is trying to play a role in "catapulting the propaganda" as well...

Negroponte accuses Iran of arming 'Shia militants' in Iraq

US intelligence czar John Negroponte opened a second front in the rhetorical war on Iran last Thursday when he appeared to suggest that the Iraq insurgency has expanded to include Shia militants armed and trained by Iran. This isn't the first time the administration has accused Iran of supporting Iraq's insurgents, but it does mark the first time any administration official has accused Shia groups, who are at philosophical, religious and political odds with the Sunni fundamentalists and Baathists associated with the insurgency and who are well-represented in Iraq's governing coalition, of participating in the war against the government and the US army of occupation.

In a New York Times story on new efforts to protect US troops from increasingly sophisiticated and powerful roadside bombs, Negroponte is quoted as telling the Senate Armed Services committee that "Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anticoalition attacks by providing Shia militants with the capability to build improvised explosive devices with explosively formed projectiles similar to those developed by Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah."

Previous US accusations of Iranian support for insurgents were met with disbelief because Iran's allies in Iraq are frequent targets of the insurgents, as are Iraqi security forces. If Negroponte's allegations are true — always a big if; Negroponte cut his government service teeth as the "see no evil" ambassador to Honduras when that country was the springboard for the US "dirty war" in Central America, and is a proud alumnus of Iran-Contra — then conditions in Iraq are even weirder, and worse, than they appear to be on the surface.

http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1195