Government in secret talks about strike against Iran

#3
If they weren't discussing this I'd me more worried

When I was in the targeting business we had contingency plans for all sorts of things - hardly any of them occurred

Do I detect a little bit of media conditioning going on here....?
 
#6
frenchperson wrote
It seems the next logical step would be to make plans for bombing India, Pakistan and Israel:
Why is that logical? Just because India Pakistan and Israel have nukes with the 'blessing' of the rest of us, Iran should have them with impunity too? It's a bit like saying Gary Glitter and Ian Huntley are as entitled to be registered child minders as anyone else.

With nukes comes responsibility. The Iranian leadership has declared its irresponsible intent. Had India Pakistan or Israel declared genocidal intent in the lead up to acquring nukes (or since) plans would be made. As it is, Israel won't even admit to having them.
 
#7
I'd point you to the link on my post. These three countries are not signatories to the non proliferation treaty. Iran is. BUT, if you prefer to go with the anti-Iranian rhetoric that corresponds with Mr Bush's foul intentions, then that's up to you. Also, Iran's oil runs out in about 100 years and who says they can't explore the nuclear option?
 
#9
We do, because Iran can't be trusted. Their President has declared his genocidal intent. Are we to allow his ambitions to go full term in the interests of 'fairness'. Iran has signed the NNPT, boogaloo! Molotov signed a treaty with Nazi Germany.

if you prefer to go with the anti-Iranian rhetoric that corresponds with Mr Bush's foul intentions, then that's up to you.
Preferable to going with the anti-Israeli rhetoric that corresponds with Mr Ahmadinejad's foul intentions.

Whose intentions are the more foul? Nuking Israel and affecting all the Palestinians and other Arabs in and around it or taking conventional means to prevent such a senario?
 
#10
Hmmm I like the little picture of what they are going to do, but it says Irans missiles can reach Israel, Southern Europe which means they will proberly go for Brit and US bases in Iraq and Israel.
 
#11
Seadog said:
We do, because Iran can't be trusted. Their President has declared his genocidal intent. Are we to allow his ambitions to go full term in the interests of 'fairness'. Iran has signed the NNPT, boogaloo! Molotov signed a treaty with Nazi Germany.

if you prefer to go with the anti-Iranian rhetoric that corresponds with Mr Bush's foul intentions, then that's up to you.
Preferable to going with the anti-Israeli rhetoric that corresponds with Mr Ahmadinejad's foul intentions.

Whose intentions are the more foul? Nuking Israel and affecting all the Palestinians and other Arabs in and around it or taking conventional means to prevent such a senario?
Israel can't be trusted. India can't be trusted. Pakistan can't be trusted. France can't be trusted... I could go on. The anti Iranian sideshow was a predictable scenario that many forecast before the invasion of Iraq. Bush has now rung the bell and yours is a conditioned reflex Seadog, or should that be Pavlov's dog?
 
#13
A personal view but always felt that Nuclear Weapons promote peace. Since acquiring nuclear weapons India and Pakistan are no longer have their traditional half decade border escalation of will or they or wont they? Since both governments realise that any conventional war could lead to their mutual destruction. Orientalist stereotypes aside, the Iranian regime is rational and would not use nukes against Israel because frankly the Mullahs of the supreme council would never go for it. However if you long term ambition is to preserve western hegemony in the region, then maybe a nuclear Iran is NOT the best option.
 
#14
Wait this one out and Israel will probably solve the problem for the rest of the world,as they did a few years ago,rather interesting to read on the source of the reactor.

1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor
The 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.
With remarkable precision, an undisclosed number of F-15 bombers and F-16 fighters destroyed the Osirak reactor 18 miles south of Baghdad, on the orders of Prime Minister Menachem Begin.French built reactor
 
#15
Iran has deliberately built its reactors over a wide area and in heavily populated places to prevent that very occurrence. Iran may well harbour the desire to own nuclear weapons and often loves to spout rubbish about wiping out Israel. They must realise that to launch against the west would result in Iran being turned into a fcuk off sheet of glass IMHO all the Iran whish is to have the nuclear trump card which will ensure no nation ever dare use conventional forces against them.
 
#16
The President of Iran has called for Israel to be wiped from the map.

I'd say this might just raise the odd eyebrow when you consider they may be developing a nuke.
 
#17
frenchperson said:
Also, Iran's oil runs out in about 100 years and who says they can't explore the nuclear option?
I don't think anyone has a problem with them developing nuclear power plants (in fact the US started their nuclear programme under the Shah despite all that oil they are sitting on). The only issue is with them mastering the enrichment process which could be used for power or for weapons.


Can any military types explain how long this bombing campaign would take? Would it all be over in 1-night? Or are we talking about weeks to suppress their air defences and then destroy the nuclear targets.

Tricam.
 
#18
Bravo_Bravo said:
The President of Iran has called for Israel to be wiped from the map.

I'd say this might just raise the odd eyebrow when you consider they may be developing a nuke.
You never heard of popular rhetoric, its a thing that politicians do to gain the mobs support ? At the end of the day it would be up to the supreme council to make the major decisions not the president and they are not about to see Iran wiped off the map.
 
#19
Would the CDI - General Andrew Ridgeway supposedly attending the meeting, be the same Andrew Ridgeway who retired about 3 weeks ago?

I'd suggest if the Journo writing this doesn't know this rather basic fact, he may be less well informed than he'd like to believe.
 
#20
tricam said:
frenchperson said:
Also, Iran's oil runs out in about 100 years and who says they can't explore the nuclear option?
I don't think anyone has a problem with them developing nuclear power plants (in fact the US started their nuclear programme under the Shah despite all that oil they are sitting on). The only issue is with them mastering the enrichment process which could be used for power or for weapons.


Can any military types explain how long this bombing campaign would take? Would it all be over in 1-night? Or are we talking about weeks to suppress their air defences and then destroy the nuclear targets.

Tricam.
We have to take a bit of a leap of faith and assume that what the US are telling us is sound - not something you could guarantee given their atrocious record on the Security Council.

On the issue of Iran making us suspect they are going to nuke Israel, I think the most apt description of this would be sabre-rattling. Bush's Axis of Evil nonsense springs to mind also.
 

Latest Threads

Top