Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran

#4
Bugly said:
Iran is going to have to be dealt with at some point, so drawing up plans makes sense.
Why exactly do they "have to be dealt with"?

Do you really think that they would actually use any nukes they manage to produce , if they ever actually manage to produce some. Or do you think that they will suddenly swarm out of Iran and invade the US/UK?

What actual reason is there for doing over Iran as opposed to say N.Korea or Israel or any one of lots of other places?
 
#6
cpunk said:
It's great that they're keeping this a secret, the Iranians will get a real surprise!
there are two reasons for this. As has been stated, iran cannot be allowed to get nukes, so it makes sense to plan to stop them. Also, by making these plans public, there may be some incentive for iran may be more inclined to make a peaceful deal on the issue. If they know we (the wesst) will do noting about them getting 'the bomb' why would they consider stopping.

Steven said:
Bugly said:
Iran is going to have to be dealt with at some point, so drawing up plans makes sense.
Why exactly do they "have to be dealt with"?

Do you really think that they would actually use any nukes they manage to produce , if they ever actually manage to produce some. Or do you think that they will suddenly swarm out of Iran and invade the US/UK?

What actual reason is there for doing over Iran as opposed to say N.Korea or Israel or any one of lots of other places?
no they 'officially' will not use them, but the nukes will find themselves in london, washington, berlin......... MAD doesn't work on those who want to die.

Ski.
 
#7
well let me see the US administration spend 3 days blitzing Iran and nil days on nation buliding ( are we seeing a pattern here) then magicaly the whole middle east become a huge version of democracy and peace.

I hope and tend to think that the shaved chimp is just playing lets pretend rather than deal with anything real while his days count down to being the EX POTUS.

Personally im sick of the lot of em and everywhere from the west bank to the east of Badakhshan can fight themself to extinction our dependance on arab oil has to stop.
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#8
Bugly said:
Steven said:
Why exactly do they "have to be dealt with"?

Do you really think that they would actually use any nukes they manage to produce .
Yes, I think they will.
What like the North Koreans, or Israel or Pakistan?
 
#9
from the Times:
President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late”.
He may very well say that. But that is no reason for us to believe him let alone support this individual in starting another war.
As I've posted on a thread I have started there is good evidence that G. Bush and company knew that Saddam didn't not possess WMD before the Iraq war.
Therefore we must not support a liar in starting another aggressive war against a country that is not threatening Britain. Full stop.
 
#10
Bugly said:
Steven said:
Why exactly do they "have to be dealt with"?

Do you really think that they would actually use any nukes they manage to produce .
Yes, I think they will.
Why? Do you think that the Guardian council are a bunch of nutters? You think that they have no idea what would happen to them and their power if they did let off a nuke?

If you still reckon they will do it then who would be the target?
 
#11
It's ironic that the country that seems to be the most afraid of othe rnations getting/using nuclear weapons is the only country that has ever used them in anger against another nation.

Maybe Iran will go nuclear, they might even comtemplate using them, but by saying "If we even think you've get'em, we'll bomb you to death", the leaders are going to feel threatened. Backing a snake in to a corner doesn't make you any safer, just because you can see it.
 
#13
The way to 'deal' with Iran, is to encourage the nascent liberal population to grow and overturn the hardline conservatives who have been governing since the Revolution (the birth of modern Islamic fundamentalism) whilst maintaining a sufficiently active military posture to contain Iran and limit its activities outside its own borders.

To actually strike militarily against the country would alienate the majority of the population and drive them into the arms of the Iranian neo-cons, as well as further alienating wider Muslim opinion (particularly Shia). On the plus side I guess it would satisfy the blood lust of some Washington has-beens and Tel Aviv loonies.
 
#14
First paragraph from The Times,
THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.
I notice several posters have already commented on the 'and what happens on Day 4' question. Very good. Also like to add my own thought. Didn't the US, with great aplomb, achieve pretty much the same thing in both Iraq and Afghanistan? Did that solve the problem?

So let's waste another state's military aparatus and see another million willing volunteers in global jihaad. Brilliant. :x
 
#15
Steven said:
Why? Do you think that the Guardian council are a bunch of nutters? Yes

You think that they have no idea what would happen to them and their power if they did let off a nuke? They know what would happen and don't care, you're making the mistake of thinking with a western mindset

If you still reckon they will do it then who would be the target? Those countries that aren't Islamic, with Israel being the first
My bold.
 
#16
Blogg said:
Excellent. And the plan for Day Four is.............
Why bother with a plan for day four ? let those people surviving in iran fight it out between them then on day fortyfour explain to those now in power that the same will happen again if they try and build nukes .

Thats where iraq has gone wrong, iraq should have got a serious brassing up, let the civil war that would have followed run it's course then go in and deal with the winners.
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#17
Bugly said:
Blogg said:
Excellent. And the plan for Day Four is.............
Why bother with a plan for day four ? let those people surviving in iran fight it out between them then on day fortyfour explain to those now in power that the same will happen again if they try and build nukes .

Thats where iraq has gone wrong, iraq should have got a serious brassing up, let the civil war that would have followed run it's course then go in and deal with the winners.
And say 10 million Iranian refugees with a bit of a grievance tramping round our gaff, setting of a bit of local trouble with the Turks, Armenians, Pakistanis, Afghanis, Iraqis (more of the same)...

Clever
 
#18
benjaminw1 said:
Not clever mate..... it's a masterpiece of tactical planning :wink:

Why 10 million refugees ? if the attack and subsequent internal struggle is managed properly there should be very few left at all.
 
#19
Bugly said:
Steven said:
Why? Do you think that the Guardian council are a bunch of nutters? Yes

You think that they have no idea what would happen to them and their power if they did let off a nuke? They know what would happen and don't care, you're making the mistake of thinking with a western mindset

If you still reckon they will do it then who would be the target? Those countries that aren't Islamic, with Israel being the first
My bold.
there is a phrase for what you have- Histrionic personality disorder with a touch of paranoia and a splash of monothematic delusion but mostly I would say you are suffering from folie à plusieurs.

I wonder if the guys in the black helicopters have been splashing 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate around the place again?

Have you perhaps been to the sandpit recently as apparently "The Iraqi incapacitating agent Agent 15 is believed either to be the same as or similar to BZ."

Maybe this might explain some of the wierd shite coming out of the USA!

If you want to know what this stuff does then click and have a read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-Quinuclidinyl_benzilate
 
#20
Bugly said:
Blogg said:
Excellent. And the plan for Day Four is.............
Why bother with a plan for day four ? let those people surviving in iran fight it out between them then on day fortyfour explain to those now in power that the same will happen again if they try and build nukes .

Thats where iraq has gone wrong, iraq should have got a serious brassing up, let the civil war that would have followed run it's course then go in and deal with the winners.
my my what a perfect final solution.

So very stalin
 

Similar threads

Top