You guys ready for the REAL WW3?

[Paulie]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece

September 2, 2007

Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran

Sarah Baxter, Washington

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.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

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”.

Related Links
Hardliner takes over Revolutionary Guards
One Washington source said the “temperature was rising” inside the administration. Bush was “sending a message to a number of audiences”, he said � to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported “significant” cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November, but Washington fears it is stalling to prevent further sanctions. Iran continues to maintain it is merely developing civilian nuclear power.

Bush is committed for now to the diplomatic route but thinks Iran is moving towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. According to one well placed source, Washington believes it would be prudent to use rapid, overwhelming force, should military action become necessary.

Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down.

Gee, I wonder how much AIPAC has to do with this...


Democrats don't want the troops to come home any more then Republicans do. They all pander to the lobbyists, specifically AIPAC in this instance.

The Dems actually allowed a piece in a recent legislation to be removed that would have required Bush to get congressional approval before taking any military action in Iran. Israel will strike Iran if the US doesn't, so the Israeli lobby is the only culprit here.

Our government doesn't serve US, they serve Israel. I wish more people would realize that, that but shit, it's been 50, 60 years now...plenty of time to have noticed.

Hmmm...watch American Bandstand, or take my issue with government to Washington....naahh, American Bandstand it is.

Hmmmm, watch American Idol, or take my issues with government to Washington...naahh, American Idol it is.

Same shit, different time periods. Result always the same: IGNORANT, APATHETIC SHEEP.



Do you people realize what will happen if we attack Iran? With nukes, nonetheless?

Do you people even understand geopolitics?

Let's see...AT THE VERY LEAST, China will dump their TRILLION dollars (probably buying more military equipment), and it's goodbye excessive, lavish American lifestyle as we know it.

That's the BEST CASE scenario.

Worst case, China and Russia, who have mutual defense treaties with Iran, not to mention strong economic relations and dependancies, will just start the volley of ICBM's until the planet is left looking like something that resembles a smoldering Sun.

All for what? Because you people believe Bush and Cheney that Iran is "aiding the insurgency"? They haven't even shown one shred of proof!!

Even the fucking IAEA themselves say that Iran is nowehere NEAR weapons-grade capable in their nuclear energy enrichment program...which by the way, a sovereign nation has every right to pursue.

But you go ahead and believe Bush and Cheney, and the rest of the war-mongering muderders that parrot their rhetoric.

I hope you guys are ready for this. I hope you've made preparations for the worst...because it's going to get really bad, really fast.

 

[Ruby]

If the US nukes another nation...our goose is cooked. The world will certainly view us as dangerous or more dangerous than the nazis ever were.

How much sense does it make to nuke a nation because you are afraid they might make their own nukes and nukes are soooo horrible and we cant risk anyone using them on others (as we use them on others).

It will confirm for the entire world that the US needs to be stopped and disarmed.

 

[DeadCanDance]

The U.S. government draws up all types of contingency plans. It doesn't mean we're going to execute them. It just means we have them on the shelf, ready to go if we need them. I'm not convinced, yet, that'll we'll attack iran.

The real "canary in the coal mine", as it were, is Fox News. As the media political arm of the Bush White House, if Fox News starts beating the drums for war; claiming we have no other options; and calling those that oppose a war with Iran "traitors and unamerican", then that will be the sign that an attack on iran is a foregone conclusion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If the US nukes another nation...our goose is cooked. The world will certainly view us as dangerous or more dangerous than the nazis ever were.

How much sense does it make to nuke a nation because you are afraid they might make their own nukes and nukes are soooo horrible and we cant risk anyone using them on others (as we use them on others).

It will confirm for the entire world that the US needs to be stopped and disarmed.

Ohh no, that boogie man again. I must have missed the nuke part of the 3 day war plan. What I did see is the suggestion China and Russia would nuke US.

 

[Ruby]

Ohh no, that boogie man again. I must have missed the nuke part of the 3 day war plan. What I did see is the suggestion China and Russia would nuke US.

You dont keep up much do ya?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060222&articleId=2032

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10971.htm

The nuclear bunker busters they have been itching to use seem a very likely candidate since one of the main nuclear plants is built mostly underground and to withstand military attacks. Then we look at the UN resolution that gives the US legal basis to attack with nukes and the fact that we sold Israel (the other nuclear weapons nation who is threatening Iran) bunker busters is another pretty obvious signal.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7861

The real reason for nuking Iran, however, is none of the above. It was spelled out with surprising candor in the Pentagon draft document "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" [.pdf] as one of several possible reasons geographic combatant commanders may request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons:

"To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD."

That is straight out of US govt documents. And what exactly are we accusing Iran of?...OH YEA, WE NEED TO INVADE TO STOP THEM FROM OBTAINING AND USING WMD!!

Quick, go find some sand!

 

[trobinett]

If the US nukes another nation...our goose is cooked. The world will certainly view us as dangerous or more dangerous than the nazis ever were.

How much sense does it make to nuke a nation because you are afraid they might make their own nukes and nukes are soooo horrible and we cant risk anyone using them on others (as we use them on others).

It will confirm for the entire world that the US needs to be stopped and disarmed.

Really?

And you know this how?

YOU , and your sidekick wouldn't know the end of the world if it came up and slapped you Upside the head.

NO ONE, at lease in this century has the balls to challenge us on the order of the world.

Simple fact, not bragging, not posturing, just stating what is so.

ANY questions?

 

[Diuretic]

Really?

And you know this how?

YOU , and your sidekick wouldn't know the end of the world if it came up and slapped you Upside the head.

NO ONE, at lease in this century has the balls to challenge us on the order of the world.

Simple fact, not bragging, not posturing, just stating what is so.

ANY questions?

You missed the bit about China. There's no need for anyone to militarily challenge the US. It would be a Pyrrhic victory for whoever was left almost standing. But war is only a means to an end and the end is usually economic. If China chose to do so it could ruin the US economy. It wouldn't want to do so because the knock-on effect would damage China's interests as well as shaft the rest of us but don't think that due to overwhelmingly military power the US is sitting pretty. She ain't.

 

[Ruby]

Really?

And you know this how?

YOU , and your sidekick wouldn't know the end of the world if it came up and slapped you Upside the head.

NO ONE, at lease in this century has the balls to challenge us on the order of the world.

Simple fact, not bragging, not posturing, just stating what is so.

ANY questions?

LOL, I am trying to figure out how to inject some sense into the statement "YOU , and your sidekick wouldn't know the end of the world if it came up and slapped you Upside the head.".

Secondly that attitude of "no one has the balls to challenge us on the order of the world" that will compel the world to put the US in check. Its that kind of arrogance and designs on world domination that proceed a fall.

Its pretty stupid in this day and age to be attempting the cartoon plot of world domination.

 

[Diuretic]

The US is the most militarily powerful country the world has seen to date. The US is stuck in Iraq.

Powerful military, stupid politicians. Not much to brag about there.

 

[Ruby]

The US is the most militarily powerful country the world has seen to date. The US is stuck in Iraq.

Powerful military, stupid politicians. Not much to brag about there.

The funny thing is that people who think powerful military is all they need to dominate and win are obviously wrong. We can see that in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. No matter how powerful the military is....we cant even win in Afghanistan (they couldnt be weaker as a nation, yet we cant see to win).

If anything, a powerful military can be the end of you. It costs way too much and sooner or later we will break under its weight and collapse. The USSR knows all about that...it costs a lot to try and subdue people who refuse to be subdued with a large and powerful military.

The most powerful force in the world is a determined public dedicated to a goal, its more powerful than any military and its why military might wont work in the end. You need peoples CONSENT to rule them, without it you only cause bloodshed and create a monster so big it finally turns and consumes its creator.

 

[Diuretic]

Well put Ruby, well put indeed. Thanks for those ideas.

 

[Ninja]

Will someone tell Hershatics that this has supposedly been imminent since 2003?

 

[eots]

Cheney Orders Media To Sell Attack On Iran
Fox News, Wall Street Journal instructed to launch PR blitz for upcoming military strike

Prison Planet | September 4, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

Dick Cheney has ordered top Neo-Con media outlets, including Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, to unleash a PR blitz to sell a war with Iran from today, according to Barnett Rubin, the highly respected Afghanistan expert at New York University.

The New Yorker magazine reports that Rubin had a conversation with a member of a top neoconservative institution in Washington, who told him that "instructions" had been passed on from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day.

"It will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects, writes Rubin, "It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don't think they'll ever get majority support for this?they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is ?plenty.?
Rubin subsequently confirmed with a second source that the propaganda coup had been launched and the individual, another top Neo-Con at a major think tank, had this to say about it: ?I am a Republican. I am a conservative. But I'm not a raging lunatic. This is lunatic.?

An organized mass media campaign to propagandize for a military strike on Iran mirrors exactly what happened in late 2002 in preparation for the invasion of Iraq and would be seen as par for the course in anticipation of an attack that presidential candidate Ron Paul amongst other expert observers fear will take place within 12 months .

The issuance of orders for Neo-Con mass media arms to push for an assault on Iran also puts the U.S. on red alert for a terror attack, whether real or manufactured, which Dick Cheney has already promised will immediately be blamed on Iran no matter who the real culprits are.

On August 1st, 2005 the American Conservative reported that Cheney had tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan involved a massive air strike on Iran which included the use of nuclear weapons.

The publication reported that, "The response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States," meaning that any such attack will immediately be blamed on Iran and any evidence to the contrary will be buried.

The London Times reported on Sunday that the Pentagon had finalized plans for a 3 day blitz designed to annihilate 1,200 targets in Iran and destroy the country's military capability.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for ?pinprick strikes? against Iran's nuclear facilities. ?They're about taking out the entire Iranian military,? he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: ?Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.? It was, he added, a ?very legitimate strategic calculus?.

Rhetoric regarding a potential military attack on Iran has heated again over the past week, with President Bush having warned of the risk of a "nuclear holocaust" if the country was allowed to acquire nuclear capability.

In a speech last Monday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that a diplomatic push by the world's powers to rein in Tehran's nuclear program was the only alternative to "an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad subsequently stated that a U.S. attack on Iran was "impossible" due to U.S. troops being tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yesterday, he claimed to have proof that the U.S. were not planning to attack, bizarrely citing his mathematical skills as an engineer and faith in God.

A January poll by Ipsos found that 40% of Americans thought it likely that Iran would be attacked by the end of the year. The U.S. has stationed three aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, the Nimitz, a nuclear-powered carrier, John C. Stennis Strike Group, and Dwight D. Eisenhower, a relief carrier.

The U.S. government is openly funding and supporting the activities of Jundullah , a Sunni Al-Qaeda terrorist group formerly headed by the alleged mastermind of 9/11, to carry out bombings in Iran and destabilize Ahmadinejad's power base.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard military was recently declared to be a terrorist organization by the White House, another ominous sign that an attack is being readied.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They can keep hijacking 4 planes and blowing up 4 buildings secret for years but THIS, they can't manage.

 

[eots]

its not a secret to the majority of the population




Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story
Only 16% now believe official fable according to New York Times/CBS News poll
Truth Movement has the huge majority of opinion
How will the Bush Cabal react?



A monumental new scientific opinion poll has emerged which declares that only 16% of people in America now believe the official government explanation of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks.

According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks:

"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling the truth 16%

Hiding something 53%

Mostly lying 28%

Not sure 3%"

The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A Canadian Poll put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll had the figure at 89%. Over 80% supported the stance of Charlie Sheen when he went public with his opinions on 9/11 as an inside job.

A recent CNN poll found that the percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington rose from almost a third to almost half over the past four years. This latest poll shows that that figure has again risen exponentially and now stands at well over three quarters of the population.





































































:

.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The funny thing is that people who think powerful military is all they need to dominate and win are obviously wrong. We can see that in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. No matter how powerful the military is....we cant even win in Afghanistan (they couldnt be weaker as a nation, yet we cant see to win).

You're right on this. Besides our powerful military we need some powerful politicians. It's time to vote out the cut-and-run liberals.

If anything, a powerful military can be the end of you. It costs way too much and sooner or later we will break under its weight and collapse. The USSR knows all about that...it costs a lot to try and subdue people who refuse to be subdued with a large and powerful military.

Not any time soon. The USSR lost because it had no free market; while its people starved there was no way to pay for its military buildup. Our military budget for 2007 is only 19% of the whole. If we got rid of all the social services Democrats have piled on we'd be in even better shape.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget07/category.html

The most powerful force in the world is a determined public dedicated to a goal, its more powerful than any military and its why military might wont work in the end. You need peoples CONSENT to rule them, without it you only cause bloodshed and create a monster so big it finally turns and consumes its creator.

However, a military WILL work in the beginning. Will you believe the Petraeus report when it comes out?

Whose consent are you talking about? If you mean Americans, you're off base. If you mean the Iraqi people, where do you get the idea that we are out to rule them? Or Iran for that matter.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The U.S. government draws up all types of contingency plans. It doesn't mean we're going to execute them. It just means we have them on the shelf, ready to go if we need them. I'm not convinced, yet, that'll we'll attack iran.

The real "canary in the coal mine", as it were, is Fox News. As the media political arm of the Bush White House, if Fox News starts beating the drums for war; claiming we have no other options; and calling those that oppose a war with Iran "traitors and unamerican", then that will be the sign that an attack on iran is a foregone conclusion.

They already are, and have been for some months. Checkout "foxattacks.com"

 

[trobinett]

They already are, and have been for some months. Checkout "foxattacks.com"

Come on Bully, what kind of bull shit is THAT?

You don't fuck with the goose that laid the golden egg, period.

WE are THAT goose...................

 

[Ruby]

You're right on this. Besides our powerful military we need some powerful politicians. It's time to vote out the cut-and-run liberals.

Politicians who back illegal invasions and imperialist endeavors arent the answer you think....in fact, they will only bring about american losses quicker.

Not any time soon. The USSR lost because it had no free market; while its people starved there was no way to pay for its military buildup. Our military budget for 2007 is only 19% of the whole. If we got rid of all the social services Democrats have piled on we'd be in even better shape.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget07/category.html

It had very little to do with free market and more to do with the allocation of resources. People go without are people that are motivated to rebel against that which creates their suffering...the USSR got into its own doomed cycle because it had to keep diverting resources from people and into a military oppression...that only fed peoples will and motivation to rebel which meant more resources had to be invested in military oppression...cycle continues til the people emerge as victor.

If we could afford these invasions then we wouldnt be borrowing so much money DAILY. We wouldnt have any deficit at all if we could actually afford this.

Getting rid of the social programs in the US is a quick way to lose the ONLY real consent the US govt DOES have. I dont think the US can possibly survive an open rebellion of its own citizenry and if you make people that desperate and suffer that much...they will rebel.

However, a military WILL work in the beginning. Will you believe the Petraeus report when it comes out?

A military dosent work, it only begins the widespread bloodshed and conflict. I dont consider that "working".

I will believe any report that can give valid and credible evidence for its claims. I will believe claims and reports that match with the facts. I cant prejudge if I will believe or disbelieve a report that hasnt even been done yet!

Whose consent are you talking about? If you mean Americans, you're off base. If you mean the Iraqi people, where do you get the idea that we are out to rule them? Or Iran for that matter.

I am talking about the people you invade. Of course its our aim to rule them via a friendly govt who will do as we wish. We want economic laws in place that provide the US advantages and therefore we must rule over the people that own those resources so that we may rule the resources (and the power that can be gained from controlling those resources).

Its the reason the US backed Saddam...we thought he would be a friendly govt (US puppet regime) but that didnt pan out. We invade to try and install a new one...so far thats not working either because the only way the new US puppet regime can work is if the Iraqi people consent to it and they dont seem to be in much of a consenting mood.

We loved Iran under the US installed Shah but the people didnt consent and eventually threw him over and ever since the US has wanted to get its client state back by getting rid of the govt and installing a new US puppet one. Again, it wont work unless the people of Iran consent.