World Police anyone?

[topher]

Seems like the world police have stepped it up a notch. What do you think of this?

I am aware that in the first sentence is says possible air strike!
US planning for Iran air strike: report
Sunday Apr 9 10:08 AEST
The US administration is stepping up plans for a possible air strike on Iran, according to a report by influential investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.

Hersh's story in the April 17 issue of the New Yorker magazine quotes former and current intelligence and defence officials as saying the administration increasingly sees "regime change" in Iran as the ultimate goal.

"This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war," Hersh quotes an unidentified senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror as saying.

The report says the administration has stepped up clandestine activities in Iran and has initiated a series of talks on its plans with "a few key senators and members of Congress".




A former senior defence official is quoted as saying the military believes a sustained bombing campaign against Iran will humiliate the leadership and lead the Iranian public to overthrow it, adding that he was shocked to hear the strategy.

The report also says the US military is seriously considering the use of a tactical nuclear weapon against Iran to ensure the destruction of its main centrifuge plant at Natanz.

The Pentagon advisor is quoted as saying some senior officers and officials are considering quitting over the issue.

The United States says it is focused on forging a diplomatic solution to the Iran impasse but refuses to rule out an attack, to deal with what it says is one of the biggest threats to Middle East stability.

Hersh won a Pulitzer prize in 1970 for uncovering the infamous My Lai massacre by US troops in Vietnam, and his reporting on abuses by American troops at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison helped expose one of the worst scandals to hit the administration of President George W Bush.

 

[zids]

the power hungry beauracry (spelling?) is getting out of hand. The "war on terror" and the war on Iraq have been ridiculous excuses fro a war. something needs to be done.

 

[johnny]

Could you please post a link to the page that you linked it from as it is courtesy to the people who wrote the article.


There is very little chance that this will happen:
1) Iran has strong following for it's leadership, they are a democratic country (well more so than many other so called democratic countries in the world that the US supports....thinking about Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt etc...)
2) Iran has a strong standing army that will take FAR longer to defeat than Iraq's 2 bit joke of a defense force.
3) Iran has had the benefit of watching how the whole Iraqi debacle went down and has a greater knowledge of how to combat the US.
4) Iran is one of the most important places in Shi'ite Islam and attacking them will do so much more to harm Arab sentiment that invading Iraq did.
5) There may be a risk that Iran can attack Israel. Admitedly Israel could smash Iran, but that would risk greater regional instability.
6) Because of the major fuck up that Iraq has become, it is very doubtful that there will be full support from Congress, the Senate and the country itself. I think the army would see a mass exodus from its ranks and there would be great problems in gaining fresh recruits as well.

There is no way in hell the people of Iran would over throw the government they voted in themselves.........Armedinijad was voted in on an anti-American platform in the first place!

 

[rowanr]

damn. i thought it was some team america or interpol story. unfortunately its some anti-american propaganda. good luck with it!

 

[johnny]

damn. i thought it was some team america or interpol story. unfortunately its some anti-american propaganda. good luck with it!

Please tell me you don't actually mean that! Please tell me you don't think that this is 1) anti-American, and 2) that it is propaganda.

 

[gravelclimber]

Stolen from Crikey:

These are some of things Seymour Hersh, one of the finest reporters anywhere, is writing in today's edition of The New Yorker:

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.

And ...

There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush's ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be “wiped off the map.” Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That's the name they're using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?' ”

And ...

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

And ...

One military planner told me that White House criticisms of Iran and the high tempo of planning and clandestine activities amount to a campaign of “coercion” aimed at Iran. “You have to be ready to go, and we'll see how they respond,” the officer said. “You have to really show a threat in order to get Ahmadinejad to back down.” He added, “People think Bush has been focussed on Saddam Hussein since 9/11,” but, “in my view, if you had to name one nation that was his focus all the way along, it was Iran.”

 

[johnny]

Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be “wiped off the map.” Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That's the name they're using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?' ”

Whilst I am no fan of Ahmedinejad, Islamo-fascists in general, Israel, nor the USA, that's not the whole story of what he said. He doesn't necessarily believe that the holocaust was as the Jews proclaim it to be. I have no opinion on this issue, but I'm tipping that there is a good deal of reality in the Jewish (and major historical claims) concerning the holocaust. But the difference between Ahmedinejad and hitler, is that Mahmoud doesn't wish to eradicate the Jews, more so get them out of the Arab lands (as he sees them). He said that if the holocaust is true, then it should have been the Germans who gave up their homes for the Jews, not the Arabs who'd done nothing to deserve teh treatment met by them.

It's an interesting argument. Although, attempting to revise post WW2 history at this point in time is futile at best. But he sure doesn't strike me as a new Hitler. As a matter of fact, I do believe that the US is the only major state to threaten anyone else's sovereignty at this point in time.......

He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

Saving them from who, themselves? Wow, how condescending and almost racist!

One military planner told me that White House criticisms of Iran and the high tempo of planning and clandestine activities amount to a campaign of “coercion” aimed at Iran. “You have to be ready to go, and we'll see how they respond,” the officer said. “You have to really show a threat in order to get Ahmadinejad to back down.” He added, “People think Bush has been focussed on Saddam Hussein since 9/11,” but, “in my view, if you had to name one nation that was his focus all the way along, it was Iran.”

Not a bad point, Saddam would never have let Blix back in if it weren't for the threat of invasion. Although the President and clerical leaders of Iran are sure to now understand that even if the inspection teams come in, and say that you have pretty much sweet FA, you'll get invaded anyway. So there is no reason to bargain against a foregone conclusion.

Interesting to think that Iran may have been the end game all along.

Hmmm, [rubs chin thoughtfully and draws on his pipe as he leans back on his favourite reading chair in his private study....]

 

[johnny]

US ready for nuclear strike on Iran: report

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us...1144521210987.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
By Mark Coultan Herald Correspondent in New York and agencies
April 10, 2006

THE head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog is to travel to Iran as one of the United States' most famous investigative reporters says the US has drawn up plans to destroy Tehran's underground nuclear facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

The story in The New Yorker is certain to raise the temperature of the nuclear stand-off between Iran and the US.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, will meet Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, to discuss the country's nuclear ambitions. A five-member team from the agency is in Iran for the first time since Tehran suspended inspections in mid-February.

Dr ElBaradei has to report to the UN Security Council by the end of April on Iran's compliance with verification and confidence-building measures demanded by the nuclear agency.

The reporter Seymour Hersh says that undercover American troops are already in Iran to collect target information and to establish contact with ethnic groups likely to be antagonistic to the Tehran regime.

The article cites numerous anonymous sources, including former Pentagon and intelligence officials, as well as sources described as having ties to the Pentagon but no direct involvement in its decision-making.

President George Bush and others in the White House view Iran's hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official told Hersh. "That's the name they're using. They say, 'Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?"'

Despite the public position of the White House that it is pursuing a diplomatic resolution of the dispute with Iran over its nuclear program, which Tehran maintains is only for peaceful purposes, the Bush Administration has been preparing war plans behind the scenes, the magazine says.

It quotes one source as saying that the President believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do", and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy".

The military chiefs are deeply split on the use of nuclear weapons. Hersh says that some officers have talked about resigning over the issue.

Others believe that a bunker-busting nuclear weapon would be the only means of destroying Iran's nuclear facilities buried deep underground.

Hersh says the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently unsuccessfully tried to remove the nuclear option from war planning, but the White House asked why they wanted to remove it when the initial idea came from them.

The New York Times reported that four Pentagon, military and Administration officials, who participate in high-level deliberations on Iran, rejected Hersh's contention that the Bush Administration was considering nuclear weapons in a possible strike.

The New Yorker says that American aircraft have been trying to intimidate Tehran by practising simulated nuclear bombing runs, which require aircraft to rapidly ascend after dropping their weapons, near Iranian air space.

Iran has been conducting military exercises in recent days and announcing advances in its weapons technology.

Hersh has a long record of uncovering stories as an investigative reporter, from the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War to the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

■ North Korea's defence chief has accused Washington of "watching for every chance to attack" and warned that Pyongyang could also launch a pre-emptive attack against the US with soldiers ready to be "human bombs".

"A pre-emptive attack is not [the] monopoly of the US, and North Korea will never sit idle until it is exposed to a pre-emptive attack of the US," the official Korean Central News Agency quoted the Defence Minister, Kim Il-chol, as saying.

How funny is that last bit^^^??!! Talk about inviting destruction upon yourself!!


Does anyone think that the USA will ever launch another nuclear strike on a nation without being nuclear attacked themselves?

 

[FR Drew]

Does anyone think that the USA will ever launch another nuclear strike on a nation without being nuclear attacked themselves?

If anyone was dumb enough to authorise/demand that it be done, it's the current turkey in charge.

People thought that they had reason to be concerned about Reagan with his finger on the button. He aint got nothin on Dubya.

 

[johnny]

I'd agree to that!

 

[Cave Dweller]

Does anyone think that the USA will ever launch another nuclear strike on a nation without being nuclear attacked themselves?

Why not, they have already done it twice.........

 

[Icarus]

I feel that if the United States have the need to invade a nuclear armed country, (and by nuclear armed not WMD-oops-there-not-there, i mean friggin great ICBM's sittin' around) then i have no hesitation in saying, Yes, they very well could blast them first.

 

[FR Drew]

What, like, say, Israel?

 

[FR Drew]

Or the UK? Or France? Or India?

 

[ajay]

the US has drawn up plans to destroy Tehran's underground nuclear facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Tactical Nuclear Weapons....

I dont see how someone could possibly fathom that using a nuclear weapon on another could be a result of any other tactic, other then declaring absolute nuclear war.

No Nukes!
No Nukes!
No Nukes!


EDIT - FR DREW - i completely agree...

 

[tnankie]

I was under the impression that the US opperated under a very strong no first use policy. Naively I assumed that this was codified in american law, but I now realise its probably just in their rhetoric<sp?> not even in those treaties they sign.


I really don't think they would use nukes, there would be far too much po;itical fallout.


Mind you the irony of using nukes to stop nuclear war is priceless.

 

[FR Drew]

No First Use (except in pre-emptive strikes...)

Obey The United Nations (except the bit about the security council voting not to go to war)

Preserve, install and enforce democratic systems of governement (unless the people democratically vote for Hamas)

 

[johnny]

I was under the impression that the US opperated under a very strong no first use policy. Naively I assumed that this was codified in american law, but I now realise its probably just in their rhetoric<sp?> not even in those treaties they sign.

treaties mean nothing when there is no body that can enforce them.

I really don't think they would use nukes, there would be far too much po;itical fallout.

I thought that for a while too. But the US calls the shots these days, there's not a hell of a lot anyone could do to hurt them right now when it comes to political fallout. The EU needs them for global security, China needs them for trade, India needs them for nuke technology and trade.

Who else is there? [Please don't say Russia].

 

[PINT of Stella. mate!]

I was under the impression that the US opperated under a very strong no first use policy.

Yeah, Just ask any senior citizens from Hiroshima or Nagasaki about 'no first use' of nuclear weapons...

 

[gravelclimber]

Quote:
I really don't think they would use nukes, there would be far too much po;itical fallout.
I thought that for a while too. But the US calls the shots these days, there's not a hell of a lot anyone could do to hurt them right now when it comes to political fallout. The EU needs them for global security, China needs them for trade, India needs them for nuke technology and trade.

Yeah, I tend to agree. A lot of people hate America with a passion and whether or not they use nukes won't change that. Those that continue to support them even after mess that's been made in Iraq will continue to support them.