Author Topic: Here comes the media push for war in Iran... (Read 2997 times)

Hugo Chavez · « **on:** November 06, 2007, 01:21:28 PM »

This aired on the History Channel, I watched it last night. There are two plans for war with Iran. One light that just hits the suspected nuclear sites and one where they take out everything. The neocons who backed this documentary push for the larger scale attack as being the only feasible option. The planned attack is a shock and awe plan that dwarfs anything ever done before--several times larger than the attack on Iraq.

I thought we were done with listening to neocons but here they are, making their bogus wild case for war again...

History Channel's Beyond Top Secret - Iran 1-5
1

2

3

4

5

Nov 23, UPDATE:
A plan to attack Iran swiftly and from above
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071122.wiran22/BNStory/International/home?pageRequested=all&print=true

Dos Equis · « **Reply #1 on:** November 06, 2007, 03:46:27 PM »

I'm a little torn on this. If we are going to stay the course in Iraq, we cannot sit back and do nothing if Iran is supplying insurgents. Also very concerned about them obtaining nuclear weapons. Tough issue.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #2 on:** November 06, 2007, 03:54:57 PM »

Last I checked there was still no smoking gun that Iran has supplied anyone in Iraq. They're even letting go the guys they nabbed telling everyone in the media belonged to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Of couse you won't hear this on Hannity or Rush's show, just the part where they nabbed them as Irania Revolutionary Guard members.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071106/wl_nm/iraq_dc_4

Dos Equis · « **Reply #3 on:** November 06, 2007, 04:05:01 PM »

Quote from: Berserker on November 06, 2007, 03:54:57 PM

Last I checked there was still no smoking gun that Iran has supplied anyone in Iraq. They're even letting go the guys they nabbed telling everyone in the media belonged to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Of couse you won't hear this on Hannity or Rush's show, just the part where they nabbed them as Irania Revolutionary Guard members.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071106/wl_nm/iraq_dc_4

May not be a smoking gun, but if they are supplying them, we have to do something. Failing to do anything could affect the safety of our troops.

We can't ignore the nuclear issue either.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #4 on:** November 06, 2007, 04:19:11 PM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on November 06, 2007, 04:05:01 PM

May not be a smoking gun, but if they are supplying them, we have to do something. Failing to do anything could affect the safety of our troops.

We can't ignore the nuclear issue either.

Don't you think we should have a smoking gun or "if" before diving into full blown WWIII.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #5 on:** November 06, 2007, 04:38:27 PM »

Quote from: Berserker on November 06, 2007, 04:19:11 PM

Don't you think we should have a smoking gun or "if" before diving into full blown WWIII.

We shouldn't do anything to start WWIII, but I'm not sure a smoking gun is really necessary. We definitely need solid intelligence.

I just can't see standing by and letting them supply the enemy (if that is the case). I have expressed my frustration to some of my military friends that we cannot identify supply lines and just cut them off. Apparently it's not that simple. Maybe headhunter has some input?

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #6 on:** November 06, 2007, 05:01:31 PM »

UN nuclear watchdog chief:

"But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No." If there is actual evidence, ElBaradei said he would welcome seeing it.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/28/america/NA-GEN-US-Iran.php

Dos Equis · « **Reply #7 on:** November 06, 2007, 05:06:29 PM »

Quote from: Berserker on November 06, 2007, 05:01:31 PM

UN nuclear watchdog chief:

"But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No." If there is actual evidence, ElBaradei said he would welcome seeing it.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/28/america/NA-GEN-US-Iran.php

The passage immediately preceding those quotes:

"We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization," said Mohamed ElBaradei, who leads the International Atomic Energy Agency. "That's why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks."

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #8 on:** November 06, 2007, 05:29:20 PM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on November 06, 2007, 05:06:29 PM

The passage immediately preceding those quotes:

"We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization," said Mohamed ElBaradei, who leads the International Atomic Energy Agency. "That's why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks."

yes, I can read

"maybe some studies" "possible" All this is why it isn't case closed which is absolutely understandable. My point! Zero evidence of weapons program. Neocon point: they're about to launch

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #9 on:** November 06, 2007, 05:34:17 PM »

Also, those studies, the evidense againt Iran, hilarious where it came from

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15562.htm

Dos Equis · « **Reply #10 on:** November 06, 2007, 05:35:34 PM »

Quote from: Berserker on November 06, 2007, 05:29:20 PM

yes, I can read "maybe some studies" "possible" All this is why it isn't case closed which is absolutely understandable. My point! Zero evidence of weapons program. Neocon point: they're about to launch

I can read a little too.

Both zero evidence and imminent attack are probably too strong. There must be a little smoke if the UN "cannot give Iran a pass right now." We'll see.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #11 on:** November 06, 2007, 05:38:16 PM »

Here's a little tidbit that's disgusting... If they're closer than they were to a nuclear weapon, guess who you can thank... yea, as freaking usual the C*I*A... They handed Iran blueprints for the triggers and the exuse provided is lousy BS.

headhuntersix · « **Reply #12 on:** November 07, 2007, 07:59:11 AM »

The general public does not have access to information regarding what Iran is doing in Iraq. Talk to any SF guy working over there and u here stories etc. There were stories in the print media of Iraqi insurgents receiving training in Lebannon and returning to Iraq...they caugt guys...whether they release them or not, they caught em...and thats the guys we know about. If it walks like a duck....look the case for war with iran is very easy to make. We have options..bomb the dog snot out of them, forment revolution, crush them economically, combinations of all 3 etc etc. Everybody wants proof of this or that. Dig around...just because some uninformed liberal site says there is no proof, doesn't mean its not true. Iran is up to their ass in southern Iraq and have been since before we invaded. They want nukes and many in the Arab wolrd would love to see Iran get frog stomped because of it.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #13 on:** November 07, 2007, 09:05:43 AM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on November 07, 2007, 07:59:11 AM

The general public does not have access to information regarding what Iran is doing in Iraq. Talk to any SF guy working over there and u here stories etc. There were stories in the print media of Iraqi insurgents receiving training in Lebannon and returning to Iraq...they caugt guys...whether they release them or not, they caught em...and thats the guys we know about. If it walks like a duck....look the case for war with iran is very easy to make. We have options..bomb the dog snot out of them, forment revolution, crush them economically, combinations of all 3 etc etc. Everybody wants proof of this or that. Dig around...just because some uninformed liberal site says there is no proof, doesn't mean its not true. Iran is up to their ass in southern Iraq and have been since before we invaded. They want nukes and many in the Arab wolrd would love to see Iran get frog stomped because of it.

"uninformed liberal site"

You mean the IAEA

HH6

With this war, we lead to so much death and destruction I can't believe you're just willing to sign up, no proof after what these fucking clown neocons have done... Jesus, you thought terrorist's thrived and grew under the Iraq/Afgan wars, wait till you see how things looks after this... I hate to attack you, but it's people like you that will bring us all down... This is it, it's happening, they've wanted this to happen for so fucking long, now they'll have their little endgame... so it is written by weirdos, so it shall be done bla bla bal

headhuntersix · « **Reply #14 on:** November 07, 2007, 10:41:22 AM »

Yeah uninformed liberal sites..multiple....they all seen no proof because they hate Bush, they can't divorce themselves from Iraq nor the WMD thing. Attacking Iran should be viewed on its own merits...I've also said for oh i don't know abouta million posts that I don't advocate attacking Iran in any way unlless destabilizing them from within, with sanctions, CIA dirty tricks etc..as we have done during the Cold War, is attacking them. I thinka stronger case could be made to attack them as opposed to Iraq. As far as proof.....yeah ive seen proof..based on people I've talked to and the general climate. Its like talking to a cop, they know what all the bad guys are doing. I also don't advocate attacking Iran based on a Conversation I had with a Pakistani Col i got to talk to while overseas. He laid out what would happen in Afghnistan, based on what he said, I didn't think attacking would be a good idea. But i won't be mute on the case for war nor how easily we'll crush them. Its what happens after thats the major problem.

JOHN MATRIX · « **Reply #15 on:** November 07, 2007, 02:27:35 PM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on November 06, 2007, 04:05:01 PM

We can't ignore the nuclear issue either.

why is everyone so concerned about this? even if they get nukes, what the hell are they going to do with them? iran is no threat to us at all.

if this bothers you then where is the concern for pakistan, an islamic nation twice the size of iran, already possessing nukes, whose western friendly leader is barely holding on and will likely soon be replaced by a hardline islamic 'government' unfriendly towards the united states?

Dos Equis · « **Reply #16 on:** November 07, 2007, 02:44:10 PM »

Quote from: JOHN MATRIX on November 07, 2007, 02:27:35 PM

why is everyone so concerned about this? even if they get nukes, what the hell are they going to do with them? iran is no threat to us at all.

if this bothers you then where is the concern for pakistan, an islamic nation twice the size of iran, already possessing nukes, whose western friendly leader is barely holding on and will likely soon be replaced by a hardline islamic 'government' unfriendly towards the united states?

Anytime a country that wants to wipe us and one of our allies (Israel) off the face of the earth is trying to obtain WMDs, I'm concerned. If you're not, you should be.

Not a whole lot we can do about Pakistan. They already have them.

JOHN MATRIX · « **Reply #17 on:** November 07, 2007, 03:02:00 PM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on November 07, 2007, 02:44:10 PM

Anytime a country that wants to wipe us and one of our allies (Israel) off the face of the earth is trying to obtain WMDs, I'm concerned. If you're not, you should be.

Not a whole lot we can do about Pakistan. They already have them.

israel is the reason they have a problem with us to begin with.
let israel handle their own shit, iran can do what they please with them.
even if iran gets nukes, they wont do shit to us. obviously they know if they did ANYTHING then we would wipe THEM off the map. think about it from their perspective. they want them for defensive/deterrence purposes, not for offensive aggressive purposes like teh Fox News seems to want us to think

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #18 on:** November 07, 2007, 03:09:06 PM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on November 07, 2007, 10:41:22 AM

Yeah uninformed liberal sites..multiple....they all seen no proof because they hate Bush, they can't divorce themselves from Iraq nor the WMD thing. Attacking Iran should be viewed on its own merits...I've also said for oh i don't know abouta million posts that I don't advocate attacking Iran in any way unlless destabilizing them from within, with sanctions, CIA dirty tricks etc..as we have done during the Cold War, is attacking them. I thinka stronger case could be made to attack them as opposed to Iraq. As far as proof.....yeah ive seen proof..based on people I've talked to and the general climate. Its like talking to a cop, they know what all the bad guys are doing. I also don't advocate attacking Iran based on a Conversation I had with a Pakistani Col i got to talk to while overseas. He laid out what would happen in Afghnistan, based on what he said, I didn't think attacking would be a good idea. But i won't be mute on the case for war nor how easily we'll crush them. Its what happens after thats the major problem.

Hello??? Are we on the same page, I guess not.... Where did I list uninformed liberal sites? The IAEA is not a liberal blog

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #19 on:** November 07, 2007, 03:19:49 PM »

Beach, HH6, I'm curious... The same treaty that holds Iran to a commitment of not obtaining nukes is to my knowledge the same one Israel refused to sign. Do you think it would be fair that we insist all sides in the region lose their WMD? I do, bigtime... If my enemy had nukes, I would want nukes no matter what... If my enemy didn't have nukes, I would be much more willing to drop such ambitions... Or is it truly OK for us to give a pass on some nations and get all strict with others in the region? Also, if the United States pulls from weapons treaties at will, why should other nations hold to signed treaties? Doesn't it kind of take all the power out of treaties when the world superpower disregards them at will?

Dos Equis · « **Reply #20 on:** November 07, 2007, 03:25:01 PM »

Quote from: JOHN MATRIX on November 07, 2007, 03:02:00 PM

israel is the reason they have a problem with us to begin with.
let israel handle their own shit, iran can do what they please with them.
even if iran gets nukes, they wont do shit to us. obviously they know if they did ANYTHING then we would wipe THEM off the map. think about it from their perspective. they want them for defensive/deterrence purposes, not for offensive aggressive purposes like teh Fox News seems to want us to think

I understand where you're come from. You may be giving them too much credit. I just have a hard time trusting Iran. I remember seeing images on TV as a kid showing Iranians (including children) chanting "death to America" and burning American flags. That really colors my perception.

And Israel will always be our ally. One of the few friends we have in the Middle East.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #21 on:** November 07, 2007, 03:39:09 PM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on November 07, 2007, 03:25:01 PM

I understand where you're come from. You may be giving them too much credit. I just have a hard time trusting Iran. I remember seeing images on TV as a kid showing Iranians (including children) chanting "death to America" and burning American flags. That really colors my perception.

And Israel will always be our ally. One of the few friends we have in the Middle East.

Was that the images taken right after we declaired them to be part of the axis of evil, right after they had helped us bigtime in Afganistan... Go figure... Or was that after one of the several times the C*I*A subversively ran amok on Iran? I can't help but wonder if the tables were turned and they had done the same things to us, would you see people here calling for Death to Iran? I know they already are, just imagine tho...

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #22 on:** November 07, 2007, 03:42:46 PM »

for the record, because I'm sure some will assume, I have no love for Iran's government. I'm guilty of favoring Chavez, but Achmadmanwhatever is a nut.

Livewire · « **Reply #23 on:** November 07, 2007, 03:47:37 PM »

If the US was small and had a lot of oil under us,

And Iran was powerful and needed fuel desperately...

They'd be doing the same shit to us - surrounding our borders, putting us in tough positions, and ramping up the war effort.

Big hungry animals will always attack small animals who have all the food. It's just animal instinct - and it affects all of us, from people to ants.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #24 on:** November 07, 2007, 03:50:31 PM »

Quote from: Berserker on November 07, 2007, 03:39:09 PM

Was that the images taken right after we declaired them to be part of the axis of evil, right after they had helped us bigtime in Afganistan... Go figure... Or was that after one of the several times the C*I*A subversively ran amok on Iran? I can't help but wonder if the tables were turned and they had done the same things to us, would you see people here calling for Death to Iran? I know they already are, just imagine tho...

I'm not sure. It was more than 20 years ago.

I don't think their hatred was caused by our foreign policy. Based on what I've heard from people who have spent time in the Middle East, much of that part of the world hates our entire "Western" way of life. They believe we are evil, corrupt, etc. and there is really nothing we can do to change that. Dude, they call us "The Great Satan." $:-\$