U.S. 'preparing the battlefield' in Iran

[H]

Guys, I agree that preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons is a crucial goal, but trying to accomplish that by bombing them is folly. First of all, reports I have seen say they have built hardened development facilities underground that we can't touch with bombs or cruise missiles (if we even know where to target). And our 'certainty' of WMD sites in Iraq showed that we probably don't know where to target anyway. Second, I'm not sure that hitting the Iranians with force would be an effective way to dissuade them from undesirable behavior. Ahmadinejad is an unpopular leader, but the surest way to reinforce his power and his paranoid way of thinking would be to attack the country. With Bush's inflammatory rhetoric, the Middle East has become a powder keg. Tossing in a lighted match is not a very helpful step. The Iranians have indicated a desire to improve relations in the recent past--the current administration rebuffed them. We need a level-headed approach to the problem.

[UKMustangFan]

Explain to me why, if we are attacked by Iran only, the American public will want to use nuclear weapons (I assume in retaliation), on "almost every Arab country".

 

My guess would be that two different Arab countries, would have attacked the US....It would almost be like stopping the trend before it really gets going....

[Habib]

My guess would be that two different Arab countries, would have attacked the US....It would almost be like stopping the trend before it really gets going....

 

Who is the other country?

[UKMustangFan]

Who is the other country?

 

Well, I guess technically not a country, many blame the 9/11 attacks on Afghanistan...

[pigman]

With whatever his name is being such an unpopular leader wouldn't it make more sense to start a revolution inside Iran and overthrow him?

[HHSDad]

With whatever his name is being such an unpopular leader wouldn't it make more sense to start a revolution inside Iran and overthrow him?

Ahmadinejad is not the real power in Iran. The power lies in the hands of the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, and the Assembly of Experts. While Iran has a President and Parliment, make no mistake, the clerics are in control in Iran. You'll never see a revolution against them.

[Hatz]

Well, I guess technically not a country, many blame the 9/11 attacks on Afghanistan...

 

Who else would you blame them on? Afghanistan was run by the Taliban that supported and propped up Al-Qaida.

[UKMustangFan]

Who else would you blame them on? Afghanistan was run by the Taliban that supported and propped up Al-Qaida.

 

No one. He asked who besides Iran was the other country.

[HHSDad]

No one. He asked who besides Iran was the other country.

Syria.

[UKMustangFan]

Syria.

 

I'm not familiar with that...:confused:

[HHSDad]

I'm not familiar with that...:confused:

That's where its believed Sadaam shipped his goodies before the invasion. Syria is probably the biggest hater of Israel and the United States. They also are a major supplier of insurgents to Iraq.

 

Below is more info on Syria. Don't ask where it came from.

 

What I want to do is just frame the issue. I read the press reporting coming out here. So I’m almost at the point of saying are there any questions. But just let me say that what we’re going to discuss is a nuclear reactor. It was constructed by the Syrians in the eastern desert of Syria along the Euphrates River on the east side. The Syrians constructed this reactor for the production of plutonium with the assistance of the North Koreans.

Our evidence goes back an extended period of time. We have had insights to what was going on since very late ’90s, early 2000, 2001 that something was happening. Our issue was pinning it down and being more precise. We had increasing appreciation for what was happening in the 2003, 2006 timeframe. But we still couldn’t quite pin it down, as will become apparent to you when we show you more of the physical evidence that you’ll see in just a moment.

In the spring of last year, we were able to obtain some additional information that made it conclusive. And so, we engaged in this policy process of now that we have the evidence, what do we do about it? The evidence concluded a nuclear reactor, as I mentioned, constructed by the Syrians, started probably in 2001, completed in the summer of 2007. And it was nearing operational capability.

 

---

Peace talks hit an early snag over the scope of an Israeli withdrawal from the strategic Golan Heights, captured from Syria during the 1967 Mideast war. Israel responded angrily to published remarks by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who said an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan must go all the way to Tiberias, a city on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. That would mean that Syria would control the eastern shore of the lake - territory it did not hold before the war.

Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz had this response during a visit to the Golan Heights.

"Syria is not ready for peace," he said, adding that "they are up to their necks in terrorism." That was a reference to Syria's support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Palestinian militant groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. But what most worries Israel are Syria's ties with Iran.

[UKMustangFan]

That's where its believed Sadaam shipped his goodies before the invasion. Syria is probably the biggest hater of Israel and the United States. They also are a major supplier of insurgents to Iraq.

 

Below is more info on Syria. Don't ask where it came from.

 

What I want to do is just frame the issue. I read the press reporting coming out here. So I’m almost at the point of saying are there any questions. But just let me say that what we’re going to discuss is a nuclear reactor. It was constructed by the Syrians in the eastern desert of Syria along the Euphrates River on the east side. The Syrians constructed this reactor for the production of plutonium with the assistance of the North Koreans.

Our evidence goes back an extended period of time. We have had insights to what was going on since very late ’90s, early 2000, 2001 that something was happening. Our issue was pinning it down and being more precise. We had increasing appreciation for what was happening in the 2003, 2006 timeframe. But we still couldn’t quite pin it down, as will become apparent to you when we show you more of the physical evidence that you’ll see in just a moment.

In the spring of last year, we were able to obtain some additional information that made it conclusive. And so, we engaged in this policy process of now that we have the evidence, what do we do about it? The evidence concluded a nuclear reactor, as I mentioned, constructed by the Syrians, started probably in 2001, completed in the summer of 2007. And it was nearing operational capability.

 

---

Peace talks hit an early snag over the scope of an Israeli withdrawal from the strategic Golan Heights, captured from Syria during the 1967 Mideast war. Israel responded angrily to published remarks by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who said an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan must go all the way to Tiberias, a city on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. That would mean that Syria would control the eastern shore of the lake - territory it did not hold before the war.

Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz had this response during a visit to the Golan Heights.

"Syria is not ready for peace," he said, adding that "they are up to their necks in terrorism." That was a reference to Syria's support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Palestinian militant groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. But what most worries Israel are Syria's ties with Iran.

 

Thanks. :thumb:

[NEXT]

Explain to me why, if we are attacked by Iran only, the American public will want to use nuclear weapons (I assume in retaliation), on "almost every Arab country".

 

 

As someone stated earlier, it would be 2 Arab countries who would have attacked us.

 

Add to the fact that if Israel was attacked Syria would jump in as well as Egypt.

 

If that happened, as well as the US being attacked I would want Egypt, Syria, Iran, and probably Pakistan nuked. I'm talking all weapons facilities and military sites as well as 2 large cities.

 

 

For those who feel we cannot reach a deep bunker in Iran, you really have no idea what our Air Force and Special Ops can do.

[True blue (and gold)]

As someone stated earlier, it would be 2 Arab countries who would have attacked us.

 

Add to the fact that if Israel was attacked Syria would jump in as well as Egypt.

 

If that happened, as well as the US being attacked I would want Egypt, Syria, Iran, and probably Pakistan nuked. I'm talking all weapons facilities and military sites as well as 2 large cities.

 

 

For those who feel we cannot reach a deep bunker in Iran, you really have no idea what our Air Force and Special Ops can do.

 

You'll have to excuse me if I am overlooking something...but how would it be 2 countries if only Iran attacks only us?

[UKMustangFan]

You'll have to excuse me if I am overlooking something...but how would it be 2 countries if only Iran attacks only us?

 

As I said earlier, I'm assuming he's meaning Afghanistan in relation to 9/11...