US/Israeli attack on Iran within next three months?

According to a report in the Arab Times the US is likely to attack Iran in April of this year. A reliable source said President Bush recently held a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice and other assistants in the White House where they discussed the plan to attack Iran in minute detail. ...participants of the meeting agreed to impose restrictions on the ambitions of [the] Iranian regime before April 2007 without exposing other countries in the region to any danger, the source said “they have chosen April as British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said it will be the last month in office for him. The United States has to take action against Iran and Syria before April 2007.

source: US military strike on Iran seen by April ’07; Sea-launched attack to hit oil, N-sites
http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/kuwait/Viewdet.asp?ID=9548&cat=a

This would seem to tie in with the Israeli assertion that Iran would have a nuclear bomb within two years. That statement was made two years ago. The Israeli statement can be taken as a coded threat meaning "if the Iranians don't give up their nuclear technology and the US don't bomb them then we will".

The signs don't look good -

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html

40% See 2007 War With Iran As Second Carrier Deployed
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/040107warwithiran.htm

US sends Iran naval warning
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=US+sends+naval+message+to+Iran&x=0&y=0&scope=all&tab=av&recipe=all

Escalation Against Iran
The Pieces Are Being Put in Place, article By Col. Sam Gardiner
http://www.counterpunch.org/gardiner01162007.html

Gates says U.S. military moves in Gulf are aimed at Iranian negative behaviour
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=03f3a5ee-cffc-449d-93fa-c821c874d1b8&k=26375

Not surprising at all.

should be no worries, our liberal friends always remind us Iran has better weapons suplied by russia and will shoot all our planes down and we will fail. That way Iran can get nukes, its only fair.

If Iraq is corrupt enough to take down.. then Iran won't be far behind.

The question is... are we going to "lose" this war too? I'm sure the media and liberals are already coming up with buzzwords and headlines to try to portray a tragic state of affairs... That has been the big knock on the media during the Iraq war.. they NEVER report anything positive.. and while liberals will cry "there IS nothing positive".. i say bullshit. You can report deaths, but why not report people who are optimistic and such? Why not report about the voting lines? The whole voting line story took days to get any press, talk radio pretty much read the charge on that one. Why not report about all the people who hated Saddam and are glad he's gone? I must have missed those stories.

should be no worries, our liberal friends always remind us Iran has better weapons suplied by russia and will shoot all our planes down and we will fail. That way Iran can get nukes, its only fair.


Iran can't win an all-out war with the U.S. regardless of who makes her weapons. But the weapons she does have are top quality and will certainly exact a price if used.

Chances are Iran won't immediately retaliate if we strike. My guess is she will use here worldwide resources to attack later.

And Iran needs nukes, otherwise america will eventually attack, invade, torture innocent people, steal her oil and go door-to-door to kill the women and children in cold blood. Bush has already proven that point.

otherwise america will eventually attack, invade, torture innocent people, steal her oil and go door-to-door to kill the women and children in cold blood.
Oh, you silly man you!

You actually believe that is a bad thing?

Russian and Chinese weapons are not "top quality". Perhaps on paper they are, but reality will show russian crafstmanship lacking when it counts.

Yes! One step closer to becoming a dictatorship of our own!

i'll take that bet.

Russian and Chinese weapons are not "top quality". Perhaps on paper they are, but reality will show russian crafstmanship lacking when it counts.


I don't suppose you can point to anything authoritive to back up your claim or show an explicit example of russian hardware failing during battle or whatever ...

The problem is not quality of weapons. It's quality of training. Iran, Russia and China do not have the resources to properly train their forces to work together, organize, and use their weapons. The weapons themselves work fine.

That being said, it's unlikely that Iran would be able to mount any reasonable resistance or retaliatory effort if their bureaucracy and economic resources are co-opted by American and pro-American factions in Iran.

The rest of the Middle East, however, would likely not take the invasion lightly, and terrorism on an even greater scale than the kind seen in Iraq would plague the nation, perhaps even for decades.

I think I'm going to re-examine my stance on Israel. The Middle East is wholly without a workable state that isn't filled to the brim with corruption and graft. Left to it's own devices, Muslim refugees and their medieval mindset would literally pour into Europe and set civilization back for centuries.

The amount of barbarism that would take place should Israel begin forcibly colonizing the area would likely be much less than the barbarism that is taking place now. I wish there were a more humane way to do things, but if peasants in the Middle East aren't disenfranchised by the Isrealis, they most certainly will be by their own people.

I don't suppose you can point to anything authoritive to back up your claim or show an explicit example of russian hardware failing during battle or whatever ...

you ever heard of the Kursk?

The Chinese have to be able to deliver a significant number of troops and equipment to the shores of the U.S., and be able to maintain that before they can hope to invade America. It doesn't matter if they have an invading army of 1 billion - if they can't deliver them (we've plenty of submarines & warships) and supply them, it will be plenty hard to invade with any hoipe of success.

ya, no army could reach our shores because of our navy. their best hope would be to secretly build up in South America, perhaps with our friend Chavez, then roll up through central america and mexico. even then, they couldnt hide the kind of numbers it would take to occupy the continental US. besides, half of their tanks would break down before the made it through Panama

If Iraq is corrupt enough to take down.. then Iran won't be far behind.

The question is... are we going to "lose" this war too? I'm sure the media and liberals are already coming up with buzzwords and headlines to try to portray a tragic state of affairs... That has been the big knock on the media during the Iraq war.. they NEVER report anything positive.. and while liberals will cry "there IS nothing positive".. i say bullshit.

So would an attack on Iran be a 'positive' thing? Just think of the potential consequences...

the long-term impact of a nuclear strike on Iran is likely to be catastrophic and not only because it would enrage Shiites in Iraq. Parry suggests that local U.S.-backed dictators might find themselves facing unrest as well. If Hezbollah rocketed Israel, Tel Aviv might decide to invade Syria, igniting a full-scale regional war. It is even possible that Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf might fall, says Parry, “conceivably giving Islamic terrorists control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.” In that event, India would almost certainly intervene, which could spark a nuclear war in South Asia. India and Pakistan came perilously close to such an exchange in 1999.

Source: Conn Hallinan, Iran: Thinking the Unthinkable, Foreign Policy In Focus
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3910

I can see it now, tanks filling up at the local Citgos all throughout South America. Chinese tank operators demanding full service from gas station operators and not leaving tips.

So would an attack on Iran be a 'positive' thing? Just think of the potential consequences...



Source: Conn Hallinan, Iran: Thinking the Unthinkable, Foreign Policy In Focus
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3910


No. Iran's economy is struggling mightily. It has been for awhile. Oil and gas production are on a steady decline over a multi-year period. The mullahs have not been able to deliver on the goods. There is a strong pro-western faction within iran. There is a strong impulse toward democracy in iran. If we can just be patient enough positive change in iran will occur.

you ever heard of the Kursk?

Yeah and I've also heard of the USS Dolphin, USS Thresher and USS Forrestal.

we are talking modern times man. I dont even know why I am having this "debate" with you. Clearly since neither of us are experts itsa matter of preference. You seem to prefer russian and chinese weapons to american ones, thats your deal.

Lets nuke em back to the stone age

we are talking modern times man. I dont even know why I am having this "debate" with you. Clearly since neither of us are experts itsa matter of preference. You seem to prefer russian and chinese weapons to american ones, thats your deal.


Our weapons systems and hardware are top of the line and most of it is unbeatable but that does not mean russia and china makes junk. Their weapons are also very good and getting better every day. We take them lightly at our own peril.

I dont take any weapon lightly. Point a loaded musket at me and i will react the same as if it were a Desert Eagle .50 cal.
It just seems to me you are so quick to hype the war machines of russia and china over ours, that is all. Its like you think their stuff is better since you never say anything about our stuff

Lets nuke em back to the stone age

-Strive to become what you admire-


I am trying to think of two statements more incongruent than

Lets nuke em back to the stone age

and

-Strive to become what you admire-.

Hmmmm.........................................hmmm ..........................hmmmm................... ........................hmmmmmmmmm................ .....................

Nope.

Can't do it.

I am trying to think of two statements more incongruent than

Lets nuke em back to the stone age

and

-Strive to become what you admire-.

Hmmmm.........................................hmmm ..........................hmmmm................... ........................hmmmmmmmmm................ .....................

Nope.
[b]
Can't do it.

Here's one ... 2 contiguous lines from the blues song ... Shake, rattle and roll
(written by Charles Calhoun ~ performed by Joe Turner & others)

I'm like a one-eyed cat peeping in a seafood store

--and--

Well, I can look at you and tell you ain't no child no more

But you're right ... I had to really dig on this one.

No. Iran's economy is struggling mightily. It has been for awhile. Oil and gas production are on a steady decline over a multi-year period. The mullahs have not been able to deliver on the goods. There is a strong pro-western faction within iran. There is a strong impulse toward democracy in iran. If we can just be patient enough positive change in iran will occur.

You're right about the large pro-democracy feeling in Iran. As far as I know it was growing fast, at least before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power, which makes me suspect of him winning the 2005 election - I think it may have been rigged.
Mind you, Ahmadinejad is something of a god-send (no pun intended) for the Bush administration. With Saddam dead and bin Laden doing his best 'Scarlet Pimpernel' impersonation, the US needs another major Mid-East bogeyman and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fits that role perfectly.

I am trying to think of two statements more incongruent than

Lets nuke em back to the stone age

and

-Strive to become what you admire-.

Hmmmm.........................................hmmm ..........................hmmmm................... ........................hmmmmmmmmm................ .....................

Nope.

Can't do it.

Hahahhaa, that's why I read your posts! The sarcastic seriousness always amuses me.

I think Ghandi would nuke them, don't you?

I can't see it happening. Iran is twice the size of Iraq and we don't have enough troops to properly secure Iraq and Afganistan. Going into Iran right now would be a collossal mistake.... which means it is possible with this administration.