BadBob
Sep 2 2007, 10:37 pm
QUOTE
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 in Sunday’s edition in the
Times of London.
"They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military."I'm all for taking out the Iranian military - they are part of the Axis of Evil.
omjoi
Sep 2 2007, 10:39 pm
everything according to the plans, written at the end of the eighties. Actually the plans foresaw the invasion of Syria, followed by iran. This change surprises me a bit,
sea-king
Sep 2 2007, 10:42 pm
All well and good Bad BoB, But I think it´s the civilians who´ll give you the trouble when the US decides to march in. Be better off having a look at the bollocks that has been made / is being made in Iraq.
omjoi
Sep 2 2007, 10:50 pm
QUOTE (sea-king @ Sep 2 2007, 11:42 pm)

All well and good Bad BoB,
I think I will withdraw from the discussion, unless someone has read some books from Noam Chomsky.
Wheel
Sep 2 2007, 11:48 pm
Actually it'll be more like the Israeli 'strategic' campaign against Lebanon last year. Many thousands of civilians dead and the infrastructure of the country in ruins. No invasion. Whether the US will be able to keep the Strait of Hormuz open (preventing the price of oil tripling overnight) is debatable. Cheney clearly thinks it can, or he's so barmy he thinks it won't matter too much if it can't.
Crawlie
Sep 3 2007, 4:55 am
A 3 day plan? So, a lightning strike designed to knock out the military effectiveness of the opposition immediately so as not to have a pointless war drag on for years? Yeah... That plan has proved mighty effective in the past...
jeremy
Sep 3 2007, 6:12 am
Yes Crawlie. It was called Shock and Awe. The media treated it like a giant firework display not huge destruction which maimed and destroyed families and their homes.
Iran is not a fantastic country by any means but it needs treating in more skillful diplomatic ways then military action. If the US goes ahead then their stature in the rowlr which is tenuous now, will sink even lower.
QUOTE (BadBob @ Sep 2 2007, 11:37 pm)

they are part of the Axis of Evil.
are you trolling Bad Bob...
Are you actually a troll or do you really believe this shit...
"The axis of evil"... you've got to be joking, it sounds like a comic book...
Next chapter...
Captain America goes in and slaughters thousands of innocent civilians by dropping big fuck off bombs from the air.
Enemies that started out fictitious are slowly becoming reality through carefully planned manipulation...
When will the fucking nutters in the whitehouse be brought to justice?
I include Howard and Blair in the "fucking nutter" category also just to be clear.
miwild
Sep 3 2007, 7:21 am
Crime against peaceDuring the (
Nuremberg) trial, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, stated:
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
Conquistador
Sep 3 2007, 8:13 am
For those who are interested in a little more information than out-of-context statements provided by people with a irrational hatred of the US:
QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_PrinciplesThe Nuremberg Principles were a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime.
The document was created by necessity during the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi party members following World War II.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggressionThe Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court refers to the crime of aggression as one of the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community�, and provides that the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
However, the Rome Statute stipulates that the ICC may not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until such time as the states parties agree on a definition of the crime and set out the conditions under which it may be prosecuted.Here is the statement of the ICC chief prosecutor on the military action in Iraq:
http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/otp/...bruary_2006.pdf
Yes. Intellectually bankrupt.
Conquistador
Sep 3 2007, 8:36 am
QUOTE (miwild @ Aug 29 2007, 8:07 am)

In the process of "maintaining peace" Americans massacred 5+ million "gooks" ... in the name of "freedom & democracy"
QUOTE (Sin @ Sep 3 2007, 9:22 am)

Yes. Intellectually bankrupt.
That is one way of putting the above quote and many others by the virulently ant-US miwild. As for intellectually bankrupt, criticizing only the US for Iraq certainly fits that description. I note that officials from ICC member countries UK, Australia, and Poland are not getting prosecuted by the ICC for "aggression". Care to proffer a reason why?
Of course, I see no virulent criticism of the UK for actions taken alongside the US-only criticism of the US. Sounds like intellectually bankrupt English übernationalism on the part of Sin to me. Direct your fire at your own elected representatives.
You misunderstand Conquistador. On this occasion I wasn't levelling any criticism at the United States of America. I was merely stating that You, Conquistador, are intellectually bankrupt. I say this not as an Englishman, but as a human being. Deal with it.
Conquistador
Sep 3 2007, 8:43 am
Well, Sin, it is a complex issue. As I pointed out before, why aren't officials from the UK being prosecuted for "aggression"? I think it is "intellectually bankrupt" to liken Bush to Hitler and make false claims of a massacre of 5 million people , as miwild has done, but of course, you have no criticism for him. There is no shortage of "intellectually bankrupt" posts from you as well.
I for one, would like to know more about the information available in 2002/2003 and the decision-making process- from a wide range of reliable sources. Then a better analysis can be done. I say this as someone who opposed taking action in Iraq in 2003.
omjoi
Sep 3 2007, 8:45 am
It is impossible to discuss about some topics, because the REAL topic is always "Are you with us(a) or against us(a) ?!"
Exactly! And that is almost certainly the goal.
omjoi
Sep 3 2007, 8:50 am
Good to know, I will play another game.
Please call me when you start discussing the iran business, I am interested.
The US creates and maintains such plans as a matter of course. Other nations have contingency plans fitting their capabilities to defend their interests as well. This is normal operations - nothing new.
Conquistador
Sep 3 2007, 8:53 am
Looks to me that the real aim is to denounce the US in every way imaginable while some Germans and English expiate their guilt.
It's not a "with us" or "against us" debate, but to ignore the fact the UK and other countries participated in action in Iraq while solely blaming the US is hypocritical and misses a key part of the situation.
I think Bush, Blair and others owe the world some answers as to how they came to the decision to take action in Iraq.
EDIT: Adi, good point made in your post just above. There will be no military action taken against Iran.
QUOTE (Conquistador @ Sep 3 2007, 9:53 am)

I think Bush, Blair and others owe the world some answers as to how they came to the decision to take action in Iraq.
That is not a disputed crime...
Howard, Blair and others should also be taken to task for their lying and deception!
This is not a point for argument...
You don't repair a slashed throat with a band-aid...
A real solution requires going to the source of the problems and not the symptoms.
I am not virulent Anti-US, I am however virulent Anti-US administration and their corporate, criminal regime!
Wheel
Sep 3 2007, 9:13 am
QUOTE (Conquistador @ Sep 3 2007, 8:53 am)

There will be no military action taken against Iran.
Are you taking bets?
Yes, I'll take that bet. While the US is deployed on active service in Iraq and Afghanistan - and the USD remains stuck in the mire - a US president will not commit to an attack on Iran. I'd say no attack on Iran for at least a decade - as long as Iran makes no pre-emptive strike to force the US's hand, which I doubt very much.
Wheel
Sep 3 2007, 9:29 am
OK, I've got a tenner that says the US attacks Iran before Easter.
HellesAngel
Sep 3 2007, 9:50 am
Come on people, this is a troll and a fairly pathetic one at that.
Remember: Don't feed the trolls.
djgrazy
Sep 3 2007, 10:03 am
Just my Two cents...
The Yanks are after Iran, their new-improved, all singing - all dancing enemy for what exactly? The fact that they "might" be building a WMD?
Can I just remind everyone that to date, in the history of the world, the good ol' US is the ONLY country to have used Nuclear and Atomic weapons on civilians, not Iran, not Iraq, not Afghanistan! To top it all off, they still have a massive arsenal, so just who is the "threat" here?
Bully boy tactics at it's best,
The Zionist, New World Order Yanks are the Terrorists/Aggresors/Nazis (Delete where appropriate!).
lilplatinum
Sep 3 2007, 10:10 am
QUOTE (djgrazy @ Sep 3 2007, 11:03 am)

Can I just remind everyone that to date, in the history of the world, the good ol' US is the ONLY country to have used Nuclear and Atomic weapons on civilians, not Iran, not Iraq, not Afghanistan!
Good point, that makes proliferation a good thing. Anyways the plan means nothing, I believe the US also has a plan for a war with Canada, it doesnt mean we are going in there anytime soon.
omjoi
Sep 3 2007, 10:36 am
QUOTE (Conquistador @ Sep 3 2007, 9:53 am)

It's not a "with us" or "against us" debate, but to ignore the fact the UK and other countries participated in action in Iraq while solely blaming the US is hypocritical and misses a key part of the situation.
Oh don't worry: I blamed my government and asked for the reasons behind that reckless invasion and the answer was "Sorry, but we don't have choice, either with them or against them. by the way, why do you ask? you are a communist ain't you?"
QUOTE (Pleb @ Sep 3 2007, 10:06 am)

A real solution requires going to the source of the problems and not the symptoms.
This is true, generally speaking, but going to the source can be extremely painful. This is why nobody does it.
QUOTE (Pleb @ Sep 3 2007, 10:06 am)

I am not virulent Anti-US, I am however virulent Anti-US administration and their corporate, criminal regime!
This is again very true for a lot of people including myself, but the current propaganda does not admit such position: either you are in favour of the US military actions or you are an anti-american (whatever that means) and if you insist you are a terrorist supporter or a terrorist yourself.
To go back to the topic. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria were all on the agenda for the next wars, after the fall of the wall and well before 9/11.
Of course these actions have nothing to do with terrorism, export of democracy or defeating a dictator.
miwild
Sep 3 2007, 11:02 am
QUOTE (Conquistador @ Sep 3 2007, 9:43 am)

... I for one, would like to know more about the information available in 2002/2003 and the decision-making process ...
God told me to invade Iraq, Bush tells Palestinian ministers... 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'" ...
lilplatinum
Sep 3 2007, 11:08 am
Despite my intense disdain of Bush, it is unfair not to mention that those 'quotes' are heresay from Abbas and were not recorded officially.
Not that I don't believe he is dumb enough to say such things.
Conquistador
Sep 3 2007, 11:17 am
Of course, BBC bias (anti-US in this case) also needs to be taken into account:
QUOTE
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2240427.eceIt started with the BBC’s own report on impartiality that effectively admitted to an institutional “liberal� bias among programme makers. Previously these accusations had been dismissed as a right-wing rant, but since the report was published even the BBC’s allies seem to accept it.
Ever since 1963 the institutions have been the villains of the media liberals. The police, the armed services, the courts, political parties, multi-national corporations – when things go wrong they are the usual suspects.
EDIT: Here is what I actually said: "I for one, would like to know more about the information available in 2002/2003 and the decision-making process-
from a wide range of reliable sources. Then a better analysis can be done. I say this as someone who opposed taking action in Iraq in 2003."
Of course, as the previous poster pointed out, hearsay is not a reliable source.
sea-king
Sep 3 2007, 11:28 am
... 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'" ...
[/quote]
Oh oh, "it´s the end of the world as we know it!"
miwild
Sep 3 2007, 11:36 am
QUOTE (Conquistador @ Sep 3 2007, 12:17 pm)

... BBC bias (anti-US in this case) ...
From a totally unbiased, objective, absolutely reliable source (
pro-US in this case) :
... Mr Bush's spokesman said the original allegation, which will appear in a
BBC documentary next week, was absurd.
Scott McClellan said the comments had never been made ...
Timmeh
Sep 3 2007, 11:36 am
QUOTE (Conquistador @ Sep 3 2007, 11:17 am)

Of course, BBC bias (anti-US in this case) also needs to be taken into account:
Is there anyone or anything that is not anti-US in your eyes?
lilplatinum
Sep 3 2007, 11:42 am
Well the article is fairly clearly a biased piece, you dont make statements of fact like "President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals." without a qualifier that it is based on hearsay.
Theres plenty of dirt on Bush, no need to to really be disingenous to make him look bad.
Jules Winnfield
Sep 3 2007, 8:59 pm
QUOTE (Wheel @ Sep 3 2007, 10:29 am)

OK, I've got a tenner that says the US attacks Iran before Easter.

Weren't you taking bets when the British sailors were kidnapped too?
MonksTown
Sep 3 2007, 9:06 pm
The BBC has made some serious mistakes recently and they are doing a lot I think to gain back their position of trust.
But The Times having a go at their agenda? PMSL.
sea-king
Sep 3 2007, 9:10 pm
Just heard on radio, That George thinks the US Army can mantain security at the same level as now with fewer troops on the ground. And America will not leave the Iraqi people in the lurch. Sorry George I think you are planning a withdrawal by degrees, because the US/Uk forces are streched to capacity already.
Any less warm bodies on the ground will cause the bad boys to get very uppity and the amount of withdrawals will increase as the violence increases.
But then what do I know?
Wheel
Sep 3 2007, 9:19 pm
QUOTE (Jules Winnfield @ Sep 3 2007, 8:59 pm)

Weren't you taking bets when the British sailors were kidnapped too?
I vaguely remember offering but it seems no-one took me up on it. If anyone does this time it'd have to be a virtual tenner to keep legal anyway.
MonksTown
Sep 3 2007, 9:23 pm
Why is that Wheel? Are bets like that ilegal in Germany?
Wheel
Sep 3 2007, 9:27 pm
I don't know for sure but the poker game thread always had a warning that gambling for money is illegal & I don't want to get TT in trouble.
BadBob
Sep 12 2007, 11:00 am
QUOTE
Germany — a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in Iran's nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States — notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council.
The announcement was made at a meeting in Berlin that brought German officials together with Iran desk officers from the five member states of the Security Council. It stunned the room, according to one of several Bush administration and foreign government sources who spoke to FOX News, and left most Bush administration principals concluding that sanctions are dead.
The Germans voiced concern about the damaging effects any further sanctions on Iran would have on the German economy — and also, according to diplomats from other countries, gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities.
U.S. Officials Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan
Sin
Sep 12 2007, 11:12 am
FoxNEWS?
Has anyone actually taken a totally removed approach and wargamed scenarios from the Iranian side? I can see a bit of a problem when I do it. Whichever way I wargame it it always leads to massive escalation.
MonksTown
Sep 12 2007, 11:18 am
-------------------------------
left most Bush administration principals concluding that sanctions are dead...and also, according to diplomats from other countries, gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities.
------------------------------
Jesus, that's all we need.
=
"Europe stops sanctions and supports bombing"
BadBob
Sep 12 2007, 11:42 am
QUOTE (Sin @ Sep 12 2007, 12:12 pm)

Has anyone actually taken a totally removed approach and wargamed scenarios from the Iranian side? I can see a bit of a problem when I do it. Whichever way I wargame it it always leads to massive escalation.
We need to do it as soon as possible before the price of oil goes up so high that we can't afford to fuel the bombers.
MonksTown
Sep 12 2007, 12:01 pm
QUOTE (Sin @ Sep 12 2007, 12:12 pm)

Has anyone actually taken a totally removed approach and wargamed scenarios from the Iranian side?
I can see a bit of a problem when I do it. Whichever way I wargame it it always leads to massive escalation.
The most obvious scenarios would be:
1. Try and attack Israel.
2. Meddle in Iraq.
3. Block the Straits of Hormuz and/or attack any shipping there.
Not particuarly pretty really.
BadBob
Sep 12 2007, 12:04 pm
At least Jules is sharp enough to get it. Let me see if can figure out the german-thinking here...ah, sanctions against Iran hurts the german economy and oil prices are at an all-time high. So the germans bail out of the sanctions game and privately support a US bombing campaign, but of course publicly condemning it. The result of a US bombing campaign against Iran would certainly cause oil prices to soar even higher...so how does that help the economy here? I would think it would make things worse. Or are the germans weighing that against the costs of a nuclear armed Iran controlling most of the world's oil? Or are they privately hoping that the evil US would follow up the bombing attack and seize the oil fields and the price of oil would fall? These germans. It is always about the oil with them.
MonksTown
Sep 12 2007, 12:12 pm
Whoever claimed that the German Federal Government acts out out of some noble principles?
Its a bosses government of a cpaitalist country, course they are in it for their own interests.
But the German economy is less oil dependent than America's and doesn't hurt as much though high oil prices though of course that has been pushing prices up.
The German economy has problems with stimulating domestic demand but that is not the issue here.
It's export. Germany sells a lot of stuff to Iran and they want that to keep happening.
In some ways a high oil price is OK becasue it means Iran has more to spend on German goods.
If the German government (CDU, SPD, who cares, same shit) were to support a "precision" bombing campaign it would be in the hope that it would all be over very quicly , potentially a new government in Irand and back to business. But if the USA does bomb iran, I'm not sure it's gonna work out like that.
BadBob
Sep 12 2007, 12:17 pm
The germans are not going to get away with "privately supporting a US bombing campaign, while publicly condemning it."
Jules Winnfield
Sep 12 2007, 12:22 pm
QUOTE (MonksTown @ Sep 12 2007, 1:12 pm)

But the German economy is less oil dependent than America's and doesn't hurt as much though high oil prices though of course that has been pushing prices up.
Cars get better mileage, but I don't see how the economy here is less dependent on oil? It's not like hings don't run on distilled water here either...
The sooner you realize that Iran is everyone's problem and not just America's, the sooner we'll find a solution.
You are viewing a low fidelity version of this page. Click to view
the full page.