The Unravelling Begins

[Thanatoast]

TEHRAN, Aug. 19 - Iran's defense minister, Vice Adm. Ali Shamkhani, has warned that Iran may resort to pre-emptive strikes to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.

Admiral Shamkhani made his comments in an interview on Al Jazeera television on Wednesday in response to a question about the possibility of an American or Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear projects.

"We will not sit to wait for what others will do to us," he said. "Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly. Any nation, if it feels threatened, can resort to that."
link to the nyt (http://nytimes.com/2004/08/20/international/middleeast/20iran.html)

And a powerfull, resounding "I TOLD YOU SO" echoes off the walls of the White House.

[blackfox]

pre-emptive how? Now Iran is a power in the ME, but I do not see what they would do in terms of aggressive maneuvers...

...oh whatever, it is all a bloody clusterf**k anyway...great.


Guess I have to cancel my vacation to Tehran...

[zimv20]

from the article:
A commander of Iran's hard-line Revolutionary Guards warned this week that Iran would strike Israel's reactor at Dimona if Israel attacked Iran's nuclear sites.

"If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about the Dimona nuclear center, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons," said the commander, Gen. Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr.

Admiral Shamkhani said Iran was certain that Israel would not carry out such an attack without a green light from the United States. "So you cannot separate the two," he said.
great. so an israeli attack on an iranian nuclear facility, or threat thereof, gives a green light for an attack on an american facility? nice "leadership," bush.

the ones who have the most to lose, will lose.

[skunk]

Welcome to the New World Order.

[takao]

haha LOL

definetly a case of "told you so"

i can imagine the grin he had after that interview....that line already made my day

[Chappers]

Knowing that Iran has more than rotten tomatoes (unlike Saddam) to throw back will definitely prevent an attack.

[jelloshotsrule]

from the article:
great. so an israeli attack on an iranian nuclear facility, or threat thereof, gives a green light for an attack on an american facility? nice "leadership," bush.


well, bush can be blamed for the pre-emptive attack thing that is going around... but he is hardly the only one who unabashedly supports israel and all it does...

so how does everyone think they would strike the US specifically? in iraq makes the most sense i guess. otherwise they'd be hitting their own neighbors (ie, if they struck US forces in saudi arabia or kuwait or something)... hmm

[skunk]

so how does everyone think they would strike the US specifically?
Well, they've had years to bring anything they wanted to into the States in the Diplomatic Bag. No problem there.

[jelloshotsrule]

Well, they've had years to bring anything they wanted to into the States in the Diplomatic Bag. No problem there.

what do you mean? i'm dumb. explain yourself. :)

[skunk]

what do you mean? i'm dumb. explain yourself. :)
I don't really need to, do I? Any number of small nucular devices, dirty bombs, chemical agents, anything in fact which an accredited member of the Axis of Evil™ might want to use, could have been brought into Washington at any time by any Iranian diplomat, without being checked at any stage. If they thought they might ever need it...

[Backtothemac]

HA, the Iranians get a tad upset and it is Bush's fault. Wow, that is some lazy logic.

Look, Iran has had their mits in crap for a long time. What about when they took our hostages. That alone should have brought an invasion form the US. However, Jimmy "let me hug a tree" Carter did not have the smarts to let the military go in.

Iran is next, make no mistake about it. If they have nukes. We need to go in and remove that threat. Period. Whether it is ground forces, or just air power, that threat must be removed.

[IJ Reilly]

Hmm, I seem to remember a failed rescue attempt. Faulty memory, I guess.

[skunk]

HA, the Iranians get a tad upset and it is Bush's fault. Wow, that is some lazy logic.
No, it's Bush's pre-emptive attack doctrine that's let the cat out of the bag.

Look, Iran has had their mits in crap for a long time. What about when they took our hostages. That alone should have brought an invasion form the US. However, Jimmy "let me hug a tree" Carter did not have the smarts to let the military go in.
Iran was plunged into crap by the CIA-backed coup which installed the Shah and his SAVAK secret police.

Iran is next, make no mistake about it. If they have nukes. We need to go in and remove that threat. Period. Whether it is ground forces, or just air power, that threat must be removed.
Does that apply to everyone with nukes?

[Backtothemac]

Hmm, I seem to remember a failed rescue attempt. Faulty memory, I guess.

Yea, a failed rescure attempt because Carter would not listen to the military. I know. Those choppers came from a base in my home town. My neighbor, his dad was on one of the birds. It was a very rough time for us as a community expecially when the commanders there told the administration that it was a death trap.

[Backtothemac]

No, it's Bush's pre-emptive attack doctrine that's let the cat out of the bag.


Iran was plunged into crap by the CIA-backed coup which installed the Shah and his SAVAK secret police.


Does that apply to everyone with nukes?

Well, lets see. Do you really think that if we had not gone into Iraq that Iran would have a different goal. Come on. The radical secs of Iran overthrough the Shah, and even today the PEOPLE of Iran don't want their current government.

It applies to ever nation with ties to terrorism that has nukes. Yes.

[mactastic]

It applies to ever nation with ties to terrorism that has nukes. Yes.

Does that include Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam? ;)

[IJ Reilly]

Yea, a failed rescure attempt because Carter would not listen to the military. I know. Those choppers came from a base in my home town. My neighbor, his dad was on one of the birds. It was a very rough time for us as a community expecially when the commanders there told the administration that it was a death trap.

Whatever that means. Your original statement stands contradicted.

[Backtothemac]

Whatever that means. Your original statement stands contradicted.

He let his people design a resuce attempt that was guaranteed to fail. He should have gone in with everything.

That was my poin. Not contradicted.

[takao]

It applies to ever nation with ties to terrorism that has nukes. Yes.

so when does pakistan get invaded ? (they already tested their nuclear weapons so there is no speculation about it)...or are they safe because they are your allieds ?

how about china ? last time i cheked the maoistic terrorists in nepal had pretty obvious ties to them

[IJ Reilly]

He let his people design a resuce attempt that was guaranteed to fail. He should have gone in with everything.

That was my poin. Not contradicted.

No, it was not your point, because it was not what you said, which was: Carter did not have the smarts to let the military go in.

Whether it succeeded or failed is not relevant. He did launch a military effort. So your statement is incorrect on the face of it. It would behoove you to admit your error and move on, instead of trying to alter your original claim to fit the facts.

If you are suggesting that Carter should have staged a full-scale invasion of Iran in 1979, then you are inventing a world that did not exist at the time.

[Backtothemac]

so when does pakistan get invaded ? (they already tested their nuclear weapons so there is no speculation about it)...or are they safe because they are your allieds ?

how about china ? last time i cheked the maoistic terrorists in nepal had pretty obvious ties to them

ah, but it isn't state sponsored terror.

[Backtothemac]

No, it was not your point, because it was not what you said, which was:

Whether it succeeded or failed is not relevant. He did launch a military effort. So your statement is incorrect on the face of it. It would behoove you to admit your error and move on, instead of trying to alter your original claim to fit the facts.

If you are suggesting that Carter should have staged a full-scale invasion of Iran in 1979, then you are inventing a world that did not exist at the time.

No, that was my point. Carter launched a rescue effort, not a military response of invasion, and you are right, the world did not exist because Carter was too much of a coward to make it exist. Don't assume that you understand the complete meaning of my point based on the interpretation of one sentance. Sure, I will admit that I could have been more complete in the flow of the arguement. Sorry.

The point was, Carter did not send in the military to destroy the government of Iran, instead, he launched a half hearted effort of rescue that doomed those that undertook the mission.

[IJ Reilly]

No, that was my point. Carter launched a rescue effort, not a military response of invasion, and you are right, the world did not exist because Carter was too much of a coward to make it exist. Don't assume that you understand the complete meaning of my point based on the interpretation of one sentance. Sure, I will admit that I could have been more complete in the flow of the arguement. Sorry.

The point was, Carter did not send in the military to destroy the government of Iran, instead, he launched a half hearted effort of rescue that doomed those that undertook the mission.

Oh, I see. World War III would not have been too high a price.

[Backtothemac]

Oh, I see. World War III would not have been too high a price.


Well, we don't know 100% that that would have been the case, but we can asume that it would have been. Personally, we should have requested Israel's help in the matter or gone in with full invasion and regime change.

However, guess what, WWIII is now, we are in it. Like it or not. Us, and our coaltion are fighting WWIII right now.

[skunk]

Well, we don't know 100% that that would have been the case, but we can asume that it would have been. Personally, we should have requested Israel's help in the matter or gone in with full invasion and regime change.

However, guess what, WWIII is now, we are in it. Like it or not. Us, and our coaltion are fighting WWIII right now.
"Our coalition" is presiding over a god-awful mess of their own making. This is NOT a World War. This is a military and political adventure.

[Backtothemac]

"Our coalition" is presiding over a god-awful mess of their own making. This is NOT a World War. This is a military and political adventure.

LOL. This is one of the largest coalitions in the history of war fighting an enemy that has no boarders, knows know bounds, and will attack because they want to attack. They are swarn enemies of this country, and yours, and want to kill as many people as they can. They are opperating in over 50 countries, and therefore, it is a world war. The number of allies we have, and the number of countries we are fighting in, constitiute this as a world war.

[skunk]

LOL. This is one of the largest coalitions in the history of war fighting an enemy that has no boarders, knows know bounds, and will attack because they want to attack. They are swarn enemies of this country, and yours, and want to kill as many people as they can. They are opperating in over 50 countries, and therefore, it is a world war. The number of allies we have, and the number of countries we are fighting in, constitiute this as a world war.
All I can say to that is "BS".

[Backtothemac]

All I can say to that is "BS".

What about it is BS?

[mouchoir]

What about it is BS?

The fact we're making a war out of it.

The fact we are perpetuating the reasons for being hated.

The fact one of the countries in this massive 'coalition' offered to give us 200 monkeys as support (to set off landmines).

Some coalition. Some phony war.

[IJ Reilly]

Well, we don't know 100% that that would have been the case, but we can asume that it would have been. Personally, we should have requested Israel's help in the matter or gone in with full invasion and regime change..

Good grief. You're talking about a full-scale military invasion of a neighbor of the Soviet Union over how many people, 140? I have a hard time believing that you don't understand the implications, and why this act would have been one of utter insanity in 1979. A madman might have tried it, but nobody else.

[Backtothemac]

The fact we're making a war out of it.

The fact we are perpetuating the reasons for being hated.

The fact one of the countries in this massive 'coalition' offered to give us 200 monkeys as support (to set off landmines).

Some coalition. Some phony war.

Yea, right. We have more members in this coalition than the allies did in World War II. That is fact. The fact that we are fighting a war against those that brought the fight to us.

The fact that they kill without reguard for anything or anyone.

Great coalition. Legit war.

[Backtothemac]

Good grief. You're talking about a full-scale military invasion of a neighbor of the Soviet Union over how many people, 140? I have a hard time believing that you don't understand the implications, and why this act would have been one of utter insanity in 1979. A madman might have tried it, but nobody else.

It was 444 days, and 66 people. It was an insult to the US, and a sign of weakness in the arab world that eventually led to what is today known as,,,,,,,,,,, Terrorism.

Call me insane. I would have gone in.

[IJ Reilly]

It was 444 days, and 66 people. It was an insult to the US, and a sign of weakness in the arab world that eventually led to what is today known as,,,,,,,,,,, Terrorism.

Call me insane. I would have gone in.

I will take you up on that offer. The suggestion is nuts.

[skunk]

Let me second that!

[Backtothemac]

Thanks, I guess I am insane in the membrane. :D :D :D

[skunk]

Thanks, I guess I am insane in the membrane. :D :D :D
They're still working on a cure. Be patient. ;)

[blackfox]

Yea, right. We have more members in this coalition than the allies did in World War II. That is fact. The fact that we are fighting a war against those that brought the fight to us.

The fact that they kill without reguard for anything or anyone.

Great coalition. Legit war.

I must ask a couple of questions here BTTM...

1) Even if I was prepared to concede that our current "coalition" has more members than the Allied forces in WWII, what level of meaningful participation do these countries extend to said coalition or goals thereof? In terms of troop deployment, financial commitment/aid, logistical/intelligence sharing etc. Is the US at the head of this "coalition" and if so, is their style of leadership productive to the goals at hand?

2) When you say we are fighting a "War" against those that brought the fight to us...is that in reference to the rather abstract WOT, or the Iraqi affair? If it is the latter, then your statement does not really hold true...and our participation there has somewhat distracted us from that stated goal.

3) To characterize the "terrorists" as sub-human, immoral animals, although while perhaps more palatable as a rationale for exterminating them wily-nily, is not only incorrect - it is overly simplistic and dangerous. In fact it veers dangerously close to the rationale/impetus for the "terrorist" behavior you rightfully condemn. How is that for Irony?

It would seem that our enemy is a highly organized, intelligent and rational foe. They use the modes of combat most available to them to acheive their goals. As has been pointed out, it is a question of perception...many in the arab world think we are the "terrorists" for our seemingly indiscriminate destruction and killing...it is just than many on both sides do not have the context to understand the subtleties of these kind of engagements and fall back on simple rhetoric and black/white, good/evil explanations...

Anyway, I understand that you have reason to believe that some of enemies are w/o morals, and that might be true of a %, especially the foot-soldiers...but to write off the opposition as a bunch of depraved loonys is not a wise move...

[takao]

LOL. This is one of the largest coalitions in the history of war fighting an enemy that has no boarders, knows know bounds, and will attack because they want to attack. They are swarn enemies of this country, and yours, and want to kill as many people as they can. They are opperating in over 50 countries, and therefore, it is a world war. The number of allies we have, and the number of countries we are fighting in, constitiute this as a world war.

you know why this is one of the 'largest' coalitions in war history ? perhaps because you have got lots of very small countries ?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-4.html
here the list (still including those who already pulled out) many of those coalition members haven't sent any troops at all and are just providing airspace and others are just sending in "10.000 protection suits for turkey"

we've got USA,UK,Australia,Spain(pulled out),Italy,Japan,Poland,Turkey perhaps Ukraine

and to list a country like island who actually is defend by US troops because they don't have an army is kinda pointless (other important members like marshall islands,solomon islands, palau)

did you know that there were more german soldiers stationed in kuwait,saudi arabia than half of the coalition provided combined

but hey at least you got micronesia on your side ;)

[mactastic]

I say we measure the depth of the coalition by who puts in what percent of the blood and treasure. During WWII what was the US share of manpower and money as a percentage of the total Allied loss of life and money spent? Compare that to the US share of manpower and money as a percentage of coalition spending in Iraq. Then explain to me how this is the largest coalition ever.

You could call yourself the largest Army in the world with just you and an anthill. Does that mean you could take on the second largest military in the world? :p

[Hi_Its_Satan]

Just got sucked into this whole forum thing after posting in the "antichrist" thread.

I'd like to say that this whole pre-emptive nuclear doctrine is quite worrisome.

You people wipe yourself out and I'm out of a job.

Think about it.

[mouchoir]

I must ask a couple of questions here BTTM...

1) Even if I was prepared to concede that our current "coalition" has more members than the Allied forces in WWII, what level of meaningful participation do these countries extend to said coalition or goals thereof? In terms of troop deployment, financial commitment/aid, logistical/intelligence sharing etc. Is the US at the head of this "coalition" and if so, is their style of leadership productive to the goals at hand?

2) When you say we are fighting a "War" against those that brought the fight to us...is that in reference to the rather abstract WOT, or the Iraqi affair? If it is the latter, then your statement does not really hold true...and our participation there has somewhat distracted us from that stated goal.

3) To characterize the "terrorists" as sub-human, immoral animals, although while perhaps more palatable as a rationale for exterminating them wily-nily, is not only incorrect - it is overly simplistic and dangerous. In fact it veers dangerously close to the rationale/impetus for the "terrorist" behavior you rightfully condemn. How is that for Irony?

It would seem that our enemy is a highly organized, intelligent and rational foe. They use the modes of combat most available to them to acheive their goals. As has been pointed out, it is a question of perception...many in the arab world think we are the "terrorists" for our seemingly indiscriminate destruction and killing...it is just than many on both sides do not have the context to understand the subtleties of these kind of engagements and fall back on simple rhetoric and black/white, good/evil explanations...

Anyway, I understand that you have reason to believe that some of enemies are w/o morals, and that might be true of a %, especially the foot-soldiers...but to write off the opposition as a bunch of depraved loonys is not a wise move...

Thanks for elaborating blackfox.

WWII was also a slightly better reason for a coalition, don't you think?

And a war that really did threaten the world.