Iraq, Iran, we need a PLAN!!! - Mercedes-Benz Forum

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 9 (permalink) Old 09-12-2007, 09:15 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Iraq, Iran, we need a PLAN!!!

Maybe if there had not been a spelling error in 2002 we might have focused more on OBL and IRAN in the first place instead of pounding the shit out of IRAQ but hey, no time like the present to get things rolling on the next big thing. Can't let that legacy lie languishing in the sands of Iraq now can we?

Now my question is simple. The Administration has declared that "negotiations have failed". Therefore the conclusion drawn is we must start bombing. My question is: Is anyone confident we actually had the right negotiators in the process?

But it's time for the Elections. Let's get the party started. What an amazing coincidence.

U.S. Officials Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

By James Rosen
FoxNews

WASHINGTON — A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday.

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.

[German Embassy spokesman Ulrich Sante told FOX News on Wednesday that Germany fully supports the ongoing U.N. process, saying the meeting in Berlin "was evidence we are seeking further progress…. The issue is being moved ahead."]

Germany's withdrawal from the allied diplomatic offensive is the latest consensus across relevant U.S. agencies and offices, including the State Department, the National Security Council and the offices of the president and vice president. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, the most ardent proponent of a diplomatic resolution to the problem of Iran's nuclear ambitions, has had his chance on the Iranian account and come up empty.

Political and military officers, as well as weapons of mass destruction specialists at the State Department, are now advising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the diplomatic approach favored by Burns has failed and the administration must actively prepare for military intervention of some kind. Among those advising Rice along these lines are John Rood, the assistant secretary for the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; and a number of Mideast experts, including Ambassador James Jeffrey, deputy White House national security adviser under Stephen Hadley and formerly the principal deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs.

Consequently, according to a well-placed Bush administration source, "everyone in town" is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections.

The discussions are now focused on two basic options: less invasive scenarios under which the U.S. might blockade Iranian imports of gasoline or exports of oil, actions generally thought to exact too high a cost on the Iranian people but not enough on the regime in Tehran; and full-scale aerial bombardment.

On the latter course, active consideration is being given as to how long it would take to degrade Iranian air defenses before American air superiority could be established and U.S. fighter jets could then begin a systematic attack on Iran's known nuclear targets.

Most relevant parties have concluded such a comprehensive attack plan would require at least a week of sustained bombing runs, and would at best set the Iranian nuclear program back a number of years — but not destroy it forever. Other considerations include the likelihood of Iranian reprisals against Tel Aviv and other Israeli population centers; and the effects on American troops in Iraq. There, officials have concluded that the Iranians are unlikely to do much more damage than they already have been able to inflict through their supply of explosives and training of insurgents in Iraq.


This is one scary quote VVV
The Bush administration "has just about had it with Iran," said one foreign diplomat. "They tried the diplomatic process. China is now obstructing them at the U.N. Security Council and the Russians are tucking themselves behind them.

"The Germans are wobbling …There are a number of people in the administration who do not want their legacy to be leaving behind an Iran that is nuclear armed, so they are looking at what are the alternatives? They are looking at other options," the diplomat said.

Vice President Cheney and his aides are said to be enjoying a bit of "schadenfreude" at the expense of Burns. A source described Cheney's office as effectively gloating to Burns and Rice, "We told you so. (The Iranians) are not containable diplomatically."

The next shoe to drop will be when Rice and President Bush make a final decision about whether to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and/or its lethal subset, the Quds Force, as a terrorist entity or entities. FOX News reported in June that such a move is under consideration.

Sources say news leaks about the prospective designation greatly worried European governments and private sector firms, which could theoretically face prosecution in American courts if such measures became law and these entities continued to do business with IRGC and its multiple financial subsidiaries.

If the Bush administration moves forward with such a designation, sources said, it would be an indication that Rice agrees that Burns' approach has failed. Designation of such a large Iranian military institution as a terrorist entity would also be seen, sources said, as laying the groundwork for a public justification of American military action.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 9 (permalink) Old 09-12-2007, 09:44 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Excellent decision, thank you Frau Councellor.

Sanctions don't work.

We know this.
maine_coon is offline  
post #3 of 9 (permalink) Old 09-12-2007, 10:01 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by maine_coon
Excellent decision, thank you Frau Councellor.

Sanctions don't work.

We know this.
So is Cuba still the powerhouse that it was before sanctions? Or N. Korea?

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #4 of 9 (permalink) Old 09-12-2007, 10:58 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
So is Cuba still the powerhouse that it was before sanctions? Or N. Korea?
They were powerhouses, ever? Wow, news to me.
maine_coon is offline  
post #5 of 9 (permalink) Old 09-12-2007, 11:03 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by maine_coon
They were powerhouses, ever? Wow, news to me.
Apparently you are too young to remember nuclear weapons 14 minutes from US targets.

And I guess you thought that it was our massive troop strength south of the 38th Parallel that kept N. Korea from coming South for 45+ years. Remember it has only been in the past few years that they have been an issue with selling nuclear material to Syria and Iran and doing nuclear tests. Prior to that, they were pretty well contained by diplomatic sanctions.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #6 of 9 (permalink) Old 09-12-2007, 11:08 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
Apparently you are too young to remember nuclear weapons 14 minutes from US targets.
They never were a powerhouse, and sanctions did not change anything. It was their Soviet masters who put missiles there.
Quote:
And I guess you thought that it was our massive troop strength south of the 38th Parallel that kept N. Korea from coming South for 45+ years.
Yes.
Quote:
Remember it has only been in the past few years that they have been an issue with selling nuclear material to Syria and Iran and doing nuclear tests. Prior to that, they were pretty well contained by diplomatic sanctions.
Before that they knew virtually nothing about the nukes. Quite possible w/o sanctions they still wouldn't.
maine_coon is offline  
post #7 of 9 (permalink) Old 09-12-2007, 11:15 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by maine_coon
Before that they knew virtually nothing about the nukes. Quite possible w/o sanctions they still wouldn't.
Please explain. This makes no sense to me.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #8 of 9 (permalink) Old 09-13-2007, 12:13 AM
~BANNED~
 
deathrattle's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Vehicle: 1992 W126 300 SE
Location: Head in the clouds
Posts: 11,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Ahmaddinejad was interviewed by ITN last night. Afterwards the discussuion focussed on the statement I have highlighted below. THIS is the cost of the Iraq folly-the ME is now a dangerfield "We just can't get no respect!"

(One of your networks is interviewing him today-let's see if he sings the same song).
Iran President denies nuclear claims

Updated 06.42 Thu Sep 13 2007


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has denied his country is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, insisting "we do not need a bomb".
Mr Ahmadinejad was speaking after the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, welcomed a new move by Tehran to fulfil some of the agency's demands for access to their nuclear programme.
"We do not need a bomb, we are against the bomb" - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
The US has been pushing for tougher UN sanctions against Iran amid suspicions that it is using its civil nuclear energy programme as a cover for the development of nuclear weapons.
He said: "The main problem is the enmity of America towards Iran.




From the beginning we said that everything should be solved by the Agency.
"We do not need a bomb. We are against the bomb."
Mr Ahmadinejad brushed off the idea that the US might be preparing for military action against his country.
He added: "There is no programme of attack nor are there any plans of attack - or ability of that.
"There are more important things for a country to take care of. The Americans want to do a lot of things but they are not able to."
Asked if he would stop enriching uranium, Ahmadinejad appeared to deny the existence of such a programme, saying: "You want to tell me something that is not there. Something that doesn't exist... Why are you insisting on something like this? What is the benefit for you?"
© Independent Television News Limited 2007. All rights reserved
deathrattle is offline  
post #9 of 9 (permalink) Old 09-13-2007, 02:57 AM
CH4S Artist
 
Teutone's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 1985 500SEC, 1991 190E 2.6.
Location: Los Angeles / Hannover Germany
Posts: 33,556
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Quoted: 956 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
The Mullahs of the Islamic Kleptpocracy of Iran must be worried.
Ordinary Iranians have little access to hard currency, and cannot transfer monies abroad.
With Dubai as one of the greatest money laundromat in the World, certain Iranians have been buying condos 200 or so at a time.
Attached Images
File Type: gif 07_04_12_BureauDisinfo-X.gif (49.7 KB, 41 views)
Teutone is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Will it work? Kucinich Plan For Iraq James_Van_Thach Off-Topic 17 04-27-2007 08:23 AM
    Iranian Reveals Plan to Expand Role in Iraq Jakarta Expat Off-Topic 0 01-28-2007 09:27 PM
    The Professor’s Iraq Re-Deployment Plan DP Off-Topic 84 12-05-2006 09:10 AM
    Top Marine: No Plan For Post-Saddam Iraq DP Off-Topic 7 11-14-2006 08:25 PM
    America's Plan for Super-Bases in Iraq firstmb Off-Topic 20 06-01-2006 09:33 AM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome