Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on January 02, 2006, 10:17:03 AM
-
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WAL20051231&articleId=1693
A snippet of the article:
But the respected German weekly Der Spiegel notes "What is new here is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year."
The German news agency DDP cited "Western security sources" to claim that CIA Director Porter Goss asked Turkey's premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide political and logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets. Goss, who visited Ankara and met Erdogan on Dec. 12, was also reported to have to have asked for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare and monitor the operation.
The DDP report added that Goss had delivered to the Turkish prime minister and his security aides a series of dossiers, one on the latest status of Iran's nuclear development and another containing intelligence on new links between Iran and al-Qaida.
DDP cited German security sources who added that the Turks had been assured of a warning in advance if and when the military strikes took place, and had also been given "a green light" to mount their own attacks on the bases in Iran of the PKK, (Kurdish Workers party), which Turkey sees as a separatist group responsible for terrorist attacks inside Turkey.
Goss's visit to the Turkish capital followed the rising international concern over recent statements by the new Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel should be "wiped off the map," denying the existence of Holocaust, and suggesting that Israel's Jewish population might be re-located to Europe.
In a December 23 report, the DDP agency quoted an anonymous but "high-ranking German military official" telling their reporter: "I would be very surprised if the Americans, in the mid-term, didn't take advantage of the opportunity delivered by Tehran. The Americans have to attack Iran before the country can develop nuclear weapons. After that would be too late."
The DDP report also said that several friendly Arab governments, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan, had also been informed in general terms that the Pentagon was preparing contingency plans, including "the option of air strikes," in the event of the new Iranian government precipitating a crisis.
I'd say that we need to attack Iran soon. No way can that country, with it's current crop of insane rulers, be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
I know a lot of "idealists" here will defend Iran's right to develope nuclear weapons, but that's just too bad for Iran. They are run by radical nutjobs who say that Israel needs to be wiped off the map.
We are at war with terrorists and the countires who sponsor terror. Iran is next and soon, in my opinion.
-
If we don't stop it now, we'll sure as the dickens will stop it later.
I prefer now versus after they light up Isreal....at that time, momentum alone will reap horrible consequences which I'm certain will effect us all, no matter where on the globe we live.
-
I doubt it.
-
Unfortunately, no matter what side of the political scene you live, you know Bush would never get approval for a preemptive strike on Iran and instead will have to funnel support to Isreal to do the job (heck, Israel just acquired some long range drop tanks).
It is unfortunate that some type of preemptive strike won't be done and I fear for the future of the world. Iran makes North Korea look like level-headed and open minded individuals.
-
What do you think? Or are you so blinded by bitterness that you cannot see that before too long, people in Israel won't need a flashlight to take a midnight piss?
Sorry for the crude statements, but I think it accurately displays my attitude.
EDIT: Thrawn made a statement that refered to an attack on Iran because of either the nukes, or because oil was being sold by Iran in Euros. I guess he erased it...
-
OK, Generals. How about we tomahawk the factory and predator the religious fanatic who is going to martyr the muslim people for a sucker punch at the USA. Sometiems I wonder if people just dont like to sit back in thier vomit encrusted easy chairs and watch real wars on TV for entertainment value. Why dont we attack Pakistan? Bin Laden is hiding in that country. He cant be but a few friends away from the nuclear arsenal over there? WTF? :huh
-
a second frontline? who will pay $ for it ? I doubt it.
-
Now here I think an attack would be very unwise. And we would be better off toppling the government there covertly rather then overtly.
The people of Iran dont like the current government and are in large part pro west. (or were untill Bush's axis of Evil speach)
But they are also very proud of their country and would side overwhelmingly in favor of their own government even if they dont like that government if attacked.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
a second frontline? who will pay $ for it ? I doubt it.
Yea. I sure as hell dont wanna pay for it. Iran is jockeying for position at the barter table. Or maybe they are trying to defend themselves from US democracy installation. In any event, we have proven that we are unable to win the hearts of people who despise us to the very core of thier existance, so lets not make that mistake again.
-
Originally posted by Delirium
Iran makes North Korea look like level-headed and open minded individuals.
:rofl sig material right there. funny stuff Del. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
a second frontline? who will pay $ for it ? I doubt it.
lol it's gonna be the 3rd if Iran is attacked:furious
Afghanistan
Iraq
Pending list...
Iran
North Korea
who's gonna pay for it???
us middle class whille the l337 gets $$$ give-aways and the republican ctrled congress/senate cuts more social programs.:eek:
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Now here I think an attack would be very unwise. And we would be better off toppling the government there covertly rather then overtly.
Dern it!
You're gonna get busted for leaking info now...
:furious
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
The people of Iran dont like the current government and are in large part pro west.
The peopel of Iran are in large part pro west? :huh . Ok, when do we go in and liberate them from their fanatical dictator.:mad:
-
If this war happens, it won't be one of liberation. We'll just carpet bomb them till the camels come home.
-
I doubt the US/West will do anything other than support an Israeli attack on the Iranian facilities unless Iran does something first.
If Iran precipitates a crisis and is implicated by an intelliegence agency (other than the US's) in any type of supporting terrorism in Iraq / Turkey / Israel, then the situation will be different.
Let's hope this nutbag ruler in Iran backs off from his nonsense and learns to play nicely. Otherwise, as Rude said it, we will all suffer no matter where we live.
-
All you really need is a half dozen, highly motivated snipers, with Barret M-82's and a presidential hunting liscense. .50BMG ammo is fairly cheap, the rifles are a couple of grand, some JP-5 for the spec ops bird to drop them in. Done deal.
-
Remember the last time we tried to insert spec ops into Iran? I just hope we dont think we can land a c130 in a soccer stadium again this time.
-
All you really need is a half dozen, highly motivated snipers, with Barret M-82's and a presidential hunting liscense.
I bet you wrote that in all seriousness as well. Puerile.
-
I'd say that we need to attack Iran soon.
Led by you per chance, Nuke?
Or maybe you'll wait until most of the dying is done and then go out there as part of an NGO and help clean up.
Or will you be sitting the next one out (again), but giving your 100% support, several thousand miles away, drinking a cold one and watching it on TV.
War... don't ya just love it?
-
All you really need is a half dozen, highly motivated snipers, with Barret M-82's and a presidential hunting liscense. .50BMG ammo is fairly cheap, the rifles are a couple of grand, some JP-5 for the spec ops bird to drop them in. Done deal.
..too much Ghost Recon?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
...War...
Hu!
good god y'all....
-
War... don't ya just love it?
not so much......survival,life,not getting nuked...yes
-
Originally posted by Rude
If we don't stop it now, we'll sure as the dickens will stop it later.
I prefer now versus after they light up Isreal....at that time, momentum alone will reap horrible consequences which I'm certain will effect us all, no matter where on the globe we live.
With Iran developeing nuclear capabilities, and that madman in charge, if we don't stop it now, their might not be anybody left to stop it later.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All you really need is a half dozen, highly motivated snipers, with Barret M-82's and a presidential hunting liscense. .50BMG ammo is fairly cheap, the rifles are a couple of grand, some JP-5 for the spec ops bird to drop them in. Done deal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..too much Ghost Recon?
Actually no. I do however know a couple of guys here in the Little Creek Virginia area that would jump at the chance.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Led by you per chance, Nuke?
Or maybe you'll wait until most of the dying is done and then go out there as part of an NGO and help clean up.
Or will you be sitting the next one out (again), but giving your 100% support, several thousand miles away, drinking a cold one and watching it on TV.
War... don't ya just love it?
Wow, what brilliant reply!
Are you saying that because I agree that Iran's threat should be delt with, that it automatically requires that I am personally invloved in a military action to carry it out, or else my view is not valid?
Why don't we just all kick back and wait to see what Iran decides to do? No danger at all there. Maybe we should just trust them, and people like you, and hope for the best!
In the mean time, you will be sitting on your arse either way. Lucky for you, at least a few countries in this world are willing to protect you.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
In any event, we have proven that we are unable to win the hearts of people who despise us to the very core of thier existance, so lets not make that mistake again.
Ummm and how have we proven that?
If your referring to the insurgancy. that only makes up a very small percentage of the Iraqi population. and a good deal of the insurgents arent even Iraqi.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
The peopel of Iran are in large part pro west? :huh . Ok, when do we go in and liberate them from their fanatical dictator.:mad:
A very large percentage of the population of Iran are indeed pro west.
Unfortunately. that portion of the population isnt who is in charge.
But they are also a very proud people with a great deal of national pride.
And while they wouldnt mind at all seeing the current government fall from power and become more westernlike.
They will not sit on the sidelines if it is attacked by outside forces
-
Originally posted by 1K3
us middle class whille the l337 gets $$$ give-aways and the republican ctrled congress/senate cuts more social programs.:eek:
Well if the republican congress does that they will have done something right for a change.
If there is one thing we have too much of in this country. Its social programs.
Although, I am NOT in favor of the medicaid cuts
-
Originally posted by dmf
With Iran developeing nuclear capabilities, and that madman in charge, if we don't stop it now, their might not be anybody left to stop it later.
Fine. we will let the French, russians and germans handle this one.
-
Originally posted by Delirium
EDIT: Thrawn made a statement that refered to an attack on Iran because of either the nukes, or because oil was being sold by Iran in Euros. I guess he erased it...
Iraq also traded oil in Euros. They were actually the first country to switch from the Dollar. What a strange ... "coincidence".
-
Originally posted by Harry
Iraq also traded oil in Euros. They were actually the first country to switch from the Dollar. What a strange ... "coincidence".
And look at all the other countries that trade in Euros. The US attacked them all because, well.....because.
-
Originally posted by Harry
Iraq also traded oil in Euros. They were actually the first country to switch from the Dollar. What a strange ... "coincidence".
Was Iraq bribed with Euros as well? You know from the UN.....you know that whole oil for food thingy that Iraq blamed on the US for killing babies?
-
I heard Kofi Annan's son has a nice Mercedes.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
They are run by radical nutjobs.
:confused:
hap
-
Originally posted by Harry
Iraq also traded oil in Euros. They were actually the first country to switch from the Dollar. What a strange ... "coincidence".
They were threatening to do it if I remember correctly, but even if it is in our best interest for them to trade in US dollars, what would it matter? Iraq will do what's right for Iraq. If the euro was stronger they would have already switched, along with the rest of the middle east, no?
-
Sadly, just like many other tyranical nations before, Iran will probably succeed in joining the nuke club. With their current presidents ramblings and what not it is a probability that they might use them. This will all be made possible by politics.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Fine. we will let the French, russians and germans handle this one.
French, Russians and the Germans?
Your jokeing right?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
They were threatening to do it if I remember correctly, but even if it is in our best interest for them to trade in US dollars, what would it matter? Iraq will do what's right for Iraq. If the euro was stronger they would have already switched, along with the rest of the middle east, no?
The € is stronger than the $, but that is irrelevant. The oil trade wants a stable currency to trade in, and the $ has been anything but stable the last few years. But then again, with the example you made of Iraq I don’t think many Middle Eastern countries will switch oil currency anytime soon.
-
I doubt theres going to be attack considering I can't see the British being involved in any kind of occupation of Iran. Of course "surgical strikes" might stop weapons production, but surely won't do anything except piss off a large population of potential nutbags just off the border of Iraq...Iranian hardliners are a forgiving type..
...interestingly enough all this hype about an attack does give Iran a legitimate exscuse to pre-emptive strike first at an actual threat to its safety doesn't it?
-It won't even need to bother about a broad international mandate and it doesn't even have to rule out the use of nuclear weapons...that kind of talk is common nowdays..
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
...interestingly enough all this hype about an attack does give Iran a legitimate exscuse to pre-emptive strike first at an actual threat to its safety doesn't it?
-It won't even need to bother about a broad international mandate and it doesn't even have to rule out the use of nuclear weapons...that kind of talk is common nowdays..
Tronsky
Very true. If Iran were to follow their intelligence it would point that way. I can just see a long stand off though I wouldn't trust Israel with nukes either.
I recently read about Israel's involvement in helping Argentina during the Falklands War.... even the French helped the UK during preparations. So if Israel wanna take on Iran's S-300s then let them do it alone.
-
-- "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table," Bush said in Brussels last February.
hmmm ....
-
Originally posted by Replicant
So if Israel wanna take on Iran's S-300s then let them do it alone.
I feel that Israel will hit Iran's nuclear facilities before too long. Sure, the global community will complain about it but will silently breathe a sigh of relief, and in the future will accept it was the right thing to do.
Wait, that happened with Iraqi nuclear plant... deja vu anyone?
-
It's not unlikely that the USA will invade Iran at some point in the next 5 years. Whether it will because of Iran's perceived nuclear capability, or whether there is some other ulterior motive remains to be seen.
The USA is facing an energy crisis, as those people living in California know only too well. The supply of non-OPEC oil for electricity generation is in decline, with liquefied natural gas (LNG) now finding favour as the fuel for electrical power plants. Since 1999 in the USA alone, an additional 220,000 megawatts of gas fired power capacity has been built, and will meet approximately 30% of US demand for electrical power. US demand for natural gas is expected to rise by another 50% in the next 15 years!
But there's a problem. Only about 2% of the world's stock of natural gas can be found in North America. Mexico is lending the USA a helping hand, having built a gas fired power plant near Mexicali, just three miles south of the US border. But no way was the prime purpose of that facility to provide power to Mexico. For one thing, Mexicans could not afford the infrastructure cost. And they wouldn't need the amount of power it generates. No, the power being produced by that plant is routed to Arizona and southern California via the Southwest Powerlink.
Oil is becoming too expensive. LNG might provide the breathing space we need. The problem for the USA is that much of the world's supply of gas is located in countries not sympathetic with American interests. More than HALF the world's gas reserves are to be found in two countries: Russia and................ Iran.
Just this week, Russia has been persuaded to backpedal on its stance of having turned off the gas supply to Europe, which runs through a pipeline passing through Ukraine, a move designed to penalise Ukraine for failing to comply with a Russian initiative to quadruple the price of gas. Under western pressure, Russia has backed down. Clearly, the Russians are going to be easier to deal with than certain hostile regimes.
Which brings us to Iran, a country with a very poor record history of diplomatic relations with the US. Would the USA invade Iran to safeguard a supply of natural gas? Well, America won't admit to it, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. Just as the "war on terror" afforded America an excuse to invade Iraq on a pretext which was shown not to exist, Iran's perceived nuclear capability might serve as the perfect smokescreen and provide a justification to invade Iran, while the real reason for invasion might be something different.
Sorry to appear cynical, but after the Bush/Blair snowjob over Iraq, I don't see why the reason(s) given to invade Iran will be any less dishonest.
-
This is what was printed in a local (singapore) paper a week or so ago. Since I have to retype it, I will paraphrase..
... When Mr Ahmadinejad adrressed the Un in NY last Septemeber, he suddenly felt himself surrounded by light. It was not the stage lighting, he said, but light from heaven. He related his other worldly experience in videotaped meeting with a prominent ayatollah in Teheran. A transcript of his comments and sections of the vidotape wound up on a hardline pro regime website, baztab.com
...His "vision"at the UN could be dismissed as potlitical posturing if it were not for a string of similar statements that suggest that he believes he is destined to bring about the "end times"- the end of the world -by the paving the return of a Shia Muslim messiah.
.... In a Nov 16 speech in Teheran to senior clerics the new President said the main mission of his govenment was to "pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Iman Mahdi" the 12th Imam.
....Since taking office, he has installed devotees of the 12th Imam throughout the government and sidelined moderates.
end of paraphrasing.
It has me concerned..
-
Originally posted by Harry
The € is stronger than the $, but that is irrelevant. The oil trade wants a stable currency to trade in, and the $ has been anything but stable the last few years. But then again, with the example you made of Iraq I don’t think many Middle Eastern countries will switch oil currency anytime soon.
And the euro is stable? Yeah, right, the middle east is won't switch because they are afraid we will attack? lol, no, they don't switch because of the money they make from us and the welfare checks we send their neighbors
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
And the euro is stable?
yes.
-
Originally posted by straffo
yes.
http://www.moneyweek.com/file/3095/fsl-gold-euro.html
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Yea. In any event, we have proven that we are unable to win the hearts of people who despise us to the very core of thier existance, so lets not make that mistake again.
Prey tell, on what empirical data do you base this amazing statement? The western news media, or do you have a hotline into everyday Iraqui citizenry?
Just curious.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
And the euro is stable? Yeah, right, the middle east is won't switch because they are afraid we will attack? lol, no, they don't switch because of the money they make from us and the welfare checks we send their neighbors
The middle-east is already switching, they have been buying up gold and diversifying thier currency reserves.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
It's not unlikely that the USA will invade Iran at some point in the next 5 years. Whether it will because of Iran's perceived nuclear capability, or whether there is some other ulterior motive remains to be seen.
The USA is facing an energy crisis, as those people living in California know only too well. The supply of non-OPEC oil for electricity generation is in decline, with liquefied natural gas (LNG) now finding favour as the fuel for electrical power plants. Since 1999 in the USA alone, an additional 220,000 megawatts of gas fired power capacity has been built, and will meet approximately 30% of US demand for electrical power. US demand for natural gas is expected to rise by another 50% in the next 15 years!
But there's a problem. Only about 2% of the world's stock of natural gas can be found in North America. Mexico is lending the USA a helping hand, having built a gas fired power plant near Mexicali, just three miles south of the US border. But no way was the prime purpose of that facility to provide power to Mexico. For one thing, Mexicans could not afford the infrastructure cost. And they wouldn't need the amount of power it generates. No, the power being produced by that plant is routed to Arizona and southern California via the Southwest Powerlink.
Oil is becoming too expensive. LNG might provide the breathing space we need. The problem for the USA is that much of the world's supply of gas is located in countries not sympathetic with American interests. More than HALF the world's gas reserves are to be found in two countries: Russia and................ Iran.
Just this week, Russia has been persuaded to backpedal on its stance of having turned off the gas supply to Europe, which runs through a pipeline passing through Ukraine, a move designed to penalise Ukraine for failing to comply with a Russian initiative to quadruple the price of gas. Under western pressure, Russia has backed down. Clearly, the Russians are going to be easier to deal with than certain hostile regimes.
Which brings us to Iran, a country with a very poor record history of diplomatic relations with the US. Would the USA invade Iran to safeguard a supply of natural gas? Well, America won't admit to it, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. Just as the "war on terror" afforded America an excuse to invade Iraq on a pretext which was shown not to exist, Iran's perceived nuclear capability might serve as the perfect smokescreen and provide a justification to invade Iran, while the real reason for invasion might be something different.
Sorry to appear cynical, but after the Bush/Blair snowjob over Iraq, I don't see why the reason(s) given to invade Iran will be any less dishonest.
We have the worlds largest reserves of coal.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
The middle-east is already switching, they have been buying up gold and diversifying thier currency reserves.
Who has switched?
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
OK, Generals. How about we tomahawk the factory and predator the religious fanatic who is going to martyr the muslim people for a sucker punch at the USA. Sometiems I wonder if people just dont like to sit back in thier vomit encrusted easy chairs and watch real wars on TV for entertainment value. Why dont we attack Pakistan? Bin Laden is hiding in that country. He cant be but a few friends away from the nuclear arsenal over there? WTF? :huh
Tomahawks, etc are useless. there are some NINE different sites, all deeep underground. (Remember the stories/arguements about the 'bunker-busting' bombs a year or 2 ago?) The only way to destroy the things is with the afore-mentined low-yield NUClear deep penetration bombs.... and it's hard to say if anyone has the nerve to pull such a trigger. If we wait until the 'power plants' are up and running before attacking, then we/Israel will likely spread radioactivity over a very large area. Also if we wait, Iran will most certainly come up with enough enriched uranium to make a decnt bomb or 2. Heard on news the other night they are going to try for (Iran) plutonium. Hard to say what's worse, doing something or NOT doing something. Only thing for sure is there is nothing anyone can do short of military action which will force them to change their thinking. Would YOU feel comfortable with the Iranian gov't having nuclear weapons?
-
"Iran makes North Korea look like level-headed and open minded individuals."
Thats only because nothing comes out of N. Korea.
-
Hot air does.
-SW