If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Attack on Iran near?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
According to Novosti, Russian Colonel General Leonid Ivashov said that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Irans military infrastructure in the near future ...
The chief of Russias general staff, Yuri Baluyevsky, said last November that Russia was beefing up its military in response to US aggression, but that the Russian military is not ?obliged to defend the world from the evil Americans.?
On March 29 2008 OpEdNews cited a report by the Saudi Arabian newspaper Okaz ... which was picked up by the German news service, DPA. The Saudi newspaper reported on March 22 ... the day following Cheneys visit with the kingdoms rulers, that the Saudi Shura Council is preparingnational plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts warnings of possible attacks on Irans Bushehr nuclear reactors
The Iranians don?t seem to believe it ... despite the dispatch of US nuclear submarines and another aircraft carrier attack group to the Persian Gulf. To counter any Iranian missiles launched in response to an attack the US is deploying anti-missile defenses to protect US bases and Saudi oil fields.
It is looking very likely that Iran may well be attacked in the very near future.
The chief of Russias general staff, Yuri Baluyevsky, said last November that Russia was beefing up its military in response to US aggression, but that the Russian military is not ?obliged to defend the world from the evil Americans.?
On March 29 2008 OpEdNews cited a report by the Saudi Arabian newspaper Okaz ... which was picked up by the German news service, DPA. The Saudi newspaper reported on March 22 ... the day following Cheneys visit with the kingdoms rulers, that the Saudi Shura Council is preparingnational plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts warnings of possible attacks on Irans Bushehr nuclear reactors
The Iranians don?t seem to believe it ... despite the dispatch of US nuclear submarines and another aircraft carrier attack group to the Persian Gulf. To counter any Iranian missiles launched in response to an attack the US is deploying anti-missile defenses to protect US bases and Saudi oil fields.
It is looking very likely that Iran may well be attacked in the very near future.
0
Comments
I also think Iran has more friends than Iraq had. I can't see China being too pleased with an attack on their main source of oil, for example.
I honestly can't see it any time soon. But I'm also slightly uncomfortable with anti-war people's unwillingness to legitimately criticise Iran because they believe that it's some sort of build up to an attack. I think that is extremely dangerous. *cough* George Galloway *cough*. There's plenty of legitimate things to criticise Iran on, and lots of things that need discussing, and I don't think sweeping them under the carpet because you're afraid it will lead to military action is the right thing to do. But equally, I don't think talk of a military strike on Iran is a very useful thing for a politician to say. *cough* Hillary Clinton *cough*.
I expect they'll draw up the plans and wait to piggy back onto a crisis. It wont come out of the blue.
Perhaps it can't spare troops for a ground invasion, but it's got more than enough capacity to destroy most of their infrastructure. The US military has a hell of a lot of planes and ships that aren't being used in either Iraq or Afghanistan, it can just do what it does best and go tank plinking, leaving Iraq without any mechanised or air forces.
If things progress then they may well let Israel do something, but I dont think we've reached that mark yet.
As an aside and talking of oil prices, does anyone know what pressure is being put on OPEC countries at the moment to produce more oil, to alleviate the current pressure on the pockets of people throughout the world?
I know Canada is trying to increase the amount it produces, its a gold rush up there in the oil sands.
I think its much more likely Israel will go it alone, they did against Iraq years ago now. It would probably help the government there, tough action would prop up the opinion polls.
The US clearly does not have the resources for a full ground war, Iraq doesn't have the will to hold off an assualt and Iran would hardly lack people willing to fight.
But it isn't going to happen anyway - maybe two years ago but this is done now - anyone left talking about it is just trying to get some publicity with an old story or push their political agenda with an long dead military plan. Bottom line, they will not pile more dead Americans on the pyre of Bush's greed and Iran will inevitably develop nuclear warheads and at that point (as with North Korea) they become untouchable.
"So a President Clinton [Hillary] would obliterate Iran if it attacked Israel (Report, April 23). What would she do if Israel attacked Iran (which is more likely)?"
Maybe not directly, but it does fund terrorist groups in the middle east and it isnt exactly all that nice to its people either.
fund ...but does it actualy arm? And surely they would be expected to give some kind of support?
I'm cutting and pasting a lot on this topic ...it just interests me what i'm reading and i am imnterested to know how other people are thinking ...
If Iran were arming insurgents, the insurgents would have two weapons that would neutralize the US advantage in the Iraqi conflict: missiles to knock down US helicopter gunships and rocket-propelled grenades that knock out American tanks. The insurgents do not have these weapons and must construct clumsy anti-tank weapons out of artillery shells. The insurgents are helpless against US air power and cannot mass forces to take on the American troops.
Of course invasion is wrong or any attack. Utterly wrong and a complete travesity. That doesn't mean that a country gets carte blanche to behave however it wants whenever it wants.
Just because Bush thinks a regime does something bad doesn't mean he's right about what it is doing - but equally it doesn't mean that the coutry shouldn't be held to account for persecuting it's citizens.
not quite sure what your saying here ...There are loads of shit governments around the world doing similar things but ...they don't have oil. If they grew carrots and wove baskets ...we wouldn't realy be interested how many people hang etc. Not we ..our governments.
Iraq ...we know all the lies ..the ever changing lies about why we are there ...where are we now ...regime change and bringing them democracy ...that wasn't even mentioned at the begining. We steemed in and toppled a tyrant ...we should then have left ...we aren't supposed to stay in such places to force the people into being just like us.
Indiscriminate American violence has reduced Iraq to rubble. The civilian infrastructure is essentially destroyed–electricity, water and sewer systems, medical care and schools. Depleted uranium is everywhere poisoning everyone, including US troops. There is no economy, and half or more of Iraqis are unemployed. Literally no Iraqi family has escaped an injury or a death as a consequence of the US invasion. Millions of Iraqis have become displaced persons. A developed country with a professional middle class has been destroyed because of lies told by the President and Vice President of the US. Do you believe the Iranian people would be better off if the Americans did the same to them?
An invasion, military action or anything from America would be an even worse abuse of human rights so I don't think it should ever happen.
But cowardly ignoring people suffering abuse and persecution is unacceptable for me and even if the measures that can be taken are as little as taking part in efforts to highlight problems then it's more positive than ignoring it.
Apartied wasn't ended due to violent invasion - there are methods of protest that can have a positive effect.
I think budda is right - this idea that everyone Bush has a problem with gets treated as some wonderful state is an insult to the people who are being treated badly there.
That's not in anyway to suggest we were right to invade, but just because Bush doesnt like a country doesnt make it a lovely place.
Any country (Iran) which punishes a woman for being gang raped is not all that pleasant.
Asleeping giant is awakening ...and making incredible changes ...income rocketing ...ownership rising ... health care and education rising rapidly.
But you want all the other problems sorting out overnight. China are changing at a fast pace but you ...live in the world of instant gratification ...you expect to much to fast.
The people of the western world fought for the freedoms they have and were flogged hung and tortured along the way. The Chinese are going through a similar progression ...an industrial revolution.
People like bong jumping up and down and waiving his arms about whilst watching someone close to him have his human rights abused will not speed up that process ...very naive to think it will. It may even cause more pain and suffering as it brings crack downs faster and more furious on dissenters at home.
I never described Iraq as lovely ...westernised yes ...sucsesfyul yes ...modern yes. Crippled by war and ten years of sanctions but recovering against all the odds ...and look at it now.
No of course you can't - the idea that you're only allowed an opinion on an issue because it meets your personally defined level of activism isn't really a valid or helpful viewpoint. It excludes discussion and debate and encourages a closed minded view of any issue. This section of the board is for debate not personal political point scoring.
My personal life isn't the issue under discussion here. Anymore than it would be acceptable to ask you what you are doing about George Bush if you posted a thread about what he is doing.
And no I don't expect everything suddenly dealt with - I expect it to take 100's, 1000's even 10s of 1000s of years - that doesn't mean that I don't think you should stop striving for freedom and equal rights for all humans.
Theocracies: Got to love 'em. Nothing says Human Rights Abuses like a government who thinks that, far from committing atrocities, they're doing God's work. Trying to get Iran to change its ways by arguing in direct opposition to its precieved divine permission is going to be tricky, to say the least.
Indeed, but providing support for internal movements that oppose those restrictive practices whether through funding, distribution or other methods of support is at worst a waste of time but at least hopefully a step in a direction towards something better.
Oh, for sure. I agree that just because a task is difficult you shouldn't stop yourself from supporting it. I just think in a place like Iran, where it's not imperatives being passed down exclusively from above, but imperatives that have common support from the man on the street, it's gonna be one hell of a task.
So the humans who are tortured today by China can take comfort in the thought that its just a birth pain of a better country?
And given you seem to harp on about it I'll ask again, what use would I have been to the man being thrown to the ground if I was also beaten up?
The persecution of gay/lesbian/bi Iranians is unacceptable - the treatment of women and of anybody who crosses the religious Islamic fundamentalists is outrageous. There's no escaping from the fact that Iran is a backward and medieval regime in desperate need of a touch of modernity. Unfortunately, that is not something which can be easily achieved through military force. And it's out of the question anyway for simple logistical reasons. Thus for the time being we should tackle Iran through non-military means.
The former country is castigated constantly, showered with sanctions, an made an international pariah while we roll the red carpet for the rulers of the latter and call them a friend of the West.
The fact is Iran is not worse than Saudi in most respects, and in some, actually better.