Iran 2
#121
Posted 12 February 2010 - 01:25 AM
Iran says they are now a "nuclear power" and are able to enrich Uranium to the level needed to make nuclear weapons. They also warned Israel of any type of military action. The media made like it was a nothingburger, and Obama said they don't believe Iran N-e-way. I myself did not know what to make of it.
#122
Posted 12 February 2010 - 12:06 PM
Just got off of work, but I got the news early on in the morning.
Iran says they are now a "nuclear power" and are able to enrich Uranium to the level needed to make nuclear weapons. They also warned Israel of any type of military action. The media made like it was a nothingburger, and Obama said they don't believe Iran N-e-way. I myself did not know what to make of it.
Now even the Russians, who have assisted the Iranians in building their nuclear power plants, are "concerned" about the newly announced Iranian capabilities. (More "plausible deniability.")
"Russia Says West's Fears Over Iran Are Valid."
http://www.ft.com/cm...?nclick_check=1
What this means to me is that the Iranians (again with Russian assistance) are now fully prepared to respond to the an expected military response from Israel and/or the US; thus triggering a large scale military conflict in the Middle East--a conflict which has the potential to go global.
Like Neville Chamberlain prior to WWII, we have bet the farm on diplomacy; while our foes have used the time involved in the "negotiation process" to develop their military assets in order to strike a massive blow against their adversaries. The Iranian Mullahs, are more that willing to take the fall for their Russian partners-in-crime, because of their belief that they will be creating the conditions for the rise of their long-expected Madhi....
#124
Posted 13 February 2010 - 04:17 PM
Wow, Debka is on vacation till the 23rd they wrote. I was itching to see what they would write about the announcement. I've never seen them go on vacation before.
Yeah.... they do, do that every year actually. I've been reading Debka daily for close to 10 years now.
#126
Posted 17 February 2010 - 01:46 AM
I suspect opec type alliance- iran/venezuela/nigeria/saudis with China backing and the russkies holding europe hostage and shrugging shoulders. Eventually, this will place a severe crunchold on mexico and Mex-US relations.
#127
Posted 18 February 2010 - 03:54 PM
I have this intuition that Iran already has one or more such warheads, obtained from either North Korea or Pakistan, and/or with the assistance of Russia. Here is a report which suggest the latter: http://www.silobreak...214304528433157 The report is a translation of an article in a German magazine. (Of course, the Russians, if put on the spot, will claim that the man mentioned in the article is a "renegade scientist.")
I'm thinking that Iran is likely to confirm the fact that they have developed one such nuclear warhead. (Or perhaps they were serreptitiously making this point with Amadinejad's announcement earlier this month that Iran is now "a nuclear state.") Once again, it appears to me that it is the desire of the Iranian Mullahs to provoke Israel and/or the US into attacking. Then they will respond to this "unprovoked attack" in self defense--with multiple nukes; in order to bring about the return of their long expected 2nd Madhi.
#128
Posted 19 February 2010 - 12:58 AM
Russia are doing the same using China, the DPRK, Iran, etc.
They outsource tactical and low tech nuclear stuff, to keep it all off the books. That's what they are most interested in surprising us with, when the time comes.
#129
Posted 19 February 2010 - 06:40 AM
It is very likely, as you say, that Russia is supplying a lot of "tactical and low tech nuclear stuff" to other members of the 'anti-US alliance.' However, I still think that they may have a more direct (yet plausibly deniable) hand in getting some nuclear warheads into the hands of the Iranians; which is the point made by article I linked to. The fact that a Russian physicist is providing a cover story for the Iranians possessing a nuclear warhead (and blaming this fact upon a "foreigner from the former Soviet Union") is the primary item of interest. This appears to be a "mea culpa--but not really" gesture on the part of the Russians. Here's the beginning of the actual article. (Unfortunately, the rest of the article has yet to be translated into English.)During the period of official disarmament the Germans built up weapons in Russia, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark. When Hitler took over all of it was instantly insourced and there you had it, sudden rearmament.
Russia are doing the same using China, the DPRK, Iran, etc.
They outsource tactical and low tech nuclear stuff, to keep it all off the books. That's what they are most interested in surprising us with, when the time comes.
Like the North Koreans before them, when the Iranians finally do officially announce that they are truly "a nuclear state" (of the nuclear-tipped ballistic missile variety), they will insist that their nukes are only for self-defense....
Iran Has Nuclear Warhead, Says Soviet Physicist
Published Feb 06 2010 by Pajamas Media
From Sueddeutsche Zeitung citing a new IAEA summary: Iran has developed a nuclear warhead, according to an article in the German newspaper "Sueddeutsche Zeitung." A foreigner alleged to have helped Iran towards developing nuclear weapons is from the former Soviet Union." The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)...
#130
Posted 20 February 2010 - 04:03 AM
#132
Posted 18 March 2010 - 06:31 AM
Related article: Iran and the Elephant in the Room
Agree or disagree?
#133
Posted 18 March 2010 - 07:40 AM
#134
Posted 18 March 2010 - 03:13 PM
Also, if we attack Iran, we all know that somehow they will completely shut the straight of Hormuz (probably just sink a bunch of their own ships) which will definitely hurt us, but not so much Russia or China. If we devastated Iran, I would also think that that would be a good opportunity for the commies to basically take over the middle east in order to 'protect' the remaining countries.
I definitely agree with you that it won't go down like Iraq or Afghanistan. Obama won't try an invasion. It'll be all bombs, all the time. He isn't interested in a protracted war or protecting civilians.
You can twist perceptions, reality won't budge. Rush 'Show Don't Tell'
"The best is yet to come..." Barack Obama, re-election victory speech, 11-6-2012
#135
Posted 20 March 2010 - 11:06 PM
#137
Posted 01 April 2010 - 07:26 PM
Seems like regional war is unavoidable - unless Israel can be convinced not to attack under scenario 2. Which is possible, hypothetically. But then, what're going to do, promise to write a really, Really stern letter to the UN when Hezbollah and Hamas launch coordinated assaults against Israel, possibly in tandem with Syrian ops?
The only reason I propose military action is because I think it's inevitable, and if we do it before they're ready, we'll wrong-foot them. Otherwise we will be wrong-footed, which is bad since all the politics are probably against us. But, since it would be way easier not to use yet more militarty power, what can we do? Someone explain it.
#138
Posted 02 April 2010 - 03:33 PM
What can we do? That's a great question. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. In order to answer that question, we must first answer this question- what do we want? Our country needs clear objectives and clear goals. That is what we lack and our enemies possess. It's clear what the communists want. It's clear what the Islamic extremists want. They keep telling us over and over. Sometimes they even provide convenient lists.Well so the options are (1) air/spec ops attack on nuclear facilities, (2) engage in charade talks, iran pulls a DPRK nuclear fart, Israel is provoked, tries an Osirak, probably fails, all Islam gets its clear casus belli backed by ravenous UN useful idiots, (3) crushing blow on mullahs via air, sea, land and - most important - subversion/uprising, with communications to Qom and "opposition" that they can rule once the mil assets are all rubble.
Seems like regional war is unavoidable - unless Israel can be convinced not to attack under scenario 2. Which is possible, hypothetically. But then, what're going to do, promise to write a really, Really stern letter to the UN when Hezbollah and Hamas launch coordinated assaults against Israel, possibly in tandem with Syrian ops?
The only reason I propose military action is because I think it's inevitable, and if we do it before they're ready, we'll wrong-foot them. Otherwise we will be wrong-footed, which is bad since all the politics are probably against us. But, since it would be way easier not to use yet more militarty power, what can we do? Someone explain it.
THEY WANT WORLD CONTROL.
For a time, we had world control and right now we remain strong enough to achieve what we want- but not for much longer.
What does America stand for today? What are our objectives, our goals? Do we simply exist to go along and get along? All the while our enemies run circles around us and steal away everything that has made us great- including, most importantly, our freedoms and our sovereignty.
I believe our action should begin with the development of three convenient lists-
One which describes for what America stands, one, which outlines our timeless objectives and one, which outlines our goals for the next 100 years.
I submit that if we cannot develop such lists, then we don’t deserve our freedoms or our sovereignty.
I’ll start-
List One- For what does America stand?
1) The United States Constitution
List Two- What does America want (our timeless objectives)?
1) Freedom as outlined in the U.S. Constitution
2) National Sovereignty
3) To defeat the idea and practice of communism
4) Fair trade with free nations
5) No trade with communist nations
6) No trade with dictatorships
7) Reward freedom and punish oppressors
8) Disrupt trade between oppressive regimes
List Three- What should America do (our goals for the next 100 years)?
1) The exact opposite of each of the forty five communist goals of 1963.
The choice is simple- stand for freedom or fall into slavery.
#139
Posted 15 April 2010 - 10:19 AM
DEBKAfile Special Report April 13, 2010, 6:53 PM (GMT+02:00)
http://www.debka.com/article/8713/
This warning, along with an announcement that Iran would join the world's nuclear club within a month, raised the pitch of Iranian anti-US rhetoric to a new high Tuesday, April 13, as 47 world leaders gathered in Washington for President Barack Obama's Nuclear Security Summit. The statement published by Kayhan said: "If the US strikes Iran with nuclear weapons, there are elements which will respond with nuclear blasts in the centers of America's main cities." For the first time, debkafile's military sources report, Tehran indicated the possibility of passing nuclear devices to terrorists capable of striking inside the United States.
#140
Posted 15 April 2010 - 10:53 AM
Well, at least i live in a city that wouldn't pose much interest for GRU nukes. unless of course they want to hit everything w/ pop. above a couple hundred thousand. come to think of it this city could probably use a good nuke-bulldozing.
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users










