Jump to content


Photo

Iran 2


  • Please log in to reply
213 replies to this topic

#121 Apollo5600

Apollo5600

    Member

  • Members
  • 994 posts

Posted 12 February 2010 - 01:25 AM

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.

#122 NBT Truth

NBT Truth

    Member

  • Members
  • 780 posts

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....

#123 Apollo5600

Apollo5600

    Member

  • Members
  • 994 posts

Posted 13 February 2010 - 04:07 AM

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.

#124 Jason

Jason

    Member

  • Members
  • 170 posts

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.

#125 Apollo5600

Apollo5600

    Member

  • Members
  • 994 posts

Posted 14 February 2010 - 01:41 AM

I've read them, I think, since 2006, but not daily. Just when things might be blowing up somewhere.

#126 befruitful

befruitful

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,121 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 February 2010 - 01:46 AM

I didn't read the article, but noticed aa was shooting mouth off about retaliation for sanctions.

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 NBT Truth

NBT Truth

    Member

  • Members
  • 780 posts

Posted 18 February 2010 - 03:54 PM

Just heard a breaking news report on CNN that the UN IAEA agency is reporting that Iran may be working on a nuclear warhead for their ballistic missiles....

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 bm_cali

bm_cali

    Member

  • Admin
  • 3,905 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Francisco hinterlands, USA
  • Interests:Winning the next world war. General curmudgeon-ship.

Posted 19 February 2010 - 12:58 AM

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.

#129 NBT Truth

NBT Truth

    Member

  • Members
  • 780 posts

Posted 19 February 2010 - 06:40 AM

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.

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.)


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)...

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....

#130 Apollo5600

Apollo5600

    Member

  • Members
  • 994 posts

Posted 20 February 2010 - 04:03 AM

I wonder at what point Israel is going to launch attacks, or do they even have the spine for it? Obama won't help, and he'll probably even condemn them and use them as a scapegoat for the world's (his) problems. Of course, Russia WANTS Israel to attack. That's the whole point of this. And if they don't, America will be defeated in the Middle East; all is lost! They have us in a bind no matter how you look at it.

#131 NBT Truth

NBT Truth

    Member

  • Members
  • 780 posts

Posted 17 March 2010 - 10:28 AM

Rumor of War: http://www.heraldsco...-iran-1.1013151

#132 JNKish

JNKish

    Member

  • Members
  • 240 posts

Posted 18 March 2010 - 06:31 AM

An American military strike against Iran would be likened to a Russian or Chinese military strike against Canada or Mexico. If we hit 10,000 targets in Iran as the Herald Scotland article describes, it may very well kick off the Fourth World War. It either won't happen or, if it does happen, it won't go down like Iraq or Afghanistan.

Related article: Iran and the Elephant in the Room

Agree or disagree?

#133 kulthur

kulthur

    Member

  • Members
  • 348 posts

Posted 18 March 2010 - 07:40 AM

Disagree, but with an open mind, if by your analogy you mean Russia and China would go from covert to overt war against us. I don't think they're in that position, and I don't think the connection between Iran and Russia/China can justify a first strike, or something like that. I say we just bomb em. It's obvious that Russia/China are taking this Big Terror "opportunity" to realign things, which they would do after an Iran attack to as well, but frankly is as much of a problem as Iraq was. What FOBs of Russia/China would there be if we took Iran out? Syria, HAMAS, sort of Pakistan, sort of Turkey... But without Iran to triangulate the politics the Turkish connection might fade, and who knows what would happen to Syria, HAMAS, and Hezbollah. Although, I can see the other side too, of course. But lately I've been leaning back toward Strike.

#134 pizzaman

pizzaman

    Member

  • Members
  • 527 posts

Posted 18 March 2010 - 03:13 PM

I believe if we strike Iran, it will be the opportunity they've desired to strike America with covert nuclear weapons. That way everyone will believe that the Arab world is to blame. It will be very easy to sell the idea that it was just a retaliation. Sure they will be losing a FOB, but they have more. Besides, if they strike us hard enough and take out our electrical grid, they won't need too many FOBs, they will just start gobbling up Asia and Europe and leave us for last.
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.
"Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson
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 JNKish

JNKish

    Member

  • Members
  • 240 posts

Posted 20 March 2010 - 11:06 PM

Surprise Surprise-
The Washington Times: Iran's link to China includes nukes, missiles

#136 bm_cali

bm_cali

    Member

  • Admin
  • 3,905 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Francisco hinterlands, USA
  • Interests:Winning the next world war. General curmudgeon-ship.

Posted 31 March 2010 - 10:26 PM

And now Western naive idiots believe that China and Russia are on board with "sanctions."

This will be just like "the Six Party Talks" vis a vis the DPRK.

#137 kulthur

kulthur

    Member

  • Members
  • 348 posts

Posted 01 April 2010 - 07:26 PM

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.

#138 JNKish

JNKish

    Member

  • Members
  • 240 posts

Posted 02 April 2010 - 03:33 PM

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.

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.

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 donít deserve our freedoms or our sovereignty.

Iíll 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 Dan07112

Dan07112

    Member

  • Members
  • 179 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 April 2010 - 10:19 AM

Tehran: If Iran is attacked, nuclear devices will go off in American cities
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 kulthur

kulthur

    Member

  • Members
  • 348 posts

Posted 15 April 2010 - 10:53 AM

Yikes. I wonder if Debka functions as the kind of outlet that publishes a stream of crap so that only the need-to-know intelligence guys will be safely made aware of real developments. You've got to hand it to the Soviet strategists, they've really put us in a bind with this Iran thing. Well-played, vampires, well-played indeed.

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.