More signs of upcoming war with Iran?

jonny72

While its been pretty quiet I think things are still moving behind the scenes..

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/iran_nuclear_strike/2008/04/14/87887.html?s=sp&promo_code=4948-1

This has to be just a large-scale scare tactic, they cannot seriously be contemplating an attack?

SeanW

I sure as F@#% hope not.

wes

I am sure the war mongers Bush and Cheney would just love to engage in another war of aggression against Iran. However, they would have to mad, there military is pretty stretched with the 2 wars there currently fighting. They can't possibly be so stupid to launch another one.

brianthebard

I read a short article in Newsweek that showed the results of a poll. It showed that iranians were in support of the government plans for nuclear power. I can't find the article on the newsweek website, but they suggested that with Iran's large oil reserves there was only one reason why they wanted nuclear technology. I don't know how unbiased Newsweek is supposed to be these days but when a magazine like that starts the sabar rattling you know there's a problem.

Red Hand

Hmmmmm...not sure that the US is going to take on a country like North Korea or Iran, considering that they actually might have weapons of mass destruction. That would make no sense.

They will, however, take on weak and fragile countries like Iraq and say that those countries do have wmd.

wes

brianthebard wrote: »

I read a short article in Newsweek that showed the results of a poll. It showed that iranians were in support of the government plans for nuclear power. I can't find the article on the newsweek website, but they suggested that with Iran's large oil reserves there was only one reason why they wanted nuclear technology. I don't know how unbiased Newsweek is supposed to be these days but when a magazine like that starts the sabar rattling you know there's a problem.

Well, I find it odd that such magazine, haven't mentioned that maybe they want nuclear tech for when the oil runs out, but then we can't expect much from the compliant members of the media these days.

Also, if I had 3 nuclear powers, with 2 being hostile (US & Israel) and a 3rd coming from the rival Sunni Muslim sect (Pakistan), maybe I would want some nuclear technology. Lets not forget that neighboring Arab regimes hate them too, remember that the US backed Saddam war of aggression against Iran resulted in a million dead between the 2 sides.

I wouldn't blame Iran wanting nuclear weapons either, considering there neighborhood and the fact that the American's threatened them in 2003 and backed Saddam's war against them. The US/UK axis would be reluctant to attack them, if they had WMD's.

leninbenjamin

wes wrote: »

Well, I find it odd that such magazine, haven't mentioned that maybe they want nuclear tech for when the oil runs out, but then we can't expect much from the compliant members of the media these days.

it could also be that their reserves are lower than they are reporting, and they simply want something else in place so they can milk the last of the oil for all it's worth before it dries out.

if America go through with this, well God help us all. the worlds economy will probably slide further and no doubt the 'war on terror' will escalate for decades to come.

thebman

Or maybe they want Nuclear power for domestic use and export the oil as the price goes ever higher else where.

eoin5

Does anyone else remember a certain 10 year war where Iran fought the west who were using chemical weapons at the time? They didnt lose either. If anything did start it would be the end of Iraq as we know it... again.

Kevster

America really can't afford another war at the moment. Their military is so stretched and the American people simply wouldn't stand for another war. They are also in billions of dollars of debt and people are slowly coming around to the fact there that their money would be best spent looking after the American people first, rather than paying for military 'excursions'.

Striking Iran would tip the world into chaos... ...Iran has strong allies in the form of Russia and Venezuela (Venezuela is strong because they sell a lot of oil to America).

Kevin.

jonny72

Well I've read Iran only has a month or two of refined oil supplies if they got cut off, they have plenty and plenty of crude, just not much refined.

Moriarty

Yes folks, war with Iran will happen any day now.

jonny72

Moriarty wrote: »

Yes folks, war with Iran will happen any day now.

Who are you talking to? any one in this thread saying war is going to happen any day now? I'm sure if Iraq had gone better it would be more than just this supposed propaganda and sabre rattling, but thats just a hypothetical situation. Strangely enough the Bush administration seemed a lot less bothered about North Korea getting WMD.

Manic Moran

Who are you talking to? any one in this thread saying war is going to happen any day now? I'm sure if Iraq had gone better it would be more than just this supposed propaganda and sabre rattling, but thats just a hypothetical situation. Strangely enough the Bush administration seemed a lot less bothered about North Korea getting WMD.

I think it's more the preponderance of belief that the Republicans are actively looking for a fight with Iran for the simple sake of having a fight with Iran, they just haven't found a good enough excuse for it yet. Threads like this seem to pop up on Boards with amusing regularity. Do a search in Politics for "attack Iran", and see how many hits you get. The linked-to thread above is far from the only one where dates have been bandied about, and have since passed.

NTM

Red Hand

jonny72 wrote: »

Who are you talking to? any one in this thread saying war is going to happen any day now? I'm sure if Iraq had gone better it would be more than just this supposed propaganda and sabre rattling, but thats just a hypothetical situation. Strangely enough the Bush administration seemed a lot less bothered about North Korea getting WMD.

Of course they were less bothered. They have no intention of attacking North Korea as North Korea may have WMD. You do not attack someone who may hit you or your allies back.

I am pie

Forthcoming election, economic crisis at home and growing isolationist and protectionist sentiment in the US should ensure a conventional war is non-starter imminently. You wouldn't rule it out in 5 to 10 years time unfortunately.

jmayo

US military top brass could not contemplate invasion of Iran as they are so stretched.
They are affectively bogged down in two different theatres with decreasing allied support.
Their only option would be to keep their troops in the field long term and that would include the National Gruard units.
Either that or try bring in the draft and that would be one hell of a gamble with US public opinion.

As with Iraq nuclear project, they would like the Israelis to perform the actual attack but the Iranians have forseen this and the plant is supposedly hard to destroy using an air attack.
Thus they have to look at using other means.
Maybe Chuck Norris will have a go.
He is a good old boy from Texas ya know.

PS I just love it how people have adopted the buzzword Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) for the old fashioned named Atomic/Nuclear/Chemical weapons. Adds to the old shock and awe of it all.
It's a bit like how we have adopted the old Friendly Fire term.

Manic Moran

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Of course they were less bothered. They have no intention of attacking North Korea as North Korea may have WMD. You do not attack someone who may hit you or your allies back.

It's not the possible nukes that makes NK somewhat untouchable. It's the fact that they'd have to cross the most heavily defended border in the world, the really lousy terrain which is great for defense, against a very large Army, and with a large number of your own facilities (and, incidently, Seoul) in range of what is one of the world's largest, and most fortified artillery parks. It would be ugly.

There's also the issue of violating an armistice: Remember that NK is still technically at war, and a signed temporary ceasefire deal is in place. It wouldn't look good to randomly violate such a deal.

NTM

Kev_ps3

When you read this crap you really see who the terrorist states are - Isreal and America, and im sure Britain as ususal has its part in it.
If there is going to be war between the Jews and Iran then ill be supporting Iran 100%.

Dirk Gently

brianthebard wrote: »

I can't find the article on the newsweek website, but they suggested that with Iran's large oil reserves there was only one reason why they wanted nuclear technology.

I take it they didn't suggest that reason is because their reserves are mostly in heavy crude.

jonny72

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think it's more the preponderance of belief that the Republicans are actively looking for a fight with Iran for the simple sake of having a fight with Iran, they just haven't found a good enough excuse for it yet. Threads like this seem to pop up on Boards with amusing regularity. Do a search in Politics for "attack Iran", and see how many hits you get. The linked-to thread above is far from the only one where dates have been bandied about, and have since passed.

NTM

Do a search for 'attack Iran' in the media and see what comes up with frightening regularity. Of course its a giant game of bluff, but its a dangerous game, and its being gleefully pushed along by hardline elements on both sides.

El Stuntman

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

If there is going to be war between the Jews and Iran then ill be supporting Iran 100%.

nice :eek:

why don't you head off to Tehran and offer your services to the Revolutionary Guards?

I'm sure they'll appreciate your support, being such cuddly sorts as they are

bonkey

jmayo wrote: »

PS I just love it how people have adopted the buzzword Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) for the old fashioned named Atomic/Nuclear/Chemical weapons. Adds to the old shock and awe of it all.

Somewhat offtopic, I know, but I think you may have it the wrong way round.

As far as I'm aware, the term "Weapons of Mass Desctruction" predates the term ABC (Atomic, biological, chemical).

ABC was replaced with NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) with the advent of the hydrogen bomb, and was in turn replaced with CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear) when so-called 'dirty bombs' (subcritical nuclear devices, who's threat is primarily radiological) were added as a seperate .classification.

Kev_ps3

El Stuntman wrote: »

nice :eek:

why don't you head off to Tehran and offer your services to the Revolutionary Guards?

I'm sure they'll appreciate your support, being such cuddly sorts as they are

But I could say the same for the other said, why dont you go over and join the American/Israeli army?

CerebralCortex

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

But I could say the same for the other said, why dont you go over and join the American/Israeli army?

Words of wisdom as always. :rolleyes:
Did anyone notice in the pic that it is not actually an F-18? It looks like an F-5 training jet.

is_that_so

jonny72 wrote: »

While its been pretty quiet I think things are still moving behind the scenes..

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/iran_nuclear_strike/2008/04/14/87887.html?s=sp&promo_code=4948-1

This has to be just a large-scale scare tactic, they cannot seriously be contemplating an attack?

Source of material is dubious to say the least. Israel is even more paranoid than the US. What if...? at best.
If Dick Cheney had shown up in Ireland might we have had something to fear as well?

There are many reasons why not. Most of that revolves around the military and as posted above, for the US "it's the economy stupid" for the next few years at least. Dubya's presidency has convinced us that America will start a war at the drop of a hat. Cheney will disappear soon enough along with the rest of them.

Nothing to gain from a nightmare scenario like that and absolutely everything to lose.

SeanW

Conspiracy theorists will point out that Iraq was invaded not long after Saddam Hussein converted Iraq's Oil For Food sales from US$ into EUR. Also, when the troops entered Baghdad, their first destination, quite surprisingly, was the Oil Ministry, upon the securing of which, the first act of the American provisional government was to switch Iraq's oil trading currency back to USD.

Iran has now abandoned the Dollar as their oil trading currency. Even the oil they sell by the dollar, the bill must be settled with another currency. The Japanese, for example, have been settling their bills by paying Yen. Iran has now set up a Rial denominated oil trading bourse, and intends to set up more bourses for trading various commodities in non dollar currencies.

Oh and, check this video out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixG55tWAebg
to see how Iran is making progress getting back to secularism (from ABC news no less, so much for all Western media being biased, jingoistic, propoganda nonsense).

I have no doubts about 2 things.
1: That an ill-concieved war with Iran would be a disaster for all the peoples of the world.
2: But the Iranian government risks war by threatening the Petrodollar concept.

One thing I know for certain is that we pretend Saudi Arabia is our friend when it is clear they are not only the most barbarian and sectarian state on Earth, but their attempts to spread Wahibbist Islam throughout the world actively and fundamentally threaten civilisation itself.

Why the U.S. invaded Iraq when there were no weapons, and there weapons inspectors (remember those) on the ground tearing the place apart looking for them I do not know. My eyes were opened to the goings on there, when Colin Powell, seeking UN autorisaton to invade Iraq, gave a presentation about Iraq's "WMD" that consisted of "we found two lorries in the desert." Why we're even discussing the possibility invading Iran, when the evidence that they mean us harm is so vastly thinner than that against our "friends" in SA, I am completely at a loss to figure out. Petrodollar hedgemony is the only possibility I can think of.

LostinBlanch

Ah but Sean look at how much money Halliburton et al made/still make from the war. Just like the tribunals here follow the money and you'll get the story. Edit - not exactly on topic but it illustrates my point.

yawtin

Don't think it will happen soon.

People say the Russians and Chinese have got together on the Iran issue. It is more likely to be a small scale cold war between the US and Russia and China, just like Taiwan. And this time Europe is not likely to support the US neither.It would be quite suicidal for the Americans to start a war there now.

Manic Moran

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Did anyone notice in the pic that it is not actually an F-18? It looks like an F-5 training jet.

Which pic?

NTM

gordon_gekko

jonny72 wrote: »

Who are you talking to? any one in this thread saying war is going to happen any day now? I'm sure if Iraq had gone better it would be more than just this supposed propaganda and sabre rattling, but thats just a hypothetical situation. Strangely enough the Bush administration seemed a lot less bothered about North Korea getting WMD.

in response to the last sentence , thats because israel isnt anywhere near north korea

brianthebard

brim4brim wrote: »

Or maybe they want Nuclear power for domestic use and export the oil as the price goes ever higher else where.

Absolutely. Its funny to think that while France wants to have Nuclear power rated as a renewable energy source, that same source isn't allowed to countries that certain countries don't like. Who knew Ahmajinedad was a closet green?:D

RATM

OP sorry to wake you up but the US has been at war with Iran since 1979. Warfare does not have to involve missiles, ideological and economic warfare are an integral part of US FP and can just be as effective as missiles. An example in hand- the Vietnam War- most ppl see that as a 1960/70s thing. In fact the first US serviceman was killed in Nam in 1956. And the Vietnamese didnt feel the end of economic strangulation until the 1990's when they got a FTA with the US. Even after the FTA they were left with a whole bunch of unusable land.

Just take a spin down to Ahvaz in Iran if you need proof. The US has been engaging in intimidation for years now- they fly F-18s over the oil fields there, its over 25 miles into Iranian airspace. I saw this with my own eyes in 2004 and any local down that way will tell you the same thing. If the Iranians flew into Iraq you can rest assured theyd be shot down and the US would enjoy telling the whole world about it. Makes you wonder who is the aggressor? And who is the actor showing extreme restraint?

How would Irish ppl react if the British airforce did a flyby over Dublin and out as far as Kilcock before turning their war machines around and flying back?

Denis Irwin

It would be very idiotic even for Bush to contemplate attacking Iran considering they're already streched in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only way the Americans would get sufficent troop numbers would be if they re-introduced the draft and if that happens in a McCain Presidency where he to win the Election(Hopefully he won't) then the Republicans and McCain can kiss a second term in the White House goodbye IMO.

Hellm0

Denis Irwin wrote: »

It would be very idiotic even for Bush to contemplate attacking Iran considering they're already streched in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only way the Americans would get sufficent troop numbers would be if they re-introduced the draft and if that happens in a McCain Presidency where he to win the Election(Hopefully he won't) then the Republicans and McCain can kiss a second term in the White House goodbye IMO.

Were the draft to be instituted I would nearly go so far as to say there would be civil war. At the very least it would be political DEATH for whomever should try to bring it back. Also I would be forced to move to Canada or back home and the US economy just couldn't take a withdrawal of fund's and funk on that scale.

Also RATM I couldnt agree more. Economic and political warfare are the tool's of choice of today's modern tyrant's, Pinochet brand capitalism!

Kevster

I believe that Ahmedinejad is just teasing America because he knows that they cannot afford to go into another war. If you notice, none of the American TV news stations are reporting anything out of Iran anymore. That's probably a good thing.

Ahmedinejad is a pure bollox that the world could do without; but the same applies to Putin, Bush, Sarkozy, Berlusconi, and Chavez. The connection between each of these: Huge egos and an insatiable drive towards stubborness

Kevin.

SeanW

+1;

Hammer, Nail and Head.

Manic Moran

Kevster wrote: »

I believe that Ahmedinejad is just teasing America because he knows that they cannot afford to go into another war. If you notice, none of the American TV news stations are reporting anything out of Iran anymore. That's probably a good thing.

Last week's arrest of the head of Tehran's anti-vice squad in a brothel got a mention. As do the occasional military announcements by Iran.

Still, the US rarely reports on anything out of anywhere non-USian unless it affects them in some way, I wouldn't see that as a point of view exclusive towards Iran. What I'm finding interesting is the serious amount of coverage that Benedict is getting over here.

NTM

SkepticOne

Kevster wrote: »

If you notice, none of the American TV news stations are reporting anything out of Iran anymore. That's probably a good thing.

CNN are doing a series of reports out of Iran at the moment.

SeanW

brianthebard wrote: »

Absolutely. Its funny to think that while France wants to have Nuclear power rated as a renewable energy source, that same source isn't allowed to countries that certain countries don't like. Who knew Ahmajinedad was a closet green?:D

Firstly the French are well within their rights to look for good ratings for nuclear electricity. After all, the French grid is backed by 95%+ non-fossil sources.

Secondly, there is actually nothing stopping the Iranians from enjoying peaceful nuclear electricity. What is being contested here, is the Iranian's fuel enrichment program, the same technology could lead them to develop nuclear weapons. Which the Islamist government could use to wipe Israel off the map etc.

However, it is not necessary to enrich fuel to run a peaceful nuclear programme for two reasons.
1) You can always have someone else enrich your fuel - the Russian's offered to do this.
2) Some reactor designs, like the CANDU reactor, allow the operator to use Natural Uranium, and indeed a wide variety of other fissile and semi-fissile materials as fuel as required. It is heavily used in Canada and there are a few elsewhere in the world.

IIRC several offers of co-operation and assistance were issued to the Iranians to incentivise them to stop developing enrichment technologies. One question I have for them would be this: Why did they not take either of the above two options. Another question would be why they're not taking care of more pressing issues closer to home such as petrol rationing (the country has no petrol refinaries so the gov't spends a fortune subsidising petrol imports), the continuing collapse of the Iranian Rial, (Iran has inflation ranging from 15-20%) instead of messing around with NPPs that they most likely don't need.

Kevster

SkepticOne wrote: »

CNN are doing a series of reports out of Iran at the moment.

Oh, okay, I just haven't noticed them then. Maybe they just aren't giving as much coverage as they used to.

SeanW

SeanW wrote: »

However, it is not necessary to enrich fuel to run a peaceful nuclear programme for two reasons.
1) You can always have someone else enrich your fuel - the Russian's offered to do this.
2) Some reactor designs, like the CANDU reactor, allow the operator to use Natural Uranium, and indeed a wide variety of other fissile and semi-fissile materials as fuel as required. It is heavily used in Canada and there are a few elsewhere in the world.


But has Iran not been working within the framework of the Non proliferation treaty all along?..And why should they have to rely on Russia to enrich it for them to please the US?..

Kev_ps3

Deleted User wrote: »

SeanW wrote: »

However, it is not necessary to enrich fuel to run a peaceful nuclear programme for two reasons.
1) You can always have someone else enrich your fuel - the Russian's offered to do this.
2) Some reactor designs, like the CANDU reactor, allow the operator to use Natural Uranium, and indeed a wide variety of other fissile and semi-fissile materials as fuel as required. It is heavily used in Canada and there are a few elsewhere in the world.


But has Iran not been working within the framework of the Non proliferation treaty all along?..And why should they have to rely on Russia to enrich it for them to please the US?..

The US is using this issue as an excuse to put sanctions on Iran and finally war. If it wasnt this issue then I tell you it would be something else, probably involving Isreal i.e "they want to wipe isreal off the face of the earth" - a quote that noone actually said and was taken out of context.