Related Information to USA vs Iran

USA vs Iran - Page 18

Iran is now testing so-called super-missiles and a super-boat in the Persian Gulf. Depending on which news source you read, the US is either concerned ... or not.

This is the entire item quoted from China View:

This article talks about the boat, and its missile launching capabilities.

https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190462,00.html

Iran USA

This is a very interesting story by one of America's most respected journalist Seymour Hersh. It says that senior White House officials have initiated talks of a possible nuclear attack on Iran. Hersh has used several high ranking officials as sources, some of whom clearly feel uneasy about such an attack.

So far Bush has said this report is "wild speculation" but has refused to rule out such an attack. This would indicate that Washington has considered the move or is trying to use the threat of an attack to scare the Iranians. Either way it sends a dangerous message and who knows how the Iranian authority will react.

Normally I would dismiss a report that relied on "a US official said" but Hersh has a proven track record of uncovering some of the biggest scandals. He is also extremely well connected and has a very strong reputation.

Interesting times ahead...

Edited: arvhic on 11th Apr, 2006 - 11:54am

USA vs Iran History & Civil Business Politics

The other alternative is that President Bush is just plain keeping secret what should be secret. That is, any contingency plans. It is not appropriate for the President, the Pentagon, any civilian or military officials to disclose contingency plans related to foreign policy.

IMO.

Page 18 Iran USA

I agree with you on that point Nighthawk. I think he should keep it secret. That is why the White House should have outright dismissed it. Unfortunately we have a situation where both sides are posteuring to see if the other one will crack.

I don't believe Bush would nuke any country. A military invasion is certainly out of the question as well. Iran has conveniently announced they have enriched uranium for civilian purposes only days after Hersh's article. It seems like both sides are trying to box the other one into a corner.

I believe that diplomacy is the only realistic way forward, especially when you consider that Iran has a heck of a lot of influence over the Shiite arm of the Iraqi government.

The US is desperately looking for a way to pull out its troops and Iran could have a significant role to play.

Iran USA

Air Attack On Iran!

Seymour Hersh: Bush Administration Planning Possible Major Air Attack on Iran

We speak with Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh about his latest article in the New Yorker that the Bush administration has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack.
Ref. https://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/12/1359254

USA vs Iran

To all of you who think this is not ludicrous to do, and think that our government is being completely honest with us about it, I present a vision of the past.

Afghanistan, the promise that bin Laden was there. If you remember, the Taliban said he wasn't there. A week or two before the attack, it "came out" that they were harboring bin Laden and refused to give him up. We decimate and scatter the Taliban and never find bin Laden. We are still in occupation of that country but no one seems to remember that.

Iraq. What ever happened to the terrorist threat and weapons of mass destruction? Well, we now know that bin Laden hated Saddam because Saddam used a military dictatorship that was above the religious clerics, which is against religious extremism in the Islamic world. And the there were never any WMD's for us to worry about. Think they may find them? Wrong! Colin Powell now admits that there was never any threat from Iraq. https://www.thenation.com/doc/20060424/scheer0411

So what of Iran? We heard nothing but crys of innocence from Iran. They only wanted nuclear power for civil use. They allowed inspectors in past the time the treaty requires but still the US is not satisfied. We again have only support from Britain for a military action, but that doesn't matter does it? Less than one week ago we see the end to the crys of innocence and the OPEN claims from Iran that they are beginning enrichment on a large scale. Anyone question the huge change in Iran's position? Why would that suddenly change from innocent to threat, on a global scale? Look at the last two wars in the middle east for answers, it follows a pattern. They cry foul, suddenly they show their guilt, we soon ride in to trample them, we occupy their land, nothing is found of the evidence for attack.

They will attack, they will conquer, they will find nothing. Its an endless pattern of lies and deceit from the White House that ends in the failure to show that we were right. The government is using fear once again to back up its attack on Iran, making us afraid of nukes they don't have. Before you fire back with some right wing belief in a government that continues to lie, ask your self this question. If the evidence for nuclear weapons is so great and obvious, then why can we not find global support to stop a terrorist nation gaining nukes? Would not that constitute a threat to every nation if it was true?

USA Iran - Page 18

Offtopic but, Konquerez, I must admit you have changed your perspective about the Bush Administration over the time I have been in this community. When did you change your tune, and why? I agree with a lot of what you say except that some people knew the White House was lying to begin with. Whenever a journalist exposed the truth about White house claims they were always labelled "left-wing", "anti-Bush" or the worst one, "alternative". I have always said there was never any evidence of what the White House had claimed in both conflicts based on the reports of credible journalists, reports that I had written and information I had personally researched.

Now Iran, as you mention, appears to be heading down the same track.

You will notice the need for any Bush enemy to be demonised with links to terrorism, WMDs (of which the US has the largest arsenal by far), and of course Islamic fundamentalism.

This scaremongering appeals to a broad spectrum of America's society. It also rather sadly feeds off one of America's worst tragedies in modern history, September 11.

I'm not trying to offend anyone here but the truth is the word terrorism appears several times in just about every White House speech used against enemies since that horrific incident.

Now with Iran, we are led to believe their hardline president is developing nukes, sponsors terrorism and is a threat to world peace. Not a bad resume for an evil villain.

I have no doubt terrorists are in Iran, just as they are in every other Middle East country. Is this the Government's fault? I doubt it.

As for nuclear weapons.

Why on earth do we apply one standard to Iran, who can't possibly have weapons grade enriched uranium, and another standard to India, who has openly tested nuclear weapons? The current administration has virtually destroyed the non-proliferation treaty by endorsing and sharing nuclear technology with India without even ensuring scrutiny on all of their sites. If Bush was serious about the threat of nuclear weapons he would not have done this. The simple truth is that it's alright to have nuclear weapons if you are a friend of the US, but not alright if you are an enemy.

Therefore, you would sensibly conclude this whole Iranian "threat" of nukes has nothing to do with security or weapons. It's just a vehicle to eventually promote regime change. And whenever we hear that horrible term regime change, it really means removing a leader we don't like with one we do. One in a resource rich country.

I have one simple question. If Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran's major domestic product was asparagus, would these countries have even been invaded or part of an "axis of evil"?

Message Edited! Persephone: Please use Off Topic tags as necessary.

USA Iran Politics Business Civil & History - Page 18

Archiv,

I believe it is not just our right, but our duty to constantly re-evaluate what we believe to be true. As evidence comes to light, I have no other choice but to change my point of view. I have once been challenge to learn the truth about our governments. Because of that, I am skeptical of another possible war against anyone. My only regret is that I didn't know then what I know now, and stood on the wrong side of the debate.

As for when it happened, thats a hard question to answer. The evolution from one side of the debate to the other was slow over time. By the time recent events with Iran have taken place, I was in the mind set of remembering what Bush had said regarding Iran, and what Iran was saying publicly. Since I have researched the events leading to both other current wars, I have a different perspective on Iran and feel that I can accurately predict that the US will follow the same pattern of creating the "evidence" then not finding it, then changing the reason of the war to some other terrible thing like dictator or oppressor of freedom. This will be harder since Irans president has been democratically elected.

Most get upset at this claim and say that I am dead wrong and will feel stupid about this prediction later. I really hope I am, I really really do.