Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Reagan Appointee: Bush Preparing For War With Iran      Home login  
Joined: 9/9/2006
Msg: 5
view profile
Reagan Appointee: Bush Preparing For War With IranPage 1 of 3    (1, 2, 3)

The only thing that would trigger it is some kind of false flag/accidental run in with Iranian smugglers who are interpreted as attackers

Agreed but it will never happen as Iran will deny any involvement and without VERY strong evidence, Bush will always have his hands tied. Let’s not forget that Bush will need another coalition if he wants to defeat Iran. Question is, which country would dare to be on his side again except for Israel? My guess...not one…unless...

Bush needs a lot more than unfounded accusations to have his war. And he would need to have the world behind him in the event that it may happen. Question is, how can he accomplish this without any immediate suspicions? He needs another 911. This time, it will have to be far more shocking than the one in 2001. One that will immediately point at Iran. Because of the extreme horror, once again the world will be behind the master & commander. Once again we will be fooled.

In May 2007, a major presidential National Security Directive is issued, (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20) and I believe that Bush will have it enforced before 2008.

Right now, with what's occurring in Iraq, there's not enough capacity to support such a concept - unless they are insane

I believe that to be wrong. The US has the capacity to support the concept...they just don’t want to be alone. Israel would take a huge risk if they decided to get involved as if the coalition fail, Israel would be far more hated than it is right now not to mention weaker militarily wise because of their involvement.
Joined: 9/9/2006
Msg: 7
view profile
Reagan Appointee: Bush Preparing For War With Iran
Posted: 5/20/2008 9:57:35 AM

Write it down......18 months to two years , if McCain gets in.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Bush cannot take the chance to see if McCain will be elected. From an economic standpoint, it would be a suicide move.

If Obama gets the job (which I believe he will), it means another 4 years without a war...another 4 years to give the Euro more possibilities to become the new currency for Opec and another 4 years of a depreciated dollar not to mention the very high possibility that the greenback could take a bigger dive in the event that another oil producer decides to switch all accounts to Euros.

In order to pre-empt OPEC, the US needs to gain geo-strategic control of Iran ASAP just as they did with Iraq. Two countries that DARED to switch all accounts to Euros. As for Iraq, Bush switched back oil sales to US dollars within only 8 weeks into the war. If that alone doesn’t show where Bush’s priorities were, I just don’t know what will.

I strongly believe the main reason for another war is this administration's goal of preventing further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the euro as the oil transaction currency standard. Any other reason given is just a smoke screen.

An Opec change of currency would mean the end of a superpower…plain and simple!

No, it has to happen in 2008 as the US has much too much to lose if it goes beyond this year. It just makes perfect sense.

By the way, another possibility for using the Presidential Directives NSPD-51 HSPD-20, is that Bush decides to go into another Illegal war but this time, US citizens revolts against the government. Actually, when I think about it and knowing what Bush has done till now, that option wouldn’t surprise me at all.

Remember who told you
Time will tell my friend.
Joined: 9/9/2006
Msg: 9
view profile
Reagan Appointee: Bush Preparing For War With Iran
Posted: 5/20/2008 12:14:37 PM

Now turn on your news, and see how Obama's getting re-branded as something he's not, while sinking to the ludicrous depths of "sweetie".

I seriously doubt that that minor slip of the tongue will change anything. Sure some feminists will be insulted but it will disappear in no time. Republicans will have to be very careful on how they attack the democratic nominee as it will come back and bite them on thee ass eventually. The way I see it is that it's just something some will say out of habit just as those who say, honey, love or anything else in the same line. People are smarter (I hope) than that and will see it for what it is...absolutely nothing.

As far as Gramm goes, I think it will eventually catch up with him just as it will with McCain once Obama or Hillary becomes the nominee. Either one will surely bring it up forcing the media to print the story. It's only a question of time before the shit hits the fan as McCain has plenty of dirt that will comeback and bite him in the ass.

Let's not forget that either Obama or Clinton would surely beat the crap out of McCain in any public debate. They would press on buttons to get McCain going and once he does, then it should be a walk in the park from that day on.

The Dems just needs to realize what's at stake and pick a nominee ASAP so that he or she can go after McCain on a fulltime base.
Joined: 10/16/2006
Msg: 10
Reagan Appointee: Bush Preparing For War With Iran
Posted: 5/20/2008 12:31:12 PM
Planting weapons across borders has been going on for decades. It is S.O.P. for American foreign policy.

I had a philosophy teacher in college who was a Green Beret Sgt. in the early days of Vietnam who was under orders to plant Chinese weapons and uniforms across the Cambodian border and lead American journalists straight to it. He regrets it to this day, but he was a good soldier who followed orders.

Joined: 7/7/2005
Msg: 12
view profile
Reagan Appointee: Bush Preparing For War With Iran
Posted: 5/20/2008 7:31:17 PM
Bush will be out but an escalation versus Iran will convince a lot of voters that change will be bad at this moment. Whatever agenda exists has to continue so any amount of gamesmanship to manipulate the general voting public is in play.
Joined: 10/6/2006
Msg: 18
Reagan Appointee: Bush Preparing For War With Iran
Posted: 5/27/2008 1:59:04 PM
“responsible for killing American troops”

here is a shocker

who is responsible for killing Iraqi's.

How many soldiers and officials have been accused then released
for the atrocities at Abu Gharib
the Blackwater op who killed an Iraqi and quickly flown out of the country
how many have died at the hands of U.S officials during interrogations (how many were innocent)
how many have died from the bombings?
how many are dying because of lack of water and sanitation (but they need an amusement park)
how many other undocumented deaths?

i call it racial hypocrisy.

racism exists in the white house.

the value of life of of those 'sand niggers' are not worth much right?

<excuse the slur>
Joined: 8/19/2006
Msg: 21
view profile
Reagan Appointee: Bush Preparing For War With Iran
Posted: 5/27/2008 9:36:33 PM
Wilson. . . WWI . . . The War to End All Wars?

Maybe you should go back to HS and finish?

Carter tried to resscue the hostages, but I wouldn't exactly call that waging war. During his administration we did support the Afghan soldiers against USSR. So I guess that would count.

Ike had Some involvement in Viet Nam, but not enough to be considered waging war.
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 22
Reagan Appointee: Bush Preparing For War With Iran
Posted: 5/28/2008 7:49:28 PM
Montreal Guy,

I doubt that it's Mr. McCain the regime in Tehran should be concerned about. I can no more prove it than anyone else, but I suspect the Asia Times Online report cited is right about a U.S. attack and its general timing. As you say, an incident at sea could touch things off--there have been two this year. But Iran is even more certain to retaliate against a U.S. bombing attack on Al Qods/Pasdaran training camps. Apparently, Iranian opposition groups have told the U.S. exactly where about twenty of these camps are, and I'm sure the NRO has photographed them in great detail by now. The photo interpreters would then have plotted the GPS coordinates of everything significant in each camp, with targeting experts calculating the proper weapon to use against each barracks, anti-aircraft weapon, ammuntion bunker, HQ building, communications center, etc. And drones over the targets would allow the photos to be updated, even while weapons were in the air. A weapon could then be retargeted to strike any group of military personnel that might be visible.

The U.S. only needs to justify the first step in an attack on Iran. The regime there has talked too big for too long not to retaliate. Its first act would probably be to start launching Shahab missiles at Israel, U.S. installations, or both. These might be destroyed before many could be launched--but even so, the threat such an indiscriminate weapon poses to civilians would give the U.S. all the reason needs to take further military action. Of course, the posters here may be right that the administration concocted the evidence Iran is waging a covert war against us in Iraq. If so, Mr. Bush's hands are tied for lack of proof, and he will not dare attack at all.

But they may not know how much direct physical evidence the U.S. has collected, starting in December, 2006, from senior Al Qods officers captured in Iraq, in Turkey, and even in Iran itself. This evidence appears to include not only the statements of these men to interrogators, but also many paper documents and computer files describing the entire Al Qods operation in Iraq in detail. I suspect it may be as convincing as the evidence the U.S. had of Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962. Anyone was free then to deny that evidence, too--but only at the risk of being laughed off by almost everyone else.

There's been no shortage of guesses about the nature of a possible U.S. attack, and I've spent some time evaluating every one I've seen. I think Tom McInerny's firsthand experience with Iran's air defenses and his position as a retired USAF general on a semi-official Iran policy group make his prediction the most credible. Gen. McInerny has said that the main attack will probably be an extremely intense two-day air campaign by USAF and USN aircraft and ships. They would use about 2,500 precision bombs and 500 or more cruise missiles against several hundred targets.

This attack would be designed to be strong enough to cripple or even destroy the Tehran regime's navy, anti-ship missiles, air force, air defenses, offensive missiles, and nuclear facilities. The U.S. warships already within range of Iran have on board a total of about 1,300 missile tubes. Even if half of these were loaded with air defense missiles--and considering the weakness of Iran's air force, this number is probably much lower--it would leave room for about 650 cruise missiles. These have a range of 1,000+ miles, and launched from ships or subs in the Gulf could strike any target in Iran. Some of the land-based aircraft needed are probably already at bases near the Gulf, and the rest could strike from Diego Garcia, the UK, Djibouti, Turkey, etc., and from the U.S. itself.
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 24
Reagan Appointee: Bush Preparing For War With Iran
Posted: 5/29/2008 12:21:58 PM

It is no surprise if someone who calls himself "Jihadist" wants people to believe a U.S. attack on Iran is too risky to contemplate. That's ridiculous. And I'm not a Christian "waiting to be taken up," nor am I "waiting for Jews to be destroyed."

That's a pretty nasty slur against Christians, by the way. You seem to imagine they are the source of most of the world's anti-Semitism, rather than the Muslims who openly acknowledge it. And as an admirer and supporter of Sen. McCain--who also comes in for one of your digs--it strikes me as very odd that you apparently consider conservative Christians his "base." I thought it was common knowledge they are a voting bloc that can't stand McCain, viewing him as too liberal on social issues.

Since when does the U.S. have reason to fear Iran? It's the b*****ds in that regime who have good reason to fear the U.S., and if their military IS attacked, they should think carefully before retaliating with terrorism, Shahab missiles, etc. If they do, they should be very certain they love death as much as they claim. After 28 years and the murder of several thousand American civilians and soldiers around the world, their time may be up. If so, we won't have to wonder, a few years from now, if they've put one of their bombs in the hold of a freighter and parked it at a dock in New York, L.A., Seattle, or wherever.

Iran's military is fourth-rate, at best. If the U.S. attacks it, there will be nothing even remotely like another Cuban Missile Crisis, for example. Neither Russia nor China gives a damn about Iran. The USSR in 1962 was not trying to get its first nuclear weapon--it already had more than 3,000. Several dozen of these were in Cuba, and more yet were on submarines off both our coasts.

The Soviet Army could have retaliated for the U.S. blockade of Cuba by attacking West Berlin, and the U.S. would have responded by bombing the missile sites in Cuba. There were 40,000 Soviet personnel on the island, several thousand of them at these sites. We were all a little nervous about the situation, but we survived. But judging from your dig at Sen. McCain, and your statement that designating the IRGC a terrorist organization was "bs," I assume you don't think very highly of President Kennedy, either.

Do you really want to make excuses for the Islamist fanatics in Tehran? Maybe you doubt they really believe Islam requires them to convert you or kill you. The experts on Iran report that as much as 90% of Iran's population--almost half of which is not ethnically Persian--oppose the regime and want it replaced. That is especially true of young people there. I think they're about to get their wish.
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 27
Reagan Appointee: Bush Preparing For War With Iran
Posted: 5/29/2008 11:00:45 PM
Muslim Jihadist,

I'm sure the propagandists for Germany and Japan were busy churning out the same sort of dire warnings to the U.S. in 1941. Odd, isn't it, how none of it seemed to scare Americans out of making war on those nations--and Italy too. And with our allies, defeating them. Or maybe you'd like to claim that Nazi Germany, Japan, and Italy, all together, weren't as formidable as Iran.

And you might recall that the U.S. faced down the USSR in Cuba in October, 1962. Was the Soviet military, with the 3,100 nuclear weapons it had at the time (several dozen of which were on missiles near the U.S.) also not as formidable a power as Iran is now? In light of your other fantastic assertions, it wouldn't surprise me to see you make even that claim. I was there, wondering each day, like everyone else, if I'd be incinerated by an H-bomb. So I'll take my chances with any and all the horrible consequences you suppose would result from a U.S. attack on Iran. You seem to hold the Iranian military in great awe. That view must be the product of your imagination, because the facts do not support it in the least.

The necessary forces are already mostly in place near Iran, and by September, just the USN's contribution will consist of: Three carriers (Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan) with a total of 150 strike aircraft; six cruisers, thirteen destroyers, and several submarines--together carrying at least 2,000 cruise missiles and anti-aircraft missiles; and six large amphibious ships with three Marine landing forces of about 700 men each, with artillery, medium tanks, attack helicopters, and jet aircraft. A couple of the subs will probably have SEAL teams on board--in fact, these special forces may already be conducting surveillance of mobile targets (e.g. fast boats) on small islands in the Gulf. Almost all this info, including the ships' names and armament, is publicly available; verify it yourself. Or do you think the U.S. is assembling a fleet that powerful near Iran just as a bluff?

I expect the USAF to start flying some bombers, strike fighters, tankers, and other aircraft to Diego Garcia, Turkey, Oman, Kuwait, and Qatar in a month or so. Some B-2's and B-52's may strike directly from the U.S. There will probably be several hundred land-based aircraft altogether. Tell yourself whatever you like, but no U.S. President can indefinitely allow Iran to maintain camps where its forces train and equip Lebanese, Iraqis, and others to kill our soldiers in Iraq. Nor can he allow Iran to try to demoralize American voters about the war (and so tilt the balance against Sen. McCain) by fomenting large-scale attacks in Iraq during September and October, as the U.S. has reason to believe it would do. Khamenei, Ahmedinejad, Larijani, and all the other leading lights in the Tehran regime have chosen to make war on the U.S. Now let them see how they like the results.
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 29
Reagan Appointee: Bush Preparing For War With Iran
Posted: 5/30/2008 3:25:03 AM
Montreal Guy,

So far as I know, I haven't insulted your intelligence. Unfortunately, you choose to insult mine by implying I couldn't have formed my own conclusions without "Fox propaganda." Apparently you imagine I'm a sort of tabula rasa, waiting for Britt Hume, Bill Kristol, or someone else at Fos to tell me what to say. Please. Do you imagine you're more intelligent or better informed than me? I wouldn't doubt it. I've gotten used to seeing that sort of below the belt manoever from people on the left, trying to use sarcasm, name-calling, slogans, etc. to hide their ignorance of whatever subject they happen to be feigning knowledge of. Apparently the people you usually use this form of argument on accept it as "logical."

Why is it that you and the others here who share your views seldom articulate your own thoughts? I notice a tendency to past in large blocks of text representing someone else's opinion. As a lawyer, I know all about academic notation and documenting sources. But I think you are going beyond that.

The fact that Gordon didn't give specific sources for what he alleges does not, by itself, make it untrue. Nor does the fact that certain people in a fragile Iraqi government--no doubt to cover their own backsides--see fit not to claim Iran is involved. The U.S. has its own intelligence sources, and so do allies like the UK and Israel.

There is no reasonable doubt, for example, that Al Qods officers trained and directed Lais Khazali and his brother to make a plot to seize four U.S. soldiers from a meeting in Karbala 0n Jan. 20, 2007. Ali Khamenei himself authorized this operation, which ended with the soldiers being forced out of an SUV beside a back road and murdered while still handcuffed together in pairs. They escaped in a second SUV.

The summary execution of helpless prisoners is murder under the UCMJ, and that is a "grave" war crime under the Geneva Accord of 1949 on Land Warfare. So is the use of enemy uniforms to facilitate sabotage, which was also a feature of the plot. The leader of the operation was a man named al-Dulaimi, whose fingerprints U.S. investigators found on the van that had carried the murdered captives. In March, 2007, this information led to a torture cell in Sadr City, where computer records were found showing what al-Dulaimi looked like and where he had recently been. A small Delta Force unit tracked him to a location north of Baghdad. He chose to fight and (not surprisingly) was killed. I have seen satellite photos of an IRGC center in Ahwaz, where a replica of the compound in Karbala where the U.S. soldiers were seized was built. The "practice compound" is easy to see, and it is particularly damning because it proves the IRGC trained proxies to comnit war crimes against American soldiers.

I hope we're not seeing, on a vast scale, a replay of Oxford's "Class of '35" manifesto. At the urging of their professors, the whole class formally declared it would not "fight for King and Country." Within a few years they had to fight, and many of them were killed. Anyone who wants to be an outside apologist for Tehran is serving a very bad cause. Half of Iran's people are not Farsi-speaking Persians, and groups like the Turkmen , Azerbaizanis, Kurds, and Baloch generally despise the current regime. So do most young Iranians.
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 37
Reagan Appointee: Bush Preparing For War With Iran
Posted: 5/30/2008 12:26:30 PM

It's no surprise to see someone like you fall back on personal insults when you have so little to say about the issues. The same applies to the chorus I see chiming in with you. You're afraid to debate the facts, so you question my personal qualities--even though you know absolutely nothing about them. And even if you did, so what? The things I said are either true, or not, regardless of the fact I said them. Or are you so used to lying yourself that you assume everyone who disagrees with you must be a liar also?
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 39
Reagan Appointee: Bush Preparing For War With Iran
Posted: 5/30/2008 2:42:15 PM
Montreal Guy,

I find it pretty hard to imagine that a number of very capable people haven't looked into all the issues you raised. Construction on the Bushehr complex started in the '70's, and German companies have done a lot of it. From what I've read, Russia's main concern about Bushehr is getting repaid all the billions it loaned Iran over the years to build it. And if Russia were very closely allied with Iran, it would have been issuing strong warnings to that effect for a couple years now. What Putin is most concerned about are America's alliances in Eastern Europe.

I doubt that Moscow, considering the problem it's had with Islamic extremists in Chechnya, has ever liked the idea of an Islamist regime in Tehran. Remember that it was concern about the spread of Islamic extremism to its south that first caused the USSR to invade Afghanistan in 1979--the same year Khomeini started the Islamic Republic in Iran.

Nothing says Bushehr has to be targeted. The Russians are supplying fuel that's only enriched to the low level needed for a power reactor. And the used rods have to be returned to Russia. To make a weapon, Iran would need uranium enriched from the fraction of one percent U-235 it is in nature up to about 90% U-235. That doesn't mean nothing at the whole Bushehr complex could be useful in making a bomb, but it's less important than some other facilities.

That atimes quote would be more believable if it didn't uncritically repeat the tired refrain that the U.S. plans to use small nuclear weapons against Iran. My guess is the administration itself originally leaked that notion to try to rattle Tehran. I remember reading vague reports about the possible use of a new version of the B-61 bomb on deeply buried targets. Which is nonsense--a modern nuclear weapon will no more work after being slammed through the ground than a microscope would. No casing can be made strong enough to protect it. The U.S. also knows, from its own underground tests, that no nuclear bomb could penetrate deep enough (it would take about 600 ft. even for a kiloton-sized one) to avoid throwing radioactive soil into the air.

Tests of a new 30,000 lb. bomb that could destroy any buried installation in Iran are almost finished. So no nuclear weapons are needed anyway. U.S. satellites photographed Natanz being built, so it knows how deep the centrifuge galleries there are buried, how thick their concrete roofs are, and how much force it would take to destroy them.

You're exactly right that the shipment of fuel rods shows a reactor's about to be started. And the issue of Russian technicians at targeted sites was also very important in the Cuban Crisis. President Kennedy warned about it in his famous speech. But then, these people HAD to stay at the sites, because they were working frantically to get the missiles ready to use. In this case, Russia could easily evacuate all its people from Bushehr if an attack were imminent.

I don't mean at all to belittle your concerns. I'm just trying to explain why I don't share them. No sane person wants ANY war. But sometimes a limited used of force can prevent a much larger, much more horrific war. A sincere love of peace by most Europeans only stimulated Hitler's appetite for war. And FDR rejected the idea of striking first, even when it was clear in November, 1941, that Japan would attack someplace in the next few weeks. He thought it was somehow un-American. But in a world with nuclear weapons, how can any U.S. president afford to wait for hostile governments to attack? After all, it's been recognized for centuries that the first duty of any government is to protect its people from outside attack. I don't believe any president should let thousands of American civilians be slaughtered--again--before acting against regimes that have proven they mean to harm us and our allies.
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 40
Reagan Appointee: Bush Preparing For War With Iran
Posted: 5/30/2008 3:07:36 PM
When was the last time Iran invaded another country or intentionally started a war?
Joined: 7/7/2005
Msg: 47
view profile
Reagan Appointee: Bush Preparing For War With Iran
Posted: 5/31/2008 5:30:04 PM
Name 3 oil producing countries in 2000 that began lobbying for oil to be traded in Euros.

Iraq. Iran. Venezuela. We've invaded Iraq. Tried to overthrow Chavez. Do you think the administration is interested in war with Iraq?
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Reagan Appointee: Bush Preparing For War With Iran