Iran War 2007

Iran is next in war on terror.

President Bush is sending more troops to Iraq.

Thats not for Iraqi insurgents.

He is preparing for a surpise attack on Iran.

He is getting the American public ready for US casualties.

He knows that war with Iran will result in thousands US Marines getting killed.

Already in Iraq thousands of US troops have died and over 20,000 injured.

US and UK have repeatedly vowed that Iran's threats to Israel, and
its nuclear program will never be tolerated.

That means war.

And British Prime Minister Tony Blair is touring Saudis to get backing for war.
He is receiving a lot of support for strikes on Iran.


Here middle east stands for Iran:

US President George Bush says the conflict in middle east will
require "difficult choices and additional sacrifices" in 2007.

We all know that by "middle east" the President really means Iran.

Iran knows this coming attack and it is conducting
war games exercises in the region.

US in engaged in a massive naval build-up in the Gulf.

Iran is now very likely to be hit in 2007.


www.guardian.co.uk...
www.guardian.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...
edition.cnn.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...
edition.cnn.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...







[edit on 20-12-2006 by mr conspiracy]

No, not yet. The US administration (Republicans) need to ensure their future in the US Government before they will start the attack, otherwise, by launching this close to the end of their term (yes, this is too close) it will ensure that the Republicans do not get into office next term.


In regards to Iran and their nuclear programme. They don't have nukes.
Nuclear arsenals are a deterrent weapon, and can only be used as such feasably.
To be a deterrent weapon, you have to ensure that the rest of the world knows you have them. This is why we know that North Korea has them, and Iran does not.
No country who has nuclear weapons would hide the fact. It would defeat the purpose to having them.

The fact that Iran doesnt have nuclear weapons makes them a viable target for the US. They can go in there without fear of the worst form of retalliation.

Sure, Iran wants Nuclear power for civillian use. No nuclear energy is in no way comparable to a nuclear weapon. Enrichment for power requires only aproximately 3% enrichment. Weapons require at least 90% enrichment before becoming effective enough to be worth using instead of conventional weapons.

Now ask yourself this :
- What country in the world DOESNT want nuclear energy for it's citizens?

None.
But of course, Bush and co. would use this as an excuse to go in there. Wow... that pretty much gives them an excuse to go into any country in the world.

If one more person says "but they want nuclear technology" as an excuse for the US to go into Iran, I swear I'll slap them silly.

Iran is next, yes I completely agree with you. It's a done deal for sure. Judging by the British military translator in Afghanistan who's been accused today of passing info to the Iranians, the heat is rising in that region. Something will give at some point and the US, UK, Saudis, Israel, former soviet republics etc, etc are preparing for the elimination of the state sponsor of terror in the region. Then we can all build a better future.

Originally posted by English Speaking Alliance
Iran is next, yes I completely agree with you. It's a done deal for sure. Judging by the British military translator in Afghanistan who's been accused today of passing info to the Iranians, the heat is rising in that region. Something will give at some point and the US, UK, Saudis, Israel, former soviet republics etc, etc are preparing for the elimination of the state sponsor of terror in the region. Then we can all build a better future.

If the scenario you just mentioned comes to pass, then everything in the middle-east will explode, and will balloon and possibly engulf the entire world at some point, and there will "be no future" that you mention.
We are not exactly speaking of just little Iran here. There is more at stake in this bloody nightmare. I do not think Iran's president is so boastful because he is ignorant. I'm not saying he HAS nukes, but I'm not going to say he definately does not have second-hand older Soviet black-market items of the nuke variety either. This is not to be taken lightly, as a lot of them are unaccounted for.
Also, there are some people who have interest invested in Iran. Like our old cold-war arch-enemy among others.
I will not say it would go that far, but to be honest, here lately, with the Village Idiot in the white house, I'm beginning to dought the sanity of the world as I once knew it.

The Stennis CSG is scheduled to deploy in January of 2007. The Bataan ESG will also deploy early 2007.

My first prediction for next year is that armchair admirals and generals in the media will fall over themselves predicting the deployments are to start a war against Iran.

Too bad their scheduled deployments were announced 5 months ago, but those types of details will go unreported, because it doesn't sell newspapers or help news television ratings.

"US Navy Responds to Crisis in the Middle East" helps CNNs ratings more than "Scheduled Naval Deployment in January" does.

I believe that it will happen in 2007,there is a very good likelyhood with what's going on in the world.The U.S. economy is heading down the toilet fast,and the U.S. governement will not let go their hold on the middle east and it's oil they supply to them.It will start off as conventional at first and then quickly escalate to a nuclear event,at the same time martial law will be declared in the U.S. All those declared undesirable or a threat will be rounded up and detained in fema camps.It's not going to be nice for anyone living in that country next year!!!

The ideologues who wanted Iraq and now want Iran know that they only have a short while to kick off a war that, once started, will be very difficult to stop, even if a Democrat gets in next time.

As for the announcements of the troops coming months ago, people were saying that there was going to be action of some kind against Iran months ago. It takes time to get your pieces in place for a move like that. The propaganda against Iran has been winding up for months now, and it'll wind up again, probably to coincide with some convenient false flag op or manufactured incident of some sort.

I can't believe we're going through all this again! People learn nothing from history as recent as three years ago. It's pathetic.

There was alot of talk about regime change a few years ago but with the failed policy in Iraq they've toned down the rhetoric. How can they think that the people in American will be stupid enough to fall for their lies again. Where is the logic? We can't handle Iraq so let's bring in Iran? I quess we're just not arm ma gedden it.

They don't care about who's in office, republicans or democrats are the same crap. If you don't believe me, look at how democrats are going along with sending more troops to Iran and talking of a draft. Before the election they said they would get out of Iraq and impeach Bush... that changed. They are both full of traitors.

VOTE A THIRD PARTY IN 2008!!!

Well at least Israel will be happy and those who support it.As long as they will be sending their own to die for the cause. Since Iran has no possibility of ever touching the USA anytime in the next few decades its the only reason I can see and the only voice thats been bleating constantly about an Iranian threat. Maybe if they didn't attempt to sanction them for the past almost 20 years, they wouldn't have threatened Israel. Sorry but in my opinion no Israeli soldiers took part in the WOT in either Afghanistan nor Iraq so I don't think any more Americans should die for the sake of their blabbering Politicians and the sake of Pre-emptive strikes on Israels behalf.

Iran is now an economic threat to United States.

They have the power to make America less rich.

President Ahmadinejad is making moves to undermine US economy.

US dollar is at its weakest due to Iranian plots.

President Bush will now have to finish off Iran in the new year.

Otherwise Iran is manageing to influence other nations against the US.


news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...





[edit on 23-12-2006 by mr conspiracy]

Iran is a tiny part of the US economic collapse. If you want the real responsables, look at Bush and the traitors around him. Also, you can't have the monopoly of money forever. The house market and the debt of the american people is the biggest factor of the future american economic crash, and of course, the China's yen that is so undervalued, that's what killing the US economy and outsourcing jobs.

So no Iran is not the economic threat, just like the jews in Germany during WW2 weren't. Stop blaming the other for your own actions.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by Vitchilo]

Darksided Can I just point out that we were talking about Iran’s nuclear programme longer than five months ago. In fact it was a hot issue under even the previous Iranian president; and us-U.S pushing the issue at the time of the election may have been one of the reasons why this current nutcase president was elected.

The Case For Nukes…
Personally I do not believe that Iran wants nuclear energy solely for peaceful purposes. Otherwise it would have accepted our offer for subsidised Light Water Reactors which cannot create the fuel needed for a nuclear explosion. If they needed enriched fuel for the heavy water reactor plans; then they could of taken the Russian offer of subsidised enriched uranium fuel.

They do not need an enrichment plant just to supply Iran’s reactors. They do not need a fast breeder reactor which they are building

Iran's plans worry many nuclear experts because it is building what is commonly known as a "breeder reactor". Such reactors are efficient at quickly producing significant amounts of plutonium, particularly for military use.

www.atimes.com...

They neglect to mention that Iran developed its gas centrifuges and its breeder reactor in secret, and acquired fissionable materials and equipment illegally.

www.mideastweb.org...

If Iran wants anything (even U.S support for membership of the world trade organisation) news.bbc.co.uk... they can have it now.
There is no need for them to build a nuclear bomb and then say to the West “tell us what you’ll give us for getting rid of it” because we (The West) are already serious enough to “pay them in advance”. Trouble is Iran hasn’t (and still doesn’t) seem too enchanted.

The Question of Politics
johnsky makes that interesting point that the U.S is unlikely to do anything until the Republicans running it can be sure of winning the next election. The trouble with this argument; is that assumes the Republicans haven’t already lost it. It depends really on how rubbish the next Democrat leader is likely to be; if it’s very rubbish like John Kerry with a mask (or God forbid Hillary Clinton without one) then Americans might say “this is too rubbish, we’ll stick with the Republicans”. If on the other hand the Democrats have a moderate or good leader then the Republicans have no chance because even if they have the same kind of leader; they (the Democrats) haven’t buggerd the world up so much, and having never been in power during the war on terror; they have also had the benefit of watching the Republicans screw up.

The point is: “how rubbish the next Democratic leader may be” has absolutely nothing to do with the movements inside Iran’s nuclear programme, and everything to do with the will of God and Americas special interest groups, and cooperation’s (most emphasis being on the later).

Now The Meagre Question…

Does A War Make Biological Sense?
This is the problem with a war with Iran…
1. Iran has long had a small but reasonable arsenal of biological weapons. Obviously nukes are better in military terms; but Iran biological weapons can still kill millions. Given that Israel only has a population of 6.25 million in the first place; this makes a war with Iran particularly problematic (Western foreign policy wise).
2. Iran is in a perfect geographical position to wreck havoc with world oil supplies. It does not take a war for them to do this.
3. True Iran itself only supplies 4% of the world’s total; but true also that the global oil market only has a few million barrels a day spare capacity. Maybe the global market could manage quite happily without Iranian oil providing there wasn’t any disruption else where in Middle East (which there would be as Iranians would have little to loose by (ever so indirectly) causing some terrorist group to tackle oil production else where in the middle East (or the world for that matter). Iran has a long history of backing terrorist organisation (just as we have a proud one too). It’s important given how easy it would be for us to return to the 70-80 dollar barrel prices we had a few months ago (even without Iran deliberately annoying us).
4. Iran is in a far better position than Iraq to wreck havoc with our ground forces in a invasion since there weapons are better, and more to the point many have been designed with us specifically in mind (in a somewhat unsanctioned environment).
5. Even if Iran (in fear of nuclear retaliation) did not use its biological weapons against Israel the break up of its military command and control structure probably would. Terrorists would be free to use them once individual generals and officers (with no one to answer to) can more or less do as they please with any weapons they have their possession. This was probably the single biggest reason for not going for Saddam over through in 1991.
6. Naturally a war with Iran (even if its not regime change) will send the world economy into meltdown; and given the position of various things like hedge funds, our fear of inflation, artificial growth from borrowing, currency weakness, and other factors we are not in good position to take such a downturn right now (in particular).

The Options…
1. Sanctions: Probably won’t do much; as despite the appearances of a democratic society the truth is that those in authority know more or less exactly who the opposition are, where they live; and therefore are in an excellent position to tackle them through authoritarian-totalitarian means should they pose any serious threat to regime survival.
2. A strategic air strike: This is what might be coming in the year 2007. A few huge attacks against Iran’s nuclear, industrial, areas of concern. We will have to be careful not to attack too many areas of Iran regimes general areas of strength. This is because if we annoy them too much they may attack world oil facilities; or worse. They may do this indirectly anyway (through various terrorist groups) the question is how much they annoy us, and how much we annoy them. The problem with this option is the psychological impact will send world oil prices sky high for some time. The trouble is there is no way of knowing how high, or for how long; as really it all depends on the sanity of Iran’s Ayatollahs, and outrage of Iranian society being containable in the view of a (itself) outraged Iranian state. The other problem is that it will only delay Iran’s nuclear programme (or so I’ve heard)
3. Pray for regime change, within Iran itself. And a regime which likes us the West (in spite of evil we’ve done to places like Iraq). Or least a regime which has no desire for nuclear weapons. I however fear that this is unlikely to be met; as any Iranian regime (looking to the longer term) that does not wish to possess nuclear weapons might be quite literally crazy.

The fundamental problem is that if we were Iran we would also want nuclear weapons. This is a consequence of the reality we have constructed for ourselves both through our past actions like our invasion of Iraq, but also because of our fanatically pro Israeli attitude when it comes to even selling them cluster bombs during the Lebanon war.

Conclusions…
1. I believe we can live with a nuclear armed Iran; providing that in the reality of a nuclear war we can not only destroy most of Iran, but also anything it may have in the air directed towards Israel. This last part is an engineering challenge but not an impossible one ether. One of the few bright things the Moron of Washington ever talked about was a defence shield against incoming munitions from rogue states. I think a nuclear armed one should be able to shoot down all of the incoming missiles (even if it misses them by half a mile or two).

2. In peaceful talks perhaps we could offer to moderate our overall Middle Eastern policy tone, and hence also the fears America and the West invoke in Iran to cause it to build a nuclear programme. “Extremist actions” like supplying Israel with evil cluster bombs during its Lebanon war may have to end.

But I believe it is more likely that we’ll live with a nuclear armed Iran; than moderate our own Middle Eastern tone. Because…
A. How can you quell the fears of the Arabs when so many of them are fundamentalists?
B. Besides they are untrustworthy, intelligent, strategic thinkers (just like us).
C. A reversible moderating of western foreign policy tone-intimidation; is worth a try in exchange for a nuclear freeze. But it would be irritating and perhaps even costly to us, and without any long term guarantee of working out indefinitely.

3. Ether the above or we are going to have to get used to a Israeli with a dramatically smaller population (perhaps half?), and a western economy recovering from a recession in line with that of the Wall Street Crash.

4. It’s always possible for Iran itself to undo these conclusions by buckling out; and obviously they might. But they’ve gone such a long way in their nuclear programme surely the most we can expect from them is a freezing of where they are now? Even then that may be expecting too much.

not going to happen.

UK army is over stretched and i believe the American army is too. Plus neither Countries economy can afford another war in the Middle East and neither want to effect the price of oil..

The Iranian people will sort it out, who the majority do not support the current conservative administrative, because the have recently dealt a huge blow to the Iranian government in their local elections by voting for reformers.

I dont think the US is looking for regime change in Iran therefore a lot of troops will not be needed. We are not trying to occupy Iran. We can accomplish our goals with Naval power and airstrikes.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
I dont think the US is looking for regime change in Iran therefore a lot of troops will not be needed. We are not trying to occupy Iran. We can accomplish our goals with Naval power and airstrikes.

what goal?

to cripple an already struggling nation so that they will continue to rely on political strongman as opposed to representative government?

and, it isn't the first time the USA would've changed the regime in iran...

This is what will happen if the Bush's overlords plan is going all as planned.

- Bomb campaign against Iranian infrastructures with mini-nukes and the help of Saudi Arabia
- Take over of the Khuzestan province where 90% of the iranian oil is located
- Israël take over Syria maybe with the help of Lebanon's army (maybe only commandos) and Egypt
- The US army stay in Iraq

Quoite: "what goal?"

Um in case you havent noticed, the Iranians are going nuclear in front of everyone's eyes. The goal being to keep them from developing a weapon. This can be accomplished without ground troops. We bomb their facilities to set back the nuclear program 5-10 years. In 5-10 years, we repeat. We can keep setting them back as long as necessary through Air and Naval power. Comprende?

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Quoite: "what goal?"

Um in case you havent noticed, the Iranians are going nuclear in front of everyone's eyes. The goal being to keep them from developing a weapon. This can be accomplished without ground troops. We bomb their facilities to set back the nuclear program 5-10 years. In 5-10 years, we repeat. We can keep setting them back as long as necessary through Air and Naval power. Comprende?

nobody has actually shown that their desires are for anything but reactors

actually, i think there is a thread somewhere around here challenging people to show credible evidence that iran wants nuclear weapons

you know, if you guys do a little ATS search, you will find that there was a prediction for "iran war" starting in every single month of 2006...sometimes twice per month.

here's my prediction:

in december of 2007, there will be another thread entitled "iran war 2008."