It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Planning Military Strikes on Iran Political leaders.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:38 PM
link   
According to the London Observer Pentagon officials are discussing the use of strikes to defuse Iran’s fledgling nuclear program. The strikes would be carried out by either the US or Israel according to the article. Captivatingly, the article states due to the lack of intelligence on the nuclear program the strikes would more than likely be directed at Iranian Political leadership to create a regime change. The Iranian Regime change rumblings is causing great anxiety among British, French and German leaders who struck a deal with Iran earlier this week.



LONDON – Pentagon officials are said to be discussing possible military action to neutralize Iran's nuclear weapons threat, according to a report in London's Observer. US administration sources are quoted as saying that air strikes – "either by the US or Israel" – to wipe out Iran's fledgling nuclear program would be difficult because of a lack of clear intelligence about where key components are located.

Instead, sources quoted by the paper said the Pentagon is considering strikes in support of regime change, including attacks on the leadership, as well as on political and security targets

The new "modeling" at the Pentagon, with its shift in emphasis from suspected nuclear sites to political target lists, is said to be causing deep anxiety among officials in Britain, France, and Germany, who last week appeared to have negotiated a deal with Teheran to cease work that could contribute to a nuclear weapons program. But Washington is said to be skeptical about the deal.


www.jpost.com.../JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1101010793582




posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Ive said this on every Iran thread ive read: We will attack Iran within 12 months. Period. Only thing I have been wrong about so far is the pace at wich its developing. Its moving FAST.

Get your kevlar undies out folks, looks like Uncle Sam will be knocking on our doors soon...



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Get your kevlar undies out folks, looks like Uncle Sam will be knocking on our doors soon...

Don't answer if it's too personal, but what part of Iran do you live in?

Just curious, if you don't want to answer, that's fine. It looks like interesting times are coming.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I mean for the draft you nit. Uncle Sam is coming to get you to fight!



(Nit = a way for me to affectiontly say your silly. Dont get your underwear in a bunch)

I live in the Iranian suburb of Boston, MA

[edit on 22-11-2004 by skippytjc]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:08 PM
link   
BlackJackal,

This doesn’t sound right, first the administration is boasting about the nuclear program in Iran, and that they have sources that can confirm it.

Now the sources seem to be shady but the US administration is going to strike anyway, as to target the government in Iran.

I don’t get it, do they have nuclear capabilities or they do not. I thought US learned its lesson with Iraq.

And UK now looks with their anxiety that they are not very comfortable with this? What is US doing? Are we going to completely alienate ourselves from the rest of the world?

Now how reliable are these news and how seriously should we take these new military assault of the US on another third world country in the Middle East.

We are running the biggest deficit in history, our dollar is losing value and we are spending money to support the most expensive war in Iraq, and now US feels like the king of the world and go after another country when we have not even finish taking control of the last country we invaded.

This is beyond rational thinking. This is madness.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Marge, whatever the facts actually are, just remember one fact: Our (The US) government is starting to talk about Iran an awfull lot nearly every day now. If history...er...Dubya is following his pattern this is an indication that things are rolling. You read Gen. Tommy Franks book? Dubya was planning the invasion of Iraq MONTHS before he started to talk about it openly to the public.

Guys, its happening and its happening fast.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:16 PM
link   

This doesn’t sound right, first the administration is boasting about the nuclear program in Iran, and that they have sources that can confirm it.

Now the sources seem to be shady but the US administration is going to strike anyway, as to target the government in Iran.

I don’t get it, do they have nuclear capabilities or they do not. I thought US learned its lesson with Iraq.

And UK now looks with their anxiety that they are not very comfortable with this? What is US doing? Are we going to completely alienate ourselves from the rest of the world?


Too late...just change the name of Iran to Iraq above, as it's already happened. Not to mention, we've already broken the same Executive Order that would pertain here as well....forbidding the assassination of foreign heads of state, when we used decapitation strikes in Iraq. Of course, there is a convenient way around this when such leaders make their residences military compounds, hehe....

We've already alienated ourselves....and then even moreso with the recent election.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic
Marge, whatever the facts actually are, just remember one fact: Our (The US) government is starting to talk about Iran an awfully lot nearly every day now.
Guys, its happening and its happening fast.


I agree with you and I will take it a littler bit farther I believe that Mr. Bush came into power to be a "war president" even if it cost our nations very life.

Pity.

By the way I have not read the Book but it seems like an iteresting one.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Hmmm,

Strikes that would likely be directed at Iranian Political leadership to create a regime change.

Yup sounds like our government is taking up the act of terrorism to me!



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I think a strike of the facilities would be a more likely target then political figures.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   
I agree with that, facilities would always be the way. If you are going to run a risk like an actual attack it would be stupid not to target and destroy the nukes...the very reason for concern to start with...


(Of course that didnt stop good ole' Dubya from forgetting about Usama Bin Poo Poo...)

[edit on 22-11-2004 by skippytjc]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrokwe've already broken the same Executive Order that would pertain here as well....forbidding the assassination of foreign heads of state,.


no, that order was repealed in 2002...



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
I mean for the draft you nit.

I agree that there will be an iran war in the next year or so(more or less anyway) but I don't think that there will be a draft. There are still tons of troops spread out thru the rest of the planet, not to mention germany in particular. Also, keep in mind that there are masses of troops in iraq and afghanistan, and they will most likely leave those countries to invade iran.


Uncle Sam is coming to get you to fight!

Congress must re-enact the draft. Who in congress is going to vote for this?


(Nit = a way for me to affectiontly say your silly. Dont get your underwear in a bunch)

It is also the egg that a lice lays on a person's hairs. Brings some slightly new edge to the term 'nit wit' no?


marg
I don’t get it, do they have nuclear capabilities or they do not

I don;t think anyone has said that they do. They have nuke technology that they got thru the IAEA and other groups. Currently they are 'centrifuging' a uranium gas compound. Supposedly, this centrifuging can go on for one amount of time to yield nuke plant fuel. I ask you, what does iran need a nuclear power plant for? A few more rounds of centrifuging (well, more than just a few) and they have nuke bomb material. I ask you, what does iran need a nuclear power plant for? I would assume that there are other technologies required for making nukes, and the terms of the IAEA and other internationl agreements will make it so that they can get whatever 'dual use' tech and equipment they need. The current US admin is going to look at all this, look at the fact that terror groups say that they have or at least want nukes, look at the active black market for nukes, and look at iran's history with the US and the West and ask itself, what is worse, invading iran and having a situation similar to iraq right now, or doing nothing and risking that they will infact make a nuke and use it or sell it and have it used in any western city, or a US city? I think its obvious what the admin is going to do. They have already demonstrated that the are willing to go to war on intelligence reports that are unconfirmed, there is no reason to think that they will do somethign different now. Bush wasn't effing around when he designated iran as part of his axis of evil. Whatever one thinks about the situation, its patently obvious what the admin is going to do, short of iran doing somethign surprising to alleviate their fears, which is extremely unlikely.

I only wonder if there will be a short round of sanctions or not. Perhaps threatening sanctions, the iranians refusing, and then bush saying 'well, they've got something to hide if they won't comply and want sanctions



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by syntaxer
Hmmm,

Strikes that would likely be directed at Iranian Political leadership to create a regime change.

Yup sounds like our government is taking up the act of terrorism to me!


No not really. Iran is nothing more than a glorified terrorist camp. There are exceptions to every rule and if we have definite proof of nuclear weapons in Iran and we cannot reach a diplomatic resolution on the matter the best action may just be a regime change.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Also, keep in mind that there are masses of troops in iraq and afghanistan, and they will most likely leave those countries to invade iran.


I'm sure that OBL and other terrorists will be thrilled by this development, Karzai's govt will collapse and Taliban will be back in power in 2 weeks. What fantastic times we live in.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Great idea kill the current political leaders in Iran, thus making openings for the most crazed, power hungry individuals within their country to take the lead and finish the nuclear weapons program to use them on our troops currently stationed on both sides of their country.

This is one of the dumbest ideas I have heard from this administration so far. The war drums have been beaten up to a greater tempo daily. I don't think there is any way we are not going to war with iran next. Next thing we will hear is that Iran paid the "terrorists" to fly planes into the WTC.......or did I miss that lil' piece of propaganda?



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere

Originally posted by Gazrokwe've already broken the same Executive Order that would pertain here as well....forbidding the assassination of foreign heads of state,.


no, that order was repealed in 2002...


I didn't know that.

Good. It was a stupid law.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Ok how bad is the structural governmen of Iran?

Government
Iran is a theocratic Islamic republic governed under the constitution of 1979, as revised in 1989, when presidential powers were expanded and the post of prime minister eliminated. Appointed, rather than elected, offices and bodies hold the real power in the government. The supreme leader, who effectively serves as the chief of state, is appointed for life by an Islamic religious advisory board (the Assembly of Experts). The supreme leader oversees the military and judiciary and appoints members of the Guardian Council and the Expediency Discernment Council. The former, some of whose members are appointed by the judiciary and approved by parliament, works in close conjunction with the government and must approve both candidates for political office and legislation passed by parliament. The latter is a body responsible for resolving disputes between parliament and the Guardian Council over legislation. The president, who is popularly elected for a four-year term, serves as the head of government. The legislative branch consists of the 290-seat Islamic consultative assembly, or parliament, whose members are elected by popular vote for four-year terms.


Now it seems to me like a very put together governemnt, and they do have elections.


dh

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 05:58 PM
link   
The actual governance of Iran doesn't matter
Just the fact the NWO wants to take it, like Saudi Arabia later
It's just take, take, take with these guys
They'll take us all sooner or later



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   
As far as America striking Iran, be it targeted at their leadership or their nuke facilities or both, it would surprise me if we didn’t do it.

-------------- Warning: The Following is Strictly IMHO --------------

It’s likely all part of a master plan, or script. A less-than-noble master plan, and strictly self-serving, but none-the-less a pre-scored script… It’s been in the works for a long time, and was George’s agenda from the first day he stepped into office. It's likely someone else’s plan, but George was the one selected to carry it out. 9/11 and terrorism were a Godsend for Dubya, and made for an easy implementation of the plan. One element included is this agenda is taking control of the Middle-Eastern oil reserves and doing it for the causes of “Spreading Democracy” and the “War on Terrorism” (even though both are a failure so far, but who cares? Right?). It’s next to impossible for me to believe that George, out of the goodness of his heart, is compelled to circle the globe freeing the poor, repressed masses from tyrannical rule, and I just don’t buy the “nice guy” image many have of this man. IMO, there are far more sinister motives at work here.

Whatever the case, I have a bad feeling that Iraq is not the end of the road for this holy crusade to free the world and kill all the terrorists. I also think that Dubya doesn’t even care about the damage done to our economy in the process. I doubt he has any understanding of economics and is too irresponsible to bother learning. What a mess.

Also, as others have stated, the subject of Iran and WMD is working it’s way more and more into the media, and, more importantly, into the administration’s rhetoric. The brainwashing, I mean setting of the proper mindset , has begun. It’s not a good sign for Irani civilians. For them, it’s time to be afraid. Very afraid …

IMHO, George is so full of himself that he doesn’t even feel the need for advisors, thinks of the other branches of the government as mere nusances and obstacles, and he couldn’t care less about the opinions of other world leaders. It would make a good book or movie: “The World According to George, the Duke, Bush”. In his sick, delusional world, George probably plays out the role of “the High Plains Drifter” (old Clint Eastwood spaghetti western movie); the stranger who strays into an American old west town and cleans it up with his deadly accurate 6-shooter and skill with explosives. Then he leaves without ever revealing his name …

At any rate, I think Iran has a strong case for the need to develop nukes. With Iraq next door and the U.S. threateningly close, as well as Israel constantly whining, they have a justifiable reason to develop an adequate defense. I know they scare a lot of folks, but still, they have as much right to defend their country as any other country does.

Note:
I realize my view of the current administration is, perhaps, a tiny bit cynical. But, until I see a little more than meaningless death and destruction, and an economy going down the toilet, then I reserve the right to disapprove of it. A positive vision from the Whitehouse of better times ahead, instead of scare tactics and divisive hate rhetoric, would be welcome for a change.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join