Pending US air strike on Iran: Dutch intel agents withdrawn

It's going to happen. Especially since we are Israels hand puppet. The top clerics just said Ahja....how can I remember to say that name is a top threat to Iran. Things are going to happen in short order. Unfortunately I don't believe its going to leave the world in a better place. And I am so Godawful sick of killing and destruction in this place we call earth. We are doomed as a species at this point. I just want to give that russian dog a kiss on the beak. But I know he'd rip my nose off.

[edit on 8/29/2008 by jpm1602]

[edit on 8/29/2008 by jpm1602]

[edit on 8/29/2008 by jpm1602]

Of all the "US are going into Iran" stories I have seen, this one concerns me the most. It is a feasable scenario and the way things have been shaping up, I would not be going to that part of the world right now.
I also fel that Russia WOULD step in. If we have all seen this coming for a while I am sure that Russia and others have as well.
Was Georgia just a training execise? They were in and out pretty darn quick and left quite a mess in their wake.

reply to post by Hot_Wings


like this you mean

THE MOLOTOV-RIBBENTROP PACT

From an outside source

The day after the signing of the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact of 23 August 1939 Soviet and German newspapers carried the news and text of the treaty to a stunned Europe. However, from the very beginning there was well-founded suspicion that the Pact contained more than met the eye. According to Richard Maasing, an officer in the Estonian general staff, the Estonian military had realized by 26 August that the Pact divided the Baltic States into German and Soviet spheres of interest and that Estonia had been assigned to the latter. It seems that the Latvian diplomatic service also learned of the contents of the Pact soon after the signing and that rumors about Germany turning over Latvia to Russia proliferated.1 Thus, while the exact contents of the secret protocol of 23 August and the subsequent secret arrangements of 28 September 1939 were unknown to the governments of the Baltic states, and knowledge of the texts was restricted to a small number of German and Soviet officials, the general outline of the agreements on "spheres of influence" was either known or strongly suspected very soon after they were concluded.

Moreover, despite the provisions on strict secrecy, Stalin and Molotov leaked the fact of their secret agreement with the Germans on the spheres of influence during negotiations with Baltic leaders in Moscow as part of the Soviet strategy of pressuring the Baltic governments into accepting the mutual defense pacts with the USSR. This is confirmed by a number of different sources, including the Lithuanian Foreign Minister Juozas Urbšys and Gen. Stasys Raštikis, the Commander of the Lithuanian Armed Forces during the negotiations in Moscow in early October 1939.2 The Soviets informed the Germans of their indiscretion; the leaks to the Baltic ministers irritated the Germans who clumsily attempted to diminish the importance of the secret Pact provisions in their replies to the astonished and perturbed Baltic representatives.3 It is inconceivable that news of the German-Soviet horsetrading concerning the Baltic states did not subsequently come to the attention of the Western powers.

i wonder who has decided what they are having and with whom???

david

Attacking with unmanned aircraft? I dont think nthe US is going to send those slow-ass drones into Iran to bomb facilities. In fact the UAV's arent even equipped to carry out such a mission. This article is BS based on that premise alone.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Attacking with unmanned aircraft? I dont think nthe US is going to send those slow-ass drones into Iran to bomb facilities. In fact the UAV's arent even equipped to carry out such a mission. This article is BS based on that premise alone.

That might should read "publically known UAV's.

Your post is kindly BS considering you nor anyone else in the general public knows just what the US has for arsenal, be it manned or not.

Well im certainly not going to lose any sleep based off ONE artcile which bases an attack using weaponry that we dont know exists or not. But you guys carry on.

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Attacking with unmanned aircraft? I dont think nthe US is going to send those slow-ass drones into Iran to bomb facilities. In fact the UAV's arent even equipped to carry out such a mission. This article is BS based on that premise alone.

That might should read "publically known UAV's.

Your post is kindly BS considering you nor anyone else in the general public knows just what the US has for arsenal, be it manned or not.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Attacking with unmanned aircraft? I dont think nthe US is going to send those slow-ass drones into Iran to bomb facilities. In fact the UAV's arent even equipped to carry out such a mission. This article is BS based on that premise alone.

I have to admit this is a weak point of the article. Iranian's air defense is probably very capable of shooting those relatively slow drones down.

That's why I think this information serves a deliberate goal. Either to discredit the two journalists (as mentioned before) or to prepare the Dutch readers for an attack on Iran. I guess time will tell.

reply to post by FreezeM


Not only that, the drones we have can only carry a couple of small rockets at most and are only good for taking out personnel. Unless we're going to see what it was they've been flying around Stephensville TX lately, football field sized drones flying at mach 3 and loaded with bunker busters...

Plus doesnt congress have to authorize a strike on Iran? I dont see that happening at this point either.

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe


Don't get me wrong, I understand what the three of you are saying. I'm just saying we are talking about the U.S., a country who's government has NO PROBLEM going to all expenses to bring the most powerful and deadly weapons to existence. My point is, don't under-estimate what the US could have, that's all.

What's to say the states doesn't have a UAV that doesn't just deliver a payload, but IS the payload?

I mean, it's the US government - sneaky, coniving, lying, self-righeous bastards run amok !!!

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Plus doesnt congress have to authorize a strike on Iran? I dont see that happening at this point either.

Doesn't Bush and his "executive orders" negate congress?


[edit on 29/8/08 by Misfit]

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Plus doesnt congress have to authorize a strike on Iran? I dont see that happening at this point either.

Are you serious?? THIS administration???? We're living in a shoot-first-tell-Congress-when-we-feel-like-it-cause-it's-too-late-to-impeach-us period. The precedent has already been set.

IF you had the choice of sending in 2 dozen manned jets to attack sites, or 2 dozen armed drones.. which would you send?

The drones will attract all the surface to air missiles... there's only so many per SAM Site....

send in 50 or so drones, get all the missiles fired off, then send in the jets to clean up what the drones didnt get too.

think about it.. they have to shoot the drones down.. becasue they also pack a punch..
they cant leave them to fly around shooting missiles off... waiting for the jets to fire their sam sites on...

the iranians arent stupid you know.. but too many Americans are...
You really think Irans just going to allow you to attack them?..

Ignorant Americans are going to be the end of America.... a pitty too, your smart people, the minority are truely amazing.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by Agit8dChop]

Now this i agree with. Using the drones as decoys and to have the iranians use up their missles on them before sending in the real stuff may be a plausable tactic. But to use drones to do the actual mission all by themselves i just dont see.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
IF you had the choice of sending in 2 dozen manned jets to attack sites, or 2 dozen armed drones.. which would you send?

The drones will attract all the surface to air missiles... there's only so many per SAM Site....

send in 50 or so drones, get all the missiles fired off, then send in the jets to clean up what the drones didnt get too.

the creditbility of the news item is high.. was also on dutch tv news.and the reporters had earlier also verified info from the dutch intelligence...

Here are two VERY significant events of the past week :

China has been awarded an oil fields reconstruction project of 3billion as a favoured nation status - read :THAT PISSES US OFF !!!

China has declared support for Russia : PISSED OFF AGAIN!!


China has started selling US bonds - this will cripple the dollar and cause other countries to follow suit along with drying up the US source of credit for war: US is PISSED OFF !!!


It is all happening - buy a tent.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Attacking with unmanned aircraft? I dont think nthe US is going to send those slow-ass drones into Iran to bomb facilities. In fact the UAV's arent even equipped to carry out such a mission. This article is BS based on that premise alone.

Slow? It's been known for awhile that the US has been developing unmanned bombers capable of mach 4+. What worries me is that now would be a perfect time for the US to unveil such technology...

Part of me can't help but dismiss it because, lets face it, we've heard this a million times already, nothing ever happens.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by theblunttruth]

Why use drones when they can just use HARRP? We all know what HARRP can do,but i guess if they use drones to start with it will cost more money and thats what war is about Money and power

As usual, if this happens it will be a combined cruise missle/stealth bomber attack. UAV's could be used as SAM fodder but I find that unlikely. We have electronic means to screw-up their SAM defenses long enough for the cruise missles to find their targets. I don't think attacking Iran is so much the issue as what happens afterwards. I think we can count on this administration to completely under-estimate the consequences of this action. That's the one thing at which they've proved expert.

reply to post by ressiv


I would just like to ad that this newspaper is not taken very seriously in Holland. It is still best known as a NAZI newspaper in WOII.
They are not above making all this stuff up, just for the sake of selling newspapers.

It is still considered ultra-rightwing and they have to rectify newsstories all the time. Specially stories that where altertared to make minorities in Holland look bad. Something that has been going on since 2000 in our poor little country. More bad american import i'm afraid.

Lets put it like this, America has its "levels of terror", we have "de telegraaf" to keep us afraid.

Here is a link to a dutch blog that monitors rectifications.
correctie.wordpress.com...
The latest story they had to rectify also featueres an embellished, racially orientated news story.

The dutch are knee-deep into this mess though, so it could all still be real. We couldn't believe our American Allies would lie to us, so we supported the effort in Irak en Afganistan. Now that we know we've been lied to, we don't really know what to do. Usually thats reason enouch to just keep on doing what we're doing, and hope it all works out in the end.
If ya cant beat em.. in other words..

The UAVs could simply be the first wave to go in, take any heat so they could pinpoint launch sites, maybe paint them up so the cruise missile could do their jobs. It would make sense to use UAVs in the opening round of the attacks to draw fire and send back targetting data to the rest of the forces. The UAV may be used to attack by being the first part of such an attack rather than actually doing all the attacking themselves.