Damn...It has begun already..?? I wish I had good credit...So I could spend about a year fucking it up...
Ah well...Bring on the new battle...
"Iran? thems ma homeboys!!!!" GWB
-
AYHJA
- 392
- Posts: 37990
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: Washington, D.C.
- Contact:
-
x3n
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 3:22 pm
*sigh*
Uppin'
US senators say military strike on Iran must be option
15 Jan 2006 19:58:23 GMT
Source: Reuters
In WASHINGTON story headlined "CORRECTED-U.S. Senators say military strike on Iran must be option," please read in third paragraph ... Bayh of Indiana ... instead of Bayh of Illinois ... (correcting state to Indiana).
A corrected story follows:
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Jan 15 (Reuters) - Republican and Democratic senators said on Sunday the United States may ultimately have to undertake a military strike to deter Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but that should be the last resort.
"That is the last option. Everything else has to be exhausted. But to say under no circumstances would we exercise a military option, that would be crazy," Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said there are sensitive elements of Iran's nuclear program, which, if attacked, "would dramatically delay its development."
"But that should not be an option at this point. We ought to use everything else possible keep from getting to that juncture," he said on CNN's "Late Edition."
A growing nuclear fracas exploded last week when Iran, defying the United States and major European powers, resumed nuclear research after a two-year moratorium.
Iran says it aims only to make power for an energy-needy economy, not build atom bombs. But it hid nuclear work from the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency for almost 20 years before exiled dissidents exposed it in 2002.
On Sunday, Iran said that only diplomacy, not threats to refer it to the U.N. Security Council, could defuse a standoff over its nuclear work and warned that any Western push for sanctions could jack up world oil prices.
The Security Council's five permanent members and Germany planned talks in London on Monday on a common strategy to tackle the controversy.
McCain called the nuclear standoff "the most grave situation that we have faced since the end of the Cold War, absent the whole war on terror."
"We must go to the U.N. now for sanctions. If the Russians and the Chinese, for reasons that would be abominable, do not join us then we will have to go with the (states that are) willing," he said.
While acknowledging that President George W. Bush has "no good option," McCain said "there is only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option, that is a nuclear-armed Iran."
From:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N15194172.htm
Uppin'
US senators say military strike on Iran must be option
15 Jan 2006 19:58:23 GMT
Source: Reuters
In WASHINGTON story headlined "CORRECTED-U.S. Senators say military strike on Iran must be option," please read in third paragraph ... Bayh of Indiana ... instead of Bayh of Illinois ... (correcting state to Indiana).
A corrected story follows:
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Jan 15 (Reuters) - Republican and Democratic senators said on Sunday the United States may ultimately have to undertake a military strike to deter Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but that should be the last resort.
"That is the last option. Everything else has to be exhausted. But to say under no circumstances would we exercise a military option, that would be crazy," Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said there are sensitive elements of Iran's nuclear program, which, if attacked, "would dramatically delay its development."
"But that should not be an option at this point. We ought to use everything else possible keep from getting to that juncture," he said on CNN's "Late Edition."
A growing nuclear fracas exploded last week when Iran, defying the United States and major European powers, resumed nuclear research after a two-year moratorium.
Iran says it aims only to make power for an energy-needy economy, not build atom bombs. But it hid nuclear work from the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency for almost 20 years before exiled dissidents exposed it in 2002.
On Sunday, Iran said that only diplomacy, not threats to refer it to the U.N. Security Council, could defuse a standoff over its nuclear work and warned that any Western push for sanctions could jack up world oil prices.
The Security Council's five permanent members and Germany planned talks in London on Monday on a common strategy to tackle the controversy.
McCain called the nuclear standoff "the most grave situation that we have faced since the end of the Cold War, absent the whole war on terror."
"We must go to the U.N. now for sanctions. If the Russians and the Chinese, for reasons that would be abominable, do not join us then we will have to go with the (states that are) willing," he said.
While acknowledging that President George W. Bush has "no good option," McCain said "there is only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option, that is a nuclear-armed Iran."
From:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N15194172.htm
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
raum
- Posts: 3944
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:51 am
Iran is smoking crack if they think their country is getting nuclear, and our best ally in the area was Kuwait, and I would not be suprised if there is not a coup long-ago developed to take that throne now it is vacant.
The loss of the Emir of Kuwiat is a severe blow to outside involvement in the Middle East.
And Iran has yet to be forthcoming with any evidence it NEEDS nuclear capacity. That must be voted upon. You don't just get to have nuke power cause you can make it. As it is, the material they have had in their country for research is a violation of the status with the UN, and they are not just in danger of being attacked by the US,.. but it has already been proven an admitted that they are devoloping. The UN has a specific mandate to demand their nuclear research and property, and TAKE IT BY FORCE if it is not volunteered. This is not supposed to be optional.
Iran has no clue what they are doing,.. they have forced the hand of the UN to invade them by the very same sanctions they supported the institution of, and we just postpone the UN action which they have warranted. The US should not have to attack. This is the point where the mettle of the UN is tested, because the rules are clear. ANY country which develops a nuclear capacity without a sanction is nessecarily required to submit all materials and finding to the UN, or face military action to obtain them.
If one country is going nuke in the middle east, and not stopped, they will all be nuke within three years.- and the only recourse would be a state of potentially imminent global nuclear exchange, which would pale the Cold war...
The contigency plan for this is frightening.
The loss of the Emir of Kuwiat is a severe blow to outside involvement in the Middle East.
And Iran has yet to be forthcoming with any evidence it NEEDS nuclear capacity. That must be voted upon. You don't just get to have nuke power cause you can make it. As it is, the material they have had in their country for research is a violation of the status with the UN, and they are not just in danger of being attacked by the US,.. but it has already been proven an admitted that they are devoloping. The UN has a specific mandate to demand their nuclear research and property, and TAKE IT BY FORCE if it is not volunteered. This is not supposed to be optional.
Iran has no clue what they are doing,.. they have forced the hand of the UN to invade them by the very same sanctions they supported the institution of, and we just postpone the UN action which they have warranted. The US should not have to attack. This is the point where the mettle of the UN is tested, because the rules are clear. ANY country which develops a nuclear capacity without a sanction is nessecarily required to submit all materials and finding to the UN, or face military action to obtain them.
If one country is going nuke in the middle east, and not stopped, they will all be nuke within three years.- and the only recourse would be a state of potentially imminent global nuclear exchange, which would pale the Cold war...
The contigency plan for this is frightening.
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
x3n
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 3:22 pm
Yo RAUM, how do you see ground troop involvement in Iran, considering the playas are already discussing a pullout from Iraq? or do you not see that happening?.
I'm asking because I'm already reading about large-scale nookular assault on the homies, due to the fact that there seems to be several facilities and supposedly some are deep underground. Just what I'm reading.
I'm asking because I'm already reading about large-scale nookular assault on the homies, due to the fact that there seems to be several facilities and supposedly some are deep underground. Just what I'm reading.
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
raum
- Posts: 3944
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:51 am
ground troops will not be employed until a full conventional assault from the most powerful navy in the world has been employed. Mass troop movement into Iran would be suicide, even with heavy machines and weapons. They have had no less than a decade to prepare for it, and have been doing so for like 20.
They have tens of thousands of members of their air defense forces alone, and who knows how many thousand aircraft. they have hundreds of thousands of troops and most of them armed well, if we tried to take them by a full scale man to man ground attack force, we would have more than 5:1 against in terms of infantry casualties - in the first month alone. Losing 10,000 troops of every 50,000 we deploy, and only claiming 2,000 enemy in the first month is unacceptable to America, or the UN. If we deployed less than 50,000 in our first month, none would survive,.. and we would see a HUGE attack state side, and several in other countries.
They have a hell of a fight on their hands if they aren't carpet bombing MOABs on the broadside of that bish.
This is a hydra,.. you have to strike so hard it takes it a while to regenerate to where it can strike, and you need as many heads severed wih each blow. Attack Iran, and show any weakness, and North Korea will strike, China will declare themselves uninvolved and feed the Eastern insurrection in hopes an Eastern alliance will bring them to Ultimate power, and then emerge in a vulgar display of power.
You would have to hit Iran so hard the whole world has to catch its breath... and wonder if anyone survived. All you do other wise is firmly sever the tension between the Muslim world and the "Christian world."
This is the price of a unregulated nuclear Iran. death the likes of which peope will do more than form drum circles and chant. protest would be futile. There are over 65 million people in Iran, which is older that 3,000 years old. I don't want to see it gone. I think of all the countries we could face, they would be the worst... THEY DECIMATE THEIR ENEMIES THROUGHOUT HISTORY. Frankly, I would like peace to reign again, and to go and visit such a remarkable culture as could maintain the Highlands of the Middle East.
The only choices are to
1. allow them regulated nuclear research, which they have already violated the prime condition of having this...
2. have them surrender their entire nuclear program, and submit t full inspection to ensure full disclosure.
3. ignore this, and sacrifice the integrity of the middle east, the way north korea is ignored.
4. tactically cripple the county's ability to continue research and gain nuclear capcity in the future.
5. throw haymakers until the gulf is unrecognizable, and DON'T let them get a punch in...
They have tens of thousands of members of their air defense forces alone, and who knows how many thousand aircraft. they have hundreds of thousands of troops and most of them armed well, if we tried to take them by a full scale man to man ground attack force, we would have more than 5:1 against in terms of infantry casualties - in the first month alone. Losing 10,000 troops of every 50,000 we deploy, and only claiming 2,000 enemy in the first month is unacceptable to America, or the UN. If we deployed less than 50,000 in our first month, none would survive,.. and we would see a HUGE attack state side, and several in other countries.
They have a hell of a fight on their hands if they aren't carpet bombing MOABs on the broadside of that bish.
This is a hydra,.. you have to strike so hard it takes it a while to regenerate to where it can strike, and you need as many heads severed wih each blow. Attack Iran, and show any weakness, and North Korea will strike, China will declare themselves uninvolved and feed the Eastern insurrection in hopes an Eastern alliance will bring them to Ultimate power, and then emerge in a vulgar display of power.
You would have to hit Iran so hard the whole world has to catch its breath... and wonder if anyone survived. All you do other wise is firmly sever the tension between the Muslim world and the "Christian world."
This is the price of a unregulated nuclear Iran. death the likes of which peope will do more than form drum circles and chant. protest would be futile. There are over 65 million people in Iran, which is older that 3,000 years old. I don't want to see it gone. I think of all the countries we could face, they would be the worst... THEY DECIMATE THEIR ENEMIES THROUGHOUT HISTORY. Frankly, I would like peace to reign again, and to go and visit such a remarkable culture as could maintain the Highlands of the Middle East.
The only choices are to
1. allow them regulated nuclear research, which they have already violated the prime condition of having this...
2. have them surrender their entire nuclear program, and submit t full inspection to ensure full disclosure.
3. ignore this, and sacrifice the integrity of the middle east, the way north korea is ignored.
4. tactically cripple the county's ability to continue research and gain nuclear capcity in the future.
5. throw haymakers until the gulf is unrecognizable, and DON'T let them get a punch in...
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
raum
- Posts: 3944
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:51 am
follow-up
A unanimous decision was made by the founding and permanent countries of the Security Council yesterday after a meeting in London. The United States, Russia, France, Britain (EU) and China completely agreed that Iran must fully suspend its nuclear program. They did however strongly differ in the way to dispute the action that should be submitted to the UN forces by the Security Council.
England - Economic sanction and referral to Security Council, Ceased negotiations.
China - Diplomatic compromise with "no comment" to the subject of Security Council intervention.
Russia - relocation of all nuclear research to a regulated and fully disclosed program in Russia.
France - no suggestion (big suprise :roll:)
United States - refer Iran to the Security Council, full disclosure, and possible referral to Security Council IF compliance is not given, or evidence of nuclear weapons research is discovered.
BTW: Referral to Security Council is the first consideration of war, but war is not the only option.
Iran favours Russia's suggestion and calls it "constructive." China feigns indifference. England (EU) distrusts it, and furthermore wants action taken for the research that has already ensued. Israel is dispatching to pressure it to go to the Security council, but the United States is playing it safe, because a full sanction against Iran will critically affect China's oil supply, and cause tension between China and the other countries on the permanent council. China is more than 50% dependent upon Iran for its oil supply, and has little reserve. They urge everyone to put this aside and consider the consequences of a full disclsure coming to light. It is pretty clear they know something, and likely were instrumental in Iran's nuclear research, probably because they are seeking to create their own Union, which came to light some months ago. Iran was one of the loudest voices on the need for that union. This may indicate China would be an ally to Iran, should they come under military duress.
England - Economic sanction and referral to Security Council, Ceased negotiations.
China - Diplomatic compromise with "no comment" to the subject of Security Council intervention.
Russia - relocation of all nuclear research to a regulated and fully disclosed program in Russia.
France - no suggestion (big suprise :roll:)
United States - refer Iran to the Security Council, full disclosure, and possible referral to Security Council IF compliance is not given, or evidence of nuclear weapons research is discovered.
BTW: Referral to Security Council is the first consideration of war, but war is not the only option.
Iran favours Russia's suggestion and calls it "constructive." China feigns indifference. England (EU) distrusts it, and furthermore wants action taken for the research that has already ensued. Israel is dispatching to pressure it to go to the Security council, but the United States is playing it safe, because a full sanction against Iran will critically affect China's oil supply, and cause tension between China and the other countries on the permanent council. China is more than 50% dependent upon Iran for its oil supply, and has little reserve. They urge everyone to put this aside and consider the consequences of a full disclsure coming to light. It is pretty clear they know something, and likely were instrumental in Iran's nuclear research, probably because they are seeking to create their own Union, which came to light some months ago. Iran was one of the loudest voices on the need for that union. This may indicate China would be an ally to Iran, should they come under military duress.
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
deepdiver32073
- Iconoclast Extraordinaire
- Posts: 8395
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:25 pm
-
raum
- Posts: 3944
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:51 am
Let me explain what this means, so something can be made clear:
QUOTE"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table," Bush said.
The point at which we "get ready" is the point where the United States starts issuing order dockets to servicemen that detail they are bound to Iran, for the purposes of combat and/or military suppression. We are not doing so, and we would NEVER EVER attack Iran alone. Comparing Iran to Iraq does nothing but display an ignorance of the situation. Incidentally, the president was responding to a statement alleging America had already prepared for the invasion of Iran after Iraq was secure. Sure, we have a contigency scenario for the possibility, but it is not being employed or administrated. Anyone who would say the US inflated troop numbers in Iraq, so they are closer to Iran is probably completely unexperienced in troop movement. It is damn hard to make it to Iran from Iraq... and you are fully exposed.
besides...
Only the UN security council of 15 UN member countries could prescribe such action, and only after the 5 founding members agree to bring it to Security Council address. This would bring about a Nuclear Watchdog program, and the country would be arrested, in terms of sanctions. This means China couldn't get oil, and Russia and China would strongly protest.
However, if Iran was attacked, the US would be providing a great deal of military force, but it would be under a directive of UN Security Council action, of which the United States only gets one founding vote. But you couldn't "take" Iran", you would have to wipe it out - and I don't think anyone wants to see that happen, to be honest. not even the EU, who most strongly want Security council review.
vertical,
raum
QUOTE"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table," Bush said.
The point at which we "get ready" is the point where the United States starts issuing order dockets to servicemen that detail they are bound to Iran, for the purposes of combat and/or military suppression. We are not doing so, and we would NEVER EVER attack Iran alone. Comparing Iran to Iraq does nothing but display an ignorance of the situation. Incidentally, the president was responding to a statement alleging America had already prepared for the invasion of Iran after Iraq was secure. Sure, we have a contigency scenario for the possibility, but it is not being employed or administrated. Anyone who would say the US inflated troop numbers in Iraq, so they are closer to Iran is probably completely unexperienced in troop movement. It is damn hard to make it to Iran from Iraq... and you are fully exposed.
besides...
Only the UN security council of 15 UN member countries could prescribe such action, and only after the 5 founding members agree to bring it to Security Council address. This would bring about a Nuclear Watchdog program, and the country would be arrested, in terms of sanctions. This means China couldn't get oil, and Russia and China would strongly protest.
However, if Iran was attacked, the US would be providing a great deal of military force, but it would be under a directive of UN Security Council action, of which the United States only gets one founding vote. But you couldn't "take" Iran", you would have to wipe it out - and I don't think anyone wants to see that happen, to be honest. not even the EU, who most strongly want Security council review.
vertical,
raum
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
raum
- Posts: 3944
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:51 am
as game said...
UPDATE:
"Karma come quick..."
After veiled threats and direct mention of ceasing it's oil supply (25+% of the global supply) other countries egan lobbying Security Council review.
At least 13 members of the UN want Iran to go to security council review, including some 9+ members of the Security Council of 15 members. These now include France and Germany.
Security Council 101-
15 countries, 5 permanent members and 10 floaters with two year terms, make decision on procedural matters by vote (one per country), which require 9 affirmative to be considered acceptable majority passed. For VERY important matters, nine votes must be affirmative, and five of those must be the founding members US, EU, France, Russia, and China (i.e. The "allied Powers from World War II). This is the "great Power unanimity", and if these all vote together, it is a majority called "veto power" and seniority is a bitch, ain't it.
Under the Charter of the UN, all Members of the United Nations did agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. The Security Council alone has the power to take decisions which Member States are obligated under the Charter to carry out immediately and perfectly. Any country which does not comply is subject to immediate executive authority and/or military suppression.
If Ahmednijad keeps showing his ass, it's going to get knocked off. I personally am glad they are convening on Afghanistan today... and will not officially and openly convene on this until at least next month. But there are two private meetings in Tanzania in Thursday the 19th, and you better believe at least one of these will be chaired by the permanent members who favor security council review.
vertical,
raum
"Karma come quick..."
After veiled threats and direct mention of ceasing it's oil supply (25+% of the global supply) other countries egan lobbying Security Council review.
At least 13 members of the UN want Iran to go to security council review, including some 9+ members of the Security Council of 15 members. These now include France and Germany.
Security Council 101-
15 countries, 5 permanent members and 10 floaters with two year terms, make decision on procedural matters by vote (one per country), which require 9 affirmative to be considered acceptable majority passed. For VERY important matters, nine votes must be affirmative, and five of those must be the founding members US, EU, France, Russia, and China (i.e. The "allied Powers from World War II). This is the "great Power unanimity", and if these all vote together, it is a majority called "veto power" and seniority is a bitch, ain't it.
Under the Charter of the UN, all Members of the United Nations did agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. The Security Council alone has the power to take decisions which Member States are obligated under the Charter to carry out immediately and perfectly. Any country which does not comply is subject to immediate executive authority and/or military suppression.
If Ahmednijad keeps showing his ass, it's going to get knocked off. I personally am glad they are convening on Afghanistan today... and will not officially and openly convene on this until at least next month. But there are two private meetings in Tanzania in Thursday the 19th, and you better believe at least one of these will be chaired by the permanent members who favor security council review.
vertical,
raum
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |
-
raum
- Posts: 3944
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:51 am
update:
France outright refuses any informal talks with Iran, until they cease uranium enrichment and all other nucear activity.
Can we call please just all call them french fries again (even though they are originally Belgian and called friets)?
:roll:
raum
France outright refuses any informal talks with Iran, until they cease uranium enrichment and all other nucear activity.
Can we call please just all call them french fries again (even though they are originally Belgian and called friets)?
:roll:
raum
| BBcode: | |
| Hide post links |