NationStates Jolt Archive

Journalist: U.S. planning for possible attack on Iran
White House says report is 'riddled with inaccuracies'
Monday, January 17, 2005 Posted: 8:11 AM EST (1311 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile sites in Iran in preparation for possible airstrikes there, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.

The basic jist of it for you.

So, we all know this may lead absolutly nowhere, but this seems strikingly similar to our little fun build-up time to Iraq. "War? In Iraq? No, we would never do that."

And then "Oh, hello. We're in a war."

So, this could simple start with it just being 'intelligence' to try and dismantle the Iranian nuclear program but more likely its just planning for strategic military targets. I just want to know what the hell Bush is thinking of even making a move like that towards Iran. Its not like they're going to budge and the US doesn't have the manpower to launch another campaign.

Don't they have their hands in enough pies already? Geez...

who the fuck appointed the fucking hulk or some other halfwit to be head of the military?

hey, lets go attac 2 countries and spread our forces really thin, and while our soldiers are bogged down by an insurgency, lets attack a country with a real army!

There is a pool of manpower that needs to be tapped into, and we can do it. All we need to do is create a few more divisions in the active army, make troops in civiilian jobs become "trigger troops", and spend more on marketing army recruitment. Spending more on the Marines wouldn't be bad, either.

So, when is the draft going to happen? :p

Hide your sparklers, cherry-bombs, and/or weapons of mass destruction, the underpaid, undermanned, American military is coming!!! Of course, with poverty spreading, more people will be forced to pick up an outdated gun for horrible pay in order to try and secure some kind of future for themselves...go Bush, there might be enough after all!!! :rolleyes:

So, when is the draft going to happen? :p
Never. That floods the army with inexperienced, unmotivated troops, and makes things quite expensive.

Never. That floods the army with inexperienced, unmotivated troops, and makes things quite expensive.
So, it's better to have a defenseless homeland as long as you can invade whoever the fuck you want? :D

So, it's better to have a defenseless homeland as long as you can invade whoever the fuck you want? :D

Don't be silly, that's what the department of homeland security is for!!! Duh!!! :)

So, it's better to have a defenseless homeland as long as you can invade whoever the fuck you want? :D
A. I have a little pet peeve, and that is using that word.
B. A lot of army troops are not required on the continental US, save for training. At home, police and firefighters do a better job. Besides, if an organized threat attacks tommarow, their are plenty of navy and air force personnel on hand to take them out. Nearly all enemies have to cross an ocean to get here, anyhow.

Don't be silly, that's what the department of homeland security is for!!! Duh!!! :)
maknig sure mom and pop toy stores arnt selling things that might be breaking the rubix cube patent

Let's see.

We have a country, Iran, who has frequently stated that they are anti-American. This same country is very close to getting their hands on nuclear weapons. We also know that Iran harbors terrorists who would like nothing more than to detonate one of these bombs in a U.S. city. Attempts at diplomatic channels with Iran have failed.

While this is a difficult decision for Bush to make, there is no harm in scouting potential bombing targets should things in Iran get too hot.

As far as I see it, the situation is clear: we bomb them, or they bomb us. Simple.

Perhaps the majority of people here would like to see a nuclear weapon detonated on U.S. soil?

Don't be silly, that's what the department of homeland security is for!!! Duh!!! :)
Oh yeah! :D they certainly were on the ball with that duct tape!

Perhaps the majority of people here would like to see a nuclear weapon detonated on U.S. soil?

whoops...you caught us. Anyone who doesn't agree with war is unpatriotic. (guess which one of the preceding statements is true...think hard.)

Oh yeah! :D they certainly were on the ball with that duct tape!

Seriously. At least Bush (or should I say Cheney) was smart enough to appoint a new :p head puppet last week.

Seriously. At least Bush (or should I say Cheney) was smart enough to appoint a new :p head puppet last week.
Oh yeah.... I was wondering why those strigns looked new...

As far as I see it, the situation is clear: we bomb them, or they bomb us. Simple.


If you're talking conventional bombs, yeah, I might see that viewpoint. If you're thinking nukes, you're waaayy off target.

Nukes are pretty much only a deterrent force in the world now. The bombs we have are much more powerful and precise than anything we had in WWII. Because of the high power though, we can't bomb anything. Why? Fallout. The radiation and fallout would travel across the world. It would have effects in the nation that launched the weapon as well as just about every other country. Those nukes won't be launched because of there is just too much environmental damage to the rest of the world. Thats also not to mention the political and economic fallout that would occur as a reaction from every other nation on earth.

I wonder if Blair is feeding Bush the same quality of intelligence he fed him on Iraq.

If you're talking conventional bombs, yeah, I might see that viewpoint. If you're thinking nukes, you're waaayy off target.

Nukes are pretty much only a deterrent force in the world now. The bombs we have are much more powerful and precise than anything we had in WWII. Because of the high power though, we can't bomb anything. Why? Fallout. The radiation and fallout would travel across the world. It would have effects in the nation that launched the weapon as well as just about every other country. Those nukes won't be launched because of there is just too much environmental damage to the rest of the world. Thats also not to mention the political and economic fallout that would occur as a reaction from every other nation on earth.
How much do you actually know about the latest gen fusion bombs? The amount of lasting rads is actually quite small.

How much do you actually know about the latest gen fusion bombs? The amount of lasting rads is actually quite small.

All atom bombs up until certain recent types involving shaped warheads using physics beyond my understanding left very weak radioactive residue. The problem is that it is still dangerous with prologned exposure or when it is exposed to internal tissues (contaminated food, water, or shrapnel.) You could probably spend a couple of minutes or even a couple of hours in a detonation site without suffering too much permanent damage. However, fission-fusion bombs kick up enormous amounts of radioactive dust which can circulate throughout the world, dim sunlight (although probably not in the cataclysmic manner described by some doomsayers,) and degrade human and animal health. There is evidence some of this has already happened (aboveground testing.) In addition, the heat and explosive force generated by atom bombs generate a sudden pressure increase followed by a sudden pressure decrease, which will affect the surrounding weather patterns. They also affect the ionosphere in manners which are poorly understood, but electromagnetic pulses are known consequences of powerful fission-fusion/thermonuclear detonations.

These are not to be confused with certain shaped warheads which are designed for tactical nuclear missles and generate powerful radiation which is poorly absorbed by their surroundings, thus making their effects last as little as 20 hours, but killing humans within minutes.

i think it just sad, really...
us are walking around the middle east like a little kid.

first, they're totally focused on one country (think of it like a kid with a new toy), and then, oh look! there's another one! with shiny stones and lovely neon-lights! how jolly cute!...
I WANT IT!
so -joink- they take that one too.. when the 'old' one is still perfectly playable... aka not in the least ready for 'new-born democracy'

just scary...
who's next on the line after iraq... will it really be iran... or are they gonna take on syria... saudi-arabia perhaps? I guess North Korea is safe for some time to come... they're just too far away, it would take too much of a hassle to get there... easier to just walk over to one of iraq's neighbours

I don't think militarily it would pose too much of a problem, Israel would most likely side with us, and they have a pretty impressive military. If its a quick bomb and leave, we wouldn't be there hardly at all. The only reason it wasn't done in Iraq is because civillian deaths would be too high, so instead americans are killed in a prolonged attack.

Most of the deaths in Iraq done to troops is hit and run. Its really easy for them to do this because they look, breath, and live with the non-combatants, so our troops can't just open fire, because we might hit a civ.

Just like in the USS Cole, before the second boat hit them, they could have opened fire, but because they hadn't been fired upon, Navy soldiers were told not to fire. Never mind the fact they had just gotten blown up. One soldier said its the filtered down effect of letting anti-war politicians to set wartime guidelines.

Hit them hard, hit them fast, and don't go back in, let the UN clean up. The rest of the world will grumble, but we will allow UN to go in and take care of any civs that got hurt, and we don't have to worry about any prolonged war in another front.

though I figure this will get bullseyes all over it, so oh well

aim here :sniper:

I don't think militarily it would pose too much of a problem, Israel would most likely side with us, and they have a pretty impressive military. If its a quick bomb and leave, we wouldn't be there hardly at all. The only reason it wasn't done in Iraq is because civillian deaths would be too high, so instead americans are killed in a prolonged attack.

Most of the deaths in Iraq done to troops is hit and run. Its really easy for them to do this because they look, breath, and live with the non-combatants, so our troops can't just open fire, because we might hit a civ.

Just like in the USS Cole, before the second boat hit them, they could have opened fire, but because they hadn't been fired upon, Navy soldiers were told not to fire. Never mind the fact they had just gotten blown up. One soldier said its the filtered down effect of letting anti-war politicians to set wartime guidelines.

Hit them hard, hit them fast, and don't go back in, let the UN clean up. The rest of the world will grumble, but we will allow UN to go in and take care of any civs that got hurt, and we don't have to worry about any prolonged war in another front.

though I figure this will get bullseyes all over it, so oh well

aim here :sniper:

*bang!*

Its not that Iran can really challenge us militarily, its that the US doesn't have the military capacity to engage in another war. The troops are streatched too thin as it is, and unless we take all of the national guard units or decide to begin a new draft, another war can't happen.

The rules are war were also made by war leaders. It was there to protect civilians. It has gotten in the way in the past, but don't start blaming peace people fot its shortfallings.