Bush In Iran

[BlackStar]

I came online today and read some news. Good ol' Bush wats to strike Iran with Nuclear Bunker Busters to destroy the Iranian Nuke supply.
Anybody got anything to say about this?
I really don't nkow how to react? Has Iran threatened to use them? I think they'd be at war by now wouldn't they?

[red team]

If he does get ready for retaliatory terrorist attacks by Iran on U.S. territory.

[Enragé]

And Iraq, Israel, Lebanon


oh and Iran hasnt done anything but being anti-american. They deny they are developing nukes while affirming their right to nuclear power.

[Dreckt]

This has also been discussed in:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48406

[donofmp08]

Bush would have to be completely insane to even consider nukeing iran, unlike in Iraq, the Iranian government has huge support from their people and huge counter-attacks would quickly follow, and they are extremely anti-american. Not to mention, Iran has China, Russia, and Venezuela backing them over the nuke talks

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 12:41 AM
Bush would have to be completely insane to even consider nukeing iran, unlike in Iraq, the Iranian government has huge support from their people and huge counter-attacks would quickly follow, and they are extremely anti-american. Not to mention, Iran has China, Russia, and Venezuela backing them over the nuke talks
america's government doesnt care who is backing who aslong as the rich get richer in the usa.

the only real qestion being what will happen after all of this is over.
its clear america will bomb iran and its almost 100% certain that their nuclear bunker buster will see action.

whatever happens i expect it wont look good for capitalism (and its consequences will hit us aswell) so im just going to stock up on booze and wait till america gets its war-machine into high gear and set the tv on cnn.

[Cheung Mo]

Nuking Iran would be okay if the only people to die or waste away are the same people who thought that the overthrow of Mossadegh was a good idea...

So using reality, it would suck.

[red team]

Here's a good article of the planning stages:

Nuking Iran (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/apr2006/iran-a10.shtml)

[dusk]

America is getting more and more a threat.

I read a story about that america wants to start produce
up to a 125 nuclear warheads a year.

they're dismantling the old bombs.
I don't know what they want with the warheads.

[Dreckt]

It would be the beginning of the Third World War if America nuked Iran. Damn, this is crazier than Iran developing their own nukes!

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 01:28 PM
It would be the beginning of the Third World War if America nuked Iran. Damn, this is crazier than Iran developing their own nukes!
How? The plan makes perfect military sense. If you want to be 100% certain that Iran has no capacity to produce nukes then nuclear strikes are the only way to go.

Of course the political price is far higher than the US is willing to pay, Nuking a non-nuclear country, and a Muslim one none the less, is not smart. But that does not detract from the military merits of the plan.

[piet11111]

military sense :o

well read this link (http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=399)
you need to click on earth penetrating warheads against deep targets under images and media.

the entire notion of nuclear "bunker busters" or RNEP is insane :angry:

[18tir]

As an Iranian living in the United States, this is very disturbing news for me and I'm sure all on this forum. I read on the Guardian that this is part of Bush's plan for "regime change." Let me just say that its true that the majority of Iranians despise the Islamic Republic and want nothing more than to see it disappear. However, this is not the way to do it. Dropping nuclear bombs on Iran is not "liberation." It is an inhumane act that will backfire on America and cause all Iranians to turn against that country. It is disgraceful that Bush is going forward with war plans under the banner of "democracy." Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been murdered over the past 16 years under this name. Now, Iranians are due to suffer the same penalty.

[drain.you]

Something just occurred to me, why did the US invade Iraq if they believed it had weapons of mass destruction, surely that would be a reason to stay at peace with it lol, same goes for Iran.

[Jormungand]

Iran deserves peaceful nuclear energy. Personally I would go farther and say it deserves nuclear weaponry as well, if only to counter the Israeli threat. And if anyone is surprised at the American government's obsession with preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons, look to AIPAC and the evil influence of the State of Israel on our government's policies at the highest level.

[Janus]

Bush is dimissing these reports of the US planning a military strike against Iran. But politicians have been known to lie before :lol: .


Originally posted by AP
President Bush dismissed as "wild speculation" reports that the administration was planning for a military strike against Iran.

Bush did not rule out the use of force, but he said he would continue to use diplomatic pressure to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon or the know-how and technology to make one.

"I know here in Washington prevention means force," Bush said at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. "It doesn't mean force, necessarily. In this case, it means diplomacy."

Several weekend news reports said the administration was studying options for military strikes. The New Yorker magazine raised the possibility of using nuclear bombs against Iran's underground nuclear sites.

"I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend," Bush said. "It was just wild speculation."

Taking questions from the audience, Bush also said he declassified part of a prewar intelligence report on Iraq in 2003 to show Americans the basis for his statements about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

"I wanted people to see the truth," he told a questioner who said there was evidence of a concerted effort by the White House to punish war critic Joseph Wilson. Bush said he could not comment on the CIA leak case because it is under investigation.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., sent a letter to Bush on Monday asking him for details about how the document was declassified. "There are many questions that the president must answer so that the American people can understand that this declassification was done for national security purposes, not for immediate political gain."

In Tehran, officials said the media reports about a possible U.S. strike against Iran amounted to psychological warfare from the West.

Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Iranians not to be intimidated by other nations' attempts to stifle the country's nuclear ambitions.

"Unfortunately, today some bullying powers are unable to give up their bullying nature," Ahmadinejad said. "The future will prove that our path was a right way."

The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend all enrichment of uranium — a key process that can produce either fuel for a reactor or the material for a nuclear warhead. The security council gave Tehran until April 28 to comply before the International Atomic Energy Agency reports back to the council on its inspection progress.

Iran has rejected the demand, saying the small-scale enrichment it began in February was strictly for research and was within its rights under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Bush and other administration officials have said repeatedly that the military option is on the table, and White House officials acknowledge normal military planning is under way.

Defense experts say a military strike on Iran would be risky and complicated, and could aggravate U.S. problems in the Muslim world.

To pressure Iran, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana on Monday recommended that the 25-nation bloc consider sanctions against Iran, including a visa ban on some officials, because of Iran's rejection of U.N. demands that it end uranium enrichment.

Bush has said Iran may pose the greatest challenge to the United States of any other country in the world. And while he has stressed that diplomacy is always preferable, he has defended his administration's strike-first policy against terrorists and other enemies.

"The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel," Bush said last month in Cleveland. "That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace; it's a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally."

[monkeydust]

I can foresee the US invading Iran. But actually nuking them? I don't think that's likely. What it comes down to is a question of what's in it for the US to nuke Iran. I don't think a lot is, whereas invading the place will reap many benefits indeed.

[Severian]

Don't cry wolf.

Do oppose the ongoing efforts to put the squeeze on Iran - diplomatically and economically. Which are setting the stage for military action somewhere down the line - in a couple years, if not more.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 08:43 PM
Iran deserves peaceful nuclear energy. Personally I would go farther and say it deserves nuclear weaponry as well, if only to counter the Israeli threat. And if anyone is surprised at the American government's obsession with preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons, look to AIPAC and the evil influence of the State of Israel on our government's policies at the highest level.
israel does have a very bizarre influence on the american government but the balance of power is tipped to the usa.
america uses israel as a permanent military "base" for its imperial ambitions.
the peak oil story is rediculous but the thing is that the oil will be far more expensive to get and that is something that is just as bad for the capitalists.

i tend to view the middle east as a high stakes game of risk over the oil.
america to me is trying to get the most oil rich country's under control either diplomatically or through military occupation.
iran is locked between iraq and afghanistan and its possible to drill from iraq and afghanistan into the iranian oil-wells.
but it would be more "secure" to grab the entire country before the iranians start messing with the oil drilling.

if america succeeds in getting the biggest oil country's under its control it will have china and the european union by the balls.
i think that is what the usa is after.

[Dreckt]

On April 11, 2006, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran had successfully enriched uranium. This came about when Ahmadinejad announced the news in a televised address from the northeastern city of Mashhad, saying "I am officially announcing that Iran has joined the group of those countries which have nuclear technology"

...from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

This has also been confirmed by BBC. Guess we're going to war pretty soon...

[Dreckt]

How? The plan makes perfect military sense. If you want to be 100% certain that Iran has no capacity to produce nukes then nuclear strikes are the only way to go.

Yes, but using nukes? Isn't there any other way? Hell, the US could just as well barrier them, they already have Afhanistan and Iraq, then they also have the close-by technology of Israel.


i think that is what the usa is after.

Oh no. They want supremacy over the ground, the waters, the air, the space, cyberspace and probably human thought and religion, before they "stop". Just take a look at the Project for a New American Century...

[piet11111]

i hope iran is able to take down any airplane of the attackers but it would be better if they launched scuds against the oil industry.
perhaps if they cause enough damage bush might be forced to stop before iran turns all of the middle eastern oil facility's into smoking craters.

[Janus]

Iran's president has just announced that Iran has successfully produced the enriched uranium needed to make nuclear fuel. The US condemed this and responded by stating that:"Iran is moving in the wrong direction". Iran's perceived defiance of the UN Security Council will definitely cause some type of confrontation in the future. Especially after the head of the IAEA reports back to the UN at the end of this month.

Article concerning this can be found here
Iran declares key nuclear advance (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4900260.stm)