US & UK plan to attack Iran

[The Dude]

We are momentarily pulling out of Iraq because the plans are to use small scale nuclear devices and bunker busting bombs in Iran , and to get our military machine out of the way of the radiation field that will follow.

That... or it was agreed USA would be out of Iraq by 2012 when Bush was still in office...

[Excel]

As for the original post, if you don't think we already have a plan for an attack like that, you're wrong. It is what it is...

QFT, considering that at one point or another the DoD or War Department has maintained plans to invade Canada, the UK, China, Germany, France, Iceland and much of South America, it's more than reasonable to assume that a wide range of contingency plans exist to deal with a nation like Iran.

[NEWICOsker]

We are momentarily pulling out of Iraq because the plans are to use small scale nuclear devices and bunker busting bombs in Iran , and to get our military machine out of the way of the radiation field that will follow.

I don't see us going into Iran anytime soon. But however from what I understand we are pulling out the troops of Iraq or getting ready to. Which means we are freeing up troops from deployement. We have buildt some millitary bases in Kuwait. They don't house a lot of soldiers perminately but have the ability to hold a lot of soldiers and equipment for a short amount of time. So if we are to go into Iran we defenately have the ability to do it with land to launch the attack from.

 

Yeah, it seems that most of our troops will be redeployed in the gulf region.

 

Perhaps they will be used to put down rebellions in the Saudi east, Yemen and Bahrain.

 

And, a new kingdom will be established by the one world government in the post-apocolypse world..?

[Sub-Husker]

We are momentarily pulling out of Iraq because the plans are to use small scale nuclear devices and bunker busting bombs in Iran , and to get our military machine out of the way of the radiation field that will follow.

 

The projections I have seen have the radiation cloud heading east.

[Sub-Husker]

I hope you left out the insert sarcasm here emoticon.

 

Please explain.

[Sub-Husker]

Well surprise... Rick Perry would support Israel in an attack on Iran.

 

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/republican-perry-would-back-israel-strike-on-iran-nuclear-sites-1.393632

 

Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry said on Thursday that as president he would support an Israeli air strike on Iran if there is proof Tehran is moving closer to having a nuclear weapon. "Obviously, we are going to support Israel. And I've said that we will support Israel in every way that we can, whether it's diplomatic, whether it's economic sanctions, whether it's overt or covert operations, up to and including military action," the Texas governor said in an interview on CNN.

[Excel]

We are momentarily pulling out of Iraq because the plans are to use small scale nuclear devices and bunker busting bombs in Iran , and to get our military machine out of the way of the radiation field that will follow.

I don't see us going into Iran anytime soon. But however from what I understand we are pulling out the troops of Iraq or getting ready to. Which means we are freeing up troops from deployement. We have buildt some millitary bases in Kuwait. They don't house a lot of soldiers perminately but have the ability to hold a lot of soldiers and equipment for a short amount of time. So if we are to go into Iran we defenately have the ability to do it with land to launch the attack from.

 

Yeah, it seems that most of our troops will be redeployed in the gulf region.

 

Perhaps they will be used to put down rebellions in the Saudi east, Yemen and Bahrain.

I hope you left out the insert sarcasm here emoticon.

Yea......no.

[carlfense]

I hope you left out the insert sarcasm here emoticon.

 

Please explain.

Your quote was included but my comment was directed towards PugeotDaddy: "We are momentarily pulling out of Iraq because the plans are to use small scale nuclear devices and bunker busting bombs in Iran , and to get our military machine out of the way of the radiation field that will follow."

 

Particularly about us using small scale nuclear devices on Iran.

[Sub-Husker]

Your quote was included but my comment was directed towards PugeotDaddy: "We are momentarily pulling out of Iraq because the plans are to use small scale nuclear devices and bunker busting bombs in Iran , and to get our military machine out of the way of the radiation field that will follow."

 

Particularly about us using small scale nuclear devices on Iran.

 

Thanks, sometimes those long chains of quotations can get confusing.

 

As I said... Russia, China, India and US forces in Afghanistan would not be too pleased about being down wind from Israeli nukes.

[carlfense]

You won't be able to convince me that Iran, with the third largest oil reserves in the country, needs nuclear reactors to produce electricity. That program only has one true purpose.

 

Sorry that I can't convince you of that... only you can.

 

If you want to investigate that for yourself, look up Iran's capacity for refining gasoline.

This is timely.

 

Edit: Apparently a direct link to the Financial Times is paywalled. To read the article that I posted without registering or paying google this: "UN to reveal signs of Iran nuclear arms plan"

 

[Sub-Husker]

This is timely.

 

Edit: Apparently a direct link to the Financial Times is paywalled. To read the article that I posted without registering or paying google this: "UN to reveal signs of Iran nuclear arms plan"

 

I habve no doubt that iran (with assistance from the NorKs) is working on a nuclear weapon, as are some other nations in that region (Turkey, the Saudis).

 

However Iran does have a real problem refining oil into gasoline.

[VectorVictor]

Election is coming. He's behind. I kind of expect this to be honest.

 

If I read this right your expecting Obama to send in the troops to Iran. Because it is an election year and currently behind in polls?

 

So a President that won a popular election on the promise, among other things, of pulling troops out of the Middle East in 2008 would send more troops back and put them in a very costly battle (both in human life and fiscally) against the most heavily fortified power in the region (excluding Turkey)?

 

This, while the American public is decidedly against the Iraq and Afghanistan missions?

 

This, while successfully using his office to dictate an optional, and more sustainable path for America's inclusion into armed conflict in the Middle East by working directly and behind the scenes with NATO allies and local freedom fighters in Libya?

 

[wildman]

Election is coming. He's behind. I kind of expect this to be honest.

 

If I read this right your expecting Obama to send in the troops to Iran. Because it is an election year and currently behind in polls?

 

You read it correctly. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but nothing this guy does makes any sense. Look at the timing. This has been going on for years. Why now?

 

I to hope that is wrong, but I have a hard time believing that he'd send in troops. The reason I say thats is as you said it's an election year. He is going to do what he can to raise his popularity and support of the American people. I'm pretty sure a lot of American people are getting tired of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but understand they are necessary. Now that we have gotten Sadaam Hussein and Bin'laden the primary objectives are over and its now down to stabalizing the countries so we don't just up and leave them in a worse situation than we entered.

 

Now some of you are going to say but but but someone will take Bin'ladens place and keep the war going. Your correct the war on terror will always be going I don't ever see that ending. But I also see it as a political suicide to end the war in Iraq just to go into Iran during an election year. Now if it wasn't an election year, then yes i'd say our military would be gearing up for Iran.

[carlfense]

This is timely.

 

Edit: Apparently a direct link to the Financial Times is paywalled. To read the article that I posted without registering or paying google this: "UN to reveal signs of Iran nuclear arms plan"

 

I habve no doubt that iran (with assistance from the NorKs) is working on a nuclear weapon, as are some other nations in that region (Turkey, the Saudis).

 

However Iran does have a real problem refining oil into gasoline.

I don't doubt that but I don't see how it is relevant.

[wildman]

This is timely.

 

Edit: Apparently a direct link to the Financial Times is paywalled. To read the article that I posted without registering or paying google this: "UN to reveal signs of Iran nuclear arms plan"

 

I habve no doubt that iran (with assistance from the NorKs) is working on a nuclear weapon, as are some other nations in that region (Turkey, the Saudis).

 

However Iran does have a real problem refining oil into gasoline.

I don't doubt that but I don't see how it is relevant.

 

maybe he's saying if they have a problem refining oil into gasoline. Then maybe they won't be able to turn enriched uranium into a nuclear bomb?