Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: An Attack on Iran's Nuclear Plant?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 29th, 2012 @ 11:51 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo - Saxon.
    Ancestry
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    State
    Wessex Wessex
    Location
    south
    Gender
    Occupation
    [Psychologist]
    Politics
    Patriotic
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    1,939
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Question An Attack on Iran's Nuclear Plant?

    I have been wondering what Mr Bush might do to celebrate his leaving office. eyes: He has travelled around Europe recently and has spent quite a lot of time with present leaders. Iran was almost certainly on his agenda; rightly or wrongly Iran shows no sign of ending its nuclear ambitions..... whatever they are (?)

    It concerns the world at large. Will Bush take any direct action before he goes .... he needn't actually do anything himself ............eyes:


    Times Online

    June 20, 2008

    Israel flexes muscles with 'Iran attack' drill

    ((F-15 fighter jets were said to have taken part in the Israeli drill))

    An Israeli air force drill which appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential attack on Iran's nuclear facilities was intended as a deliberate flexing of muscles, military officials said today.....

    An Israeli political official who is familiar with the drill said that the Iranians should “read the writing on the wall.”

    “This was a dress rehearsal, and the Iranians should read the script before they continue with their programme for nuclear weapons. If diplomacy does not yield results, Israel will take military steps to halt Tehran's production of bomb-grade uranium,” the official said.

    The report of the drill was first published in the New York Times, which quoted a US Pentagon official who was briefed on it.

    Bush and Brown announce Iran sanctions
    Major setback on nuclear crisis/

    More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighter jets took part in manoeuvres over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece in the first week of June to gear the military for long-range strikes and demonstrate Israel's serious concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the US official was quoted as saying.

    The report said that the aircrafts flew more than 900 miles, roughly the distance from Israel to Iran's Natanz nuclear enrichment facility.

    "They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know…There's a lot of signalling going on at different levels," it said.

    The Israeli military issued a statement saying only that the air force “regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel.”

    Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, has said he prefers that Iran's nuclear ambitions be halted through diplomacy, but he does not rule out military action.

    “Iran must be stopped by all possible means,” Mr Olmert told an American pro-Israel group earlier this month.

    Israel has regularly consulted with President Bush on the Iranian nuclear threat. The issue ranked high on the roster Mr Bush’s visit to the region in May.

    Following a meeting between Mr Olmert and Mr Bush, the Israeli prime minister said: "We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. I left with a lot less question marks [than I had entered with] regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and America's resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term in the White House.”

    Last month, the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) expressed "serious concern" that Iran is still hiding information about alleged studies into making nuclear warheads and defying UN demands to suspend uranium enrichment.

    The UN Security Council has imposed several rounds of sanctions on Iran for defying council demands that it suspend its uranium enrichment program, which could be used to make fuel for power plants or atomic weapons.

    The Islamic Republic has refused to buckle to the sanctions and has spurned previous offers of economic benefits to suspend its uranium enrichment, which it says is to produce fuel.

    Iran said yesterday that it was ready to negotiate over a new package of economic incentives put forward by major powers seeking to persuade Tehran to curb its nuclear work.

    Over the past three decades Israel has twice taken out suspected nuclear weapons facilities in Middle East states. In 1981 Israeli jets raided Iraq's nuclear plant at Osirak which Israelis believed was part of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons development program.........

    Last September, Israeli jets bombed a site in the Syrian desert which the Israeli military believed housed a partly constructed nuclear reactor. The Syrians have denied the allegations, and recent rebuilding in that area suggests that no nuclear fallout occurred.

    Another theory of the bombing, which has been advanced in recent days, suggests that Israeli was testing flight routes between Israel and Iran, which would include flying over Syrian air space. eyes:

    whatever next ??

  2. #2
    Senior Member skyhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, March 8th, 2010 @ 10:23 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    celtic
    Country
    England England
    Gender
    Politics
    radical democracy
    Religion
    atheism
    Posts
    664
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I don't think there is a need orjustification to attack Iran , I mean if we are going to attack nations simply for possessing nuclear material where do you draw the line?
    Iran , Pakistan ( now there's a settled nation eyes: ) , India , N Korea etc etc
    What about ourselves ? Do we allow weapons inspections of our own arsenals of WMD ? I doubt it. If that's the criteria well then we are as dangerous and should likewise be deemed "a threat "

    It's a really shambolic attempt to present Iran as a world danger . That's it.

    Some other shambolic threats from the past........... Iraq after destruction 1991 and subsequent sanctions......... the sexing up of " intelligence "..... blah

    Nicaragua in the Eighties was presented as " a threat " to the security of the USA.................... subsequently crushed as a result of the allegation regardless of how ridiculous it was.............. Reagan would surely have been accused of Trolling if he had put that on a discussion board

    Or , and even more hillarious was "the threat " of that Nutmeg growing superpower.............. Greneda. Striking fear into the hearts of the American military.

    Nah , I think we should carry on negotiating with Iran............. there are far bigger threats to western countries/people.......... and they're a lot closer to home
    By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 29th, 2012 @ 11:51 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo - Saxon.
    Ancestry
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    State
    Wessex Wessex
    Location
    south
    Gender
    Occupation
    [Psychologist]
    Politics
    Patriotic
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    1,939
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Ah yes, Skyhawk - all very interesting --- but the question was WILL it now actually happen .... or not. Against that, the reasons or non-reason is somehow vaguely acedemic!

    Any way -- here's todays upgdate. Others do seem concerned .... not sure how much they need to be....


    UN warns attack on Iran will spark 'fireball' in Middle East

    Jerusalem
    Telegraph 21/06/2008

    The United Nations nuclear watchdog has warned that a military strike on Iran to prevent it developing atomic weapons would turn the region into a "fireball".

    Mohamed ElBaradei said unilateral military action (?), which has not been ruled out by Israel or the US, would push the Islamic republic into a "crash course" of developing nuclear weapons and threatened to resign if an attack took place. (?)

    "What I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger," said Mr ElBaradei. "If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time ... it would make me unable to continue my work."

    (( hasn't made too much progress anyway, has he ??))

    "A military strike, in my opinion, would be worse than anything," the International Atomic Energy Agency director general said. "It would turn the region into a fireball."

    He said any attack would only make the Islamic Republic more determined in its confrontation with the West over its nuclear programme.............

    "If you do a military strike, it will mean that Iran, if it is not already making nuclear weapons, will launch a crash course to build nuclear weapons with the blessing of all Iranians, even those in the West."

    Sources at the Pentagon and other US government agencies have confirmed that Israel recently carried out a full rehearsal of an air assault on Iran's nuclear sites. The exercise, was said to have involved as many as 100 warplanes and its target in the eastern Mediterranean was 900 miles from Israel, roughly the same distance as Iran's nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz.

    A Pentagon official said that it was designed by Israel as a clear signal of the seriousness of its intentions towards Iran. "They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know," said the official.

    The exercise, in the first week of June, came as President George W Bush and Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister, both said in public that a nuclear Iran was "unacceptable". Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East and has twice acted by itself to stop its regional enemies developing a nuclear capability, in Syria last year and Iraq in the 1980s.

    Facing so much domestic political opposition over his policies in Iraq, President Bush will be unlikely to cobble together the necessary backing for a US-led attack on Iran. However, an Israeli-led attack would not need domestic American support.

    Asked to comment on reports of the rehearsal, the Israeli military said only that its air force "regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel".

    Mr Olmert has said that he would prefer Iran's nuclear ambitions to be halted by diplomatic means, but has pointedly declined to rule out military action............

    In an interview with Der Spiegel, he said the current international sanctions against Iran would probably not succeed by themselves, adding there were "many things that can be done economically, politically, diplomatically and militarily".

    Asked if Israel was capable of taking military action against Iran, Mr Olmert replied: "Israel always has to be in a position to defend itself against any adversary and against any threat."

    Iran reacted defiantly to news of the exercise. "If enemies, especially Israel and its supporters in America, want to use the language of force, they should rest assured that they will receive a strong blow in the mouth," Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, a senior cleric, said at weekly prayers...........

    --------------------------------------------------- So what next ?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, July 4th, 2009 @ 09:41 PM
    Ethnicity
    Icelandic, 1/4 Eng
    Subrace
    Keltic-Nordic
    Gender
    Posts
    504
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    I didn't read the whole article because I've had enough of news about the Iranian nuclear programs. Iran has every right to enrich uranium, Neo-cons have been using their BS 'slippery slope' argument that a nuclear war will inevitable follow if Iran obtains uranium. I find it very hypocritical that the western powers who stand for freedom and liberty are meddling in Iran's matters and affairs, telling them what they shouldn't do. Let Iran and Israel resolve their own problems.

  5. #5
    Naturbursche
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Boche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Wednesday, December 24th, 2008 @ 11:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Posts
    1,574
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    I doubt Bush will attack Iran before the Elections have been finished. Because this would damage the Votes for John McCain. If Iran will be attacked in the Future, then it will be when John McCain is the new President.




    Gruß,
    Boche
    "We Germans fear God, but nothing else in the world; and already that godliness is it, which let us love and foster peace."
    - Otto von Bismarck, 1888

  6. #6
    Senior Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 29th, 2012 @ 11:51 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo - Saxon.
    Ancestry
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    State
    Wessex Wessex
    Location
    south
    Gender
    Occupation
    [Psychologist]
    Politics
    Patriotic
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    1,939
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Well I recon the two posts do give us enough warning --- perhaps one morning soon we will wake up to find it has happened. I don't know. For the Americans, the bottom line is the survival of Israel ( "whatever it takes!")..... whatever anyone else thinks. Not sure about Europe - but probably the same thing for the most part.

    One of the Steel Helmet brigade said to me recently that America needs a good kicking -- well, his language was a bit richer perhaps. When I asked who could be doing that, he said Iran. Now I wonder about that ---- not if the Americans see them coming first surely ?? eyes:

  7. #7
    Senior Member skyhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, March 8th, 2010 @ 10:23 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    celtic
    Country
    England England
    Gender
    Politics
    radical democracy
    Religion
    atheism
    Posts
    664
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I think all the stories about how when and where we attack Iran is a conditioning technique. We hear something often enough and we are half way there to accepting it. ( it hasn't been attacked ,militarily , as yet but when it does we will be halfway to accepting it anyway ) It brings an inevitability attitude with it and undermines greatly the chances of a negotiated settlement which is the one thing the Western powers don't want

    The question is why should we be attacking Iran ? Let's not loose sight of it in amongst all the military glorifying used in the debates on how where when arguments.

    Let's not allow the same thing happen to Iran as has happened to Iraq
    By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 29th, 2012 @ 11:51 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo - Saxon.
    Ancestry
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    England England
    State
    Wessex Wessex
    Location
    south
    Gender
    Occupation
    [Psychologist]
    Politics
    Patriotic
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    1,939
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    John Boltons prediction here is along the lines given above - but he manages to narrow the timetable!

    Israel 'will attack Iran' before new US president sworn in, John Bolton predicts

    Telegraph 24/06/2008


    John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, has predicted that Israel could attack Iran after the November presidential election but before George W Bush's successor is sworn in.

    Bolton: 'the argument for military action is sooner rather than later'
    The Arab world would be "pleased" by Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, he said in an interview with The Daily Telegraph.

    "It [the reaction] will be positive privately. I think there'll be public denunciations but no action," he said.

    Mr Bolton, an unflinching hawk who proposes military action to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons, bemoaned what he sees as a lack of will by the Bush administration to itself contemplate military strikes.

    "It's clear that the administration has essentially given up that possibility," he said. "I don't think it's serious any more. If you had asked me a year ago I would have said I thought it was a real possibility. I just don't think it's in the cards."

    Israel, however, still had a determination to prevent a nuclear Iran, he argued. The "optimal window" for strikes would be between the November 4 election and the inauguration on January 20, 2009.

    "The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their nuclear weapons capability and to do things like increase their defences by buying new Russian anti-aircraft systems and further harden the nuclear installations .

    "They're also obviously looking at the American election calendar. My judgement is they would not want to do anything before our election because there's no telling what impact it could have on the election."

    But waiting for either Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, or his Republican opponent John McCain to be installed in the White House could preclude military action happening for the next four years or at least delay it.

    "An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy," said Mr Bolton, who was Mr Bush's ambassador to the UN from 2005 to 2006.

    "With McCain they might still be looking at a delay. Given that time is on Iran's side, I think the argument for military action is sooner rather than later absent some other development."

    The Iran policy of Mr McCain, whom Mr Bolton supports, was "much more realistic than the Bush administration's stance".

    Mr Obama has said he will open high-level talks with Iran "without preconditions" while Mr McCain views attacking Iran as a lesser evil than allowing Iran to become a nuclear power.

    William Kristol, a prominent neo-conservative, told Fox News on Sunday that an Obama victory could prompt Mr Bush to launch attacks against Iran. "If the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out," he said.

    Last week, Israeli jets carried out a long-range exercise over the Mediterranean that American intelligence officials concluded was practice for air strikes against Iran. Mohammad Ali Hosseini, spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry, said this was an act of "psychological warfare" that would be futile.

    "They do not have the capacity to threaten the Islamic Republic of Iran. They [Israel] have a number of domestic crises and they want to extrapolate it to cover others. Sometimes they come up with these empty slogans."

    He added that Tehran would deliver a "devastating" response to any attack.

    On Friday, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, said military action against Iran would turn the Middle East into a "fireball" and accelerate Iran's nuclear programme.

    Mr Bolton, however, dismissed such sentiments as scaremongering. "The key point would be for the Israelis to break Iran's control over the nuclear fuel cycle and that could be accomplished for example by destroying the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan or the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

    "That doesn't end the problem but it buys time during which a more permanent solution might be found.... How long? That would be hard to say. Depends on the extent of the destruction."

  9. #9
    Senior Member skyhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, March 8th, 2010 @ 10:23 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    celtic
    Country
    England England
    Gender
    Politics
    radical democracy
    Religion
    atheism
    Posts
    664
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Iran is being set up like Iraq was set up. Using Israelis by proxy doesn't hide the fact that it is Irans oil ( and the pipeline proposed by Unocal ) that the West wishes to control. The ramifications of an attack on Iran will be felt far further afield than the middle east.

    The war mongerers reign supreme but they don't have to be personal involved in the action/attack. They can just sacrifice a portion of the ugly masses to achieve it. They are Germanic too by the way , just not that highly thought of by the elitists amongst us.

    I think that the people who advocate war and conflict should be legally required to be at the helm. Maybe that would have an effect on their relish for it

    BTW does anybody fancy an influx of Iranian refugees ? I just thought I would appeal to a selfish interest
    By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.

  10. #10
    Senior Member theTasmanian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 20th, 2019 @ 11:24 AM
    Ethnicity
    Prussian X Anglo/Celt
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Tasmania Tasmania
    Location
    Hobart
    Gender
    Age
    44
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Back to Boilermaker/weldering
    Politics
    not the Greens
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    815
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    now if Zimbabwe had oil do you think the yanks would not be there in a flash!

    they only pick on lesser powerful nations with oil hardly pushing the free democratic nation stuff is it
    Tasmanian twice the heads!!.......twice the intelligence!?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Iran's Nuclear Programme: Legal Debate Stirs Over Basis for US or Israeli Attack
    By Germania Magna in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, April 12th, 2012, 09:32 PM
  2. Obama Guarantees U.S. Nuclear Attack on Iran if Israel Attacked
    By beowulf wodenson in forum The United States
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: Friday, January 9th, 2009, 01:32 PM
  3. Iran Warns of Preemptive Strike to Prevent Attack on Nuclear Sites
    By Telperion in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Saturday, October 27th, 2007, 01:59 PM
  4. Silent Nuclear Submarines Add to Iran Tensions
    By Georgia in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, April 25th, 2006, 02:00 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •