Nuke Iran?
 

[quote="Philip Giraldi of The American Conservative":a5e40]The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. [b]As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.[/b][/quote:a5e40]

[url="http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2005/07/what_is_the_pla.html"]http://www.justinlogan.com/justinloganc ... e_pla.html[/url]
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6734

mmm i love the smell of uranium in the morning.

And a bonus:

[quote:5e567]The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.

The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.

President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.
[/quote:5e567]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ ... 2F864D.htm

dont you think every country in the world has these "contingicy plans" for whatever may occour? Id bet we have plans for the bombing of Canada too. Im sure just about every scenerio has been thought of and a plan is in order to take care of it, 9/11 taught us alot. Thats not news, thats just plans for "what if" situations.





BTW you say these drones are an act of war but didnt you say the illegal mexicans coming over the US border is not? Whats the difference between going into airspace and walking on the ground?


PS thats one creditable news source there oOo:

nothing appeals to their government more than seeing people die.

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":cd7bd]dont you think every country in the world has these "contingicy plans" for whatever may occour? Id bet we have plans for the bombing of Canada too. Im sure just about every scenerio has been thought of and a plan is in order to take care of it, 9/11 taught us alot. Thats not news, thats just plans for "what if" situations.[/quote:cd7bd]
Yes, probably. But thats not what i'm worried about. If the report is accurate, it says bluntly that Iran doesn't have to be responsible for the attacks. Doesn't that scare anyone?


[quote:cd7bd]
BTW you say these drones are an act of war but didnt you say the illegal mexicans coming over the US border is not? Whats the difference between going into airspace and walking on the ground?[/quote:cd7bd]
The drones are property of the US Air Force under control of the US government. Mexicans are Mexicans.

[quote:cd7bd]
PS thats one creditable news source there oOo:[/quote:cd7bd]
The article was written by Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector and US Marine.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter[/url]

And Al Jazeera is a lot more credible than the mainstream media would have you believe. There are a lot of other news networks in the mid east that are flushed in propaganda. All it is basically is a CNN for the middle east.

[quote:cd7bd]Al-Jazeera, owned by the government of Qatar, has fallen foul of governments across the Middle East.

It was banned from reporting in Iraq last year and has angered authorities in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan and Kuwait for its policy of airing opposition views and criticisms. [/quote:cd7bd]
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0419-08.htm

you posted something from Aljazeera and antiwar.com... oOo:

Man, you are annoying.

1) Those are the only sites that will actually carry any of these stories. Go back to watching Fox.

2) Refer to above post about Aljazeera.

3) The quote is taken from Philip Giraldi of The American Conservative. You can purchase this issue now as it is in the August 1st issue of this magazine.

So somebody told you Aljazeera was trustworthy and you beleive them? Why? can I just ask why you accept that? How can you say a muslim news channel known for showing Americans being beheaded is not slanted. You can't, you just want to side with them because the alternative is american news.

Dude...I didn't say they wern't slanted. I said there are a lot of other netowrks out there that are more slanted...the Bush administration decided to pick on aljazeera because it has the widest distribution. You can get aljazeera in canada and the US. I know people who have aljazeera in their homes...and who have had it for a long time.

Either way, the article is written by an AMERICAN! Aljazeera picked up the story because they and alternative sites are the only ones who will.

Re: Nuke Iran?
 

[quote=ninty][/quote:4a6b0]

now that is scarey ed:

Re: Nuke Iran?
 

[quote=1080jibber]now that is scarey ed:[/quote:7e9d2]

Isn't that pretty much what Afgahnistan was?

Yeah, and Iraq. But this time with Nukes.

Frightening stuff.

Very scary. I think we should use tactical nukes on Iran if and only if they intend to use theirs.