Alliedassault - View Single Post

Tripper · 09-23-2005, 09:27 PM

Well can someone explain to me what that talk of the U.S actually using these plans if they're attacked again by a terrorist, was about? Was that just bullshit? I can't remember which thread the link was in but it was an extract from a conservative magazine regarding the acting out of those "contingency" plans, with or without direct evidence of a terrorist attack coming from Iran.

That's what my Morale High Ground opinion is based on/refering too.

I just don't think making war (whether or not the country is under an extremist islamic government) without direct evidence of this hypothetical (but likely) terrorist attack originating from there, is on the 'moral high ground' in relation to a nation that is in a potentially innocent position.

I wasn't refering to the countries themselves. I don't think you guys are that evil, lol. Just in that individual situation. I don't agree with the government in Iran, but then again I don't think that's reason enough to start a war with them.

EDIT:

This is what I was refering too....

[quote=ninty]US already has a contingency plan to attack Iran using nukes, so why not North Korea? Cheney already said if another 9/11 type attack happens, the US has the right to attack Iran, whether they are involved or not.

[quote="From the August 1 Issue of The American Conservative":c2f32]In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. 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 [b]plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.[/b] 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[/b]. 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.[/quote]
[url="http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html"]http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html[/url]

This is from a Conservative magazine, so you can't call this "Liberal bias" or anything of that sort.[/quote:c2f32]

	(#15)
Tripper is Offline General of the Army Posts: 18,895 Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand	09-23-2005, 09:27 PM Well can someone explain to me what that talk of the U.S actually using these plans if they're attacked again by a terrorist, was about? Was that just bullshit? I can't remember which thread the link was in but it was an extract from a conservative magazine regarding the acting out of those "contingency" plans, with or without direct evidence of a terrorist attack coming from Iran. That's what my Morale High Ground opinion is based on/refering too. I just don't think making war (whether or not the country is under an extremist islamic government) without direct evidence of this hypothetical (but likely) terrorist attack originating from there, is on the 'moral high ground' in relation to a nation that is in a potentially innocent position. I wasn't refering to the countries themselves. I don't think you guys are that evil, lol. Just in that individual situation. I don't agree with the government in Iran, but then again I don't think that's reason enough to start a war with them. EDIT: This is what I was refering too.... [quote=ninty]US already has a contingency plan to attack Iran using nukes, so why not North Korea? Cheney already said if another 9/11 type attack happens, the US has the right to attack Iran, whether they are involved or not. [quote="From the August 1 Issue of The American Conservative":c2f32]In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. 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 [b]plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.[/b] 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[/b]. 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.[/quote] [url="http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html"]http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html[/url] This is from a Conservative magazine, so you can't call this "Liberal bias" or anything of that sort.[/quote:c2f32]