Posted on 04/15/2008 9:24:41 AM PDT by davidosborne
T S Eliot's famous opening lines from The Waste Land come to mind as Washington confirms that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is heading for the Middle East to attend an international conference regarding the Iraq situation, in Kuwait on April 22. This will be no ordinary run-of-the-mill international conference. It's about Iraq. And Rice may well bump into her Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki.
(Excerpt) Read more at atimes.com ...
I think we ALL agree it is just a matter of time..
...your choices are
A. Hours
B. Days
C. Weeks
D. Months
E. Years
My SWAG on the matter is it’s all saber rattling and nothing more.......
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=56152
In all fairness....
Source from which thread title was borrowed...
A war or a rumor of war? Time will tell.
The NFL players Union will strike again long before the iranian action.
Never.
“A war or a rumor of war? Time will tell.”
Ummmm, Matthew 24, one of my most favorite chapters in the Bible.
Never was not on the list of choices .... please choose ONLY from the list of posted options :)
BTTT
I have never chosen from the list of options and I ain’t about to start now. :)
Agreed
If the US were to strike the centrifuges, the released UF4 would catch fire, expelling huge amounts of radioactive smoke, and potentially blanketing a large area. Not unlike Chernobyl, it would create a huge "Dead Zone" around the site, although the local contamination would be orders of magnitude larger than Chernobyl, due to the fact that most of the uranium is in a gaseous form, and readily distributed in the air.
We need to think long and hard before carrying out such a strike.
me either... you probably recognize my sarcasm without the need for the tag...
FReegards,
David
This clown is so off base it's not funny. Besides, the headline has no relation to the article.
I think we have ALLL been thinking long and hard about this... but I still think it just a matter of time my FRiend...
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=56152
The headline as posted on FR was borrowed from this “banned” source..
I thought it was UF6. It would seem to me that it would be difficult to burn this stuff. I am assuming that the U-F bonds are pretty stong.
The day after a mushroom cloud appears over Chicago and not before.
exactly what would happen if the liberals were in charge.. let’s pray THAT never happens
hexa fluoride
In other words, this is nothing like the Osirik reactor strike on Iraq by the Israelis years ago. That was a one-hit, one-kill operation. What is required here is nothing short of an invasion at least double the size of the one that took out Saddam.
Now, where do you see that army coming from? Where do you see public support for such an invasion? I don't foresee anyone seriously tackling Iran for at least 5 years, when both Iraq and Afghanistan can be called "pacified."
Never is a long time.
I do not know when, but sometime in the future we will engage Iran. There are ways to prevent it, but it would take this nation to speak with one voice like we once did before the Democrats decided the best way to win elections was to destroy any progress made by a Repubican reagardless of price paid by this nation.
We will end up in a war because the other side does not think we will, and they will keep pushing until we have no choice, even if a Democrat is President (and maybe because a Democrat is in office).
The war in Iraq would be over if the Democrats had not made it a polictical issue to win an election. It sent a signal to our enemies if they just keep killing Americans we would quit and go home.
As Korea and Viet Nam were not just about Korea and Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq are not just about those two countries. We are in a war of survival. We currently have an advantage of technology and skill, and a choice of battlefields. If we pick up and come home, the war will not end, only the battlefields will change.
I would rather fight the war now rather then leave it to my Grandchildren to fight later.
I was gonna go with:"The Chicago Cubs will win another World Series".
It will be a combined US-Iraqi operation. That’s why we are training and equipping such a large Iraqi army...
F. Decades
G. Centuries
H. Never
Given the current fecklessness that the GWB administration is showing on anything other than Iraq and Afghanistan, and the potential for a 'Rat takeover next year, I'm afraid the answer is H.
Yep.
I say “weeks”.... probably when the weather improves a bit over there.
Interesting take. In ten years time if the Iraqis continue to move toward a free society they will be THE power in the Middle East. I'm sure they wouldn't mind a little payback against those that made the journey so tough.
Whoops!!
Uranium Hexaflouride. Thanks for the correction.
The bonds are tight, but it does react with water, and would be released with any fire as a gas. The resulting reactions would make quite a mess of the local environment, and be carried aloft, contaminating a huge area. Due to the fact that the release would be pure uranium, as opposed to other isotopes, the contamination would be quite pervasive, due to its monumental half life.
BTW, saw "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood." The former was one of those "huh?" movies, long and painful. The latter was saved only by the incredible performance of DDL and the remarkable score, which always gave you the feeling something was "about to happen," when in fact nothing ever happened!
Sadly, I fear that you are right.....
Hi David....
I just received this:
Source: U.S. Strike on Iran Nearing
Monday, April 14, 2008 9:37 PM
By: Jim Meyers
Contrary to some claims that the Bush administration will allow diplomacy to handle Iran’s nuclear weapons program, a leading member of America’s Jewish community tells Newsmax that a military strike is not only on the table – but likely.
“Israel is preparing for heavy casualties,” the source said, suggesting that although Israel will not take part in the strike, it is expecting to be the target of Iranian retribution.
“Look at Dick Cheney’s recent trip through the Middle East as preparation for the U.S. attack,” the source said.
Cheney’s hastily arranged 9-day visit to the region, which began on March 16, included stops in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Turkey, and the Palestinian territories.
Tensions in the region have been rising.
While Israel was conducting the largest homefront military exercises in its history last week, Israel’s National Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer warned Tehran about expected attacks on the Jewish state.
“An Iranian attack will prompt a severe reaction from Israel, which will destroy the Iranian nation,” he said.
He predicted that in a future war, “hundreds of missiles will rain on Israel,” but added that Iran “is definitely aware of our strength.”
In addition to long-range missiles Iran has been developing to strike Israel, Israel’s military strategists see the Iranians using terror groups they back like Hamas operating from Palestine and Hezbollah from Lebanon to launch attacks.
Iran has supplied Hezbollah with an arsenal that now contains “tens of thousands of missiles,” according to the Washington Post.
IIsrael’s recent war exercises, including preparations for chemical and biological weapons attacks, drew a sharp response from Syria which held its own military drills. The Syrian government accused Israel of preparing for a war which Damascus predicted would be begin anytime between May 1 and the end of June.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently told foreign journalists that Israel needs to confront the threat posed by Iran. Privately he has been telling associates his number one priority is have the Israeli military strike Iran if the U.S. is unwilling.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz disclosed that Israel is concerned that North Korea has transferred technology and nuclear materials to Iran to aid Tehran’s secret nuclear weapons program.
Iran remains intransigent to international pressure that it offer full transparency relating to its nuclear program. On Sunday the head of Iran’s nuclear program “abruptly canceled a meeting with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, dealing a blow to the U.N. monitor’s efforts to investigate allegations that Iran tried to make nuclear arms, an agency official said,” according to an AP report.
“But a senior diplomat had told the AP that IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] head Mohamed ElBaradei likely planned to use the meeting with Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran’s nuclear program, to renew a request for more information on allegations Tehran had tried to make atomic arms.”
A number of signs indicate that, contrary to the belief President Bush is a lame duck who will not act before he leaves office, the U.S. is poised to strike before Iran can acquire nuclear weapons and carry out the threat of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to “wipe Israel off the map”:
# According to intelligence sources, the administration now rejects the National Intelligence Estimate report issued in December that asserted Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in late 2003.
The French daily Le Monde reported in March that newly surfaced documents show that Iran has continued developing nuclear weapons. In late 2006, U.S. intelligence reportedly intercepted a phone conversation in Iran’s Defense Ministry in which the nuclear weapons program was discussed.
# The commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, Admiral William Fallon, resigned in March amid media reports that he broke with President Bush’s strategy on Iran and did not want to be in the chain of command when the order comes down from the President to launch a strike on the Islamic Republic.
Democrats suggested he had been forced out because of his candor in opposing Bush’s Iran plans, and Esquire magazine contended that Fallon’s departure signaled that the U.S. is preparing to attack Iran.
# According to a Tehran-based Iranian news network, Press TV, Saudi Arabia is taking emergency steps in preparing to counter any “radioactive hazards” that may result from an American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The Saudi newspaper Okaz disclosed that the Saudi government has approved nuclear fallout preparations, and the Iranian network reported that the approval came a day after Cheney met with the kingdom’s high-ranking officials, further stating that the U.S. “is now informing its Arab allies of a potential war.”
# The American commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, has stepped up criticism of Iran, telling Congress last week that Iranian support for Shiite militias posed the most serious threat to Iraq’s stability. He told senators : “Iran has fueled the violence in a particularly damaging way.” Last week, the U.S. said Iran was providing insurgents with missiles that were killing Americans and hitting targets within the U.S. occupied Green Zone in Baghdad.
MSNBC Commentator Pat Buchanan said Petraeus’ remarks to Congress lay the groundwork for a U.S. attack on Iran.
# President Bush said in a speech at the White House on April 10 that Iran, along with al-Qaida, are “two of the greatest threats to America.”
He said Iran “can live in peace with its neighbors,” or “continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups which are terrorizing the Iraqi people … If Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests and our troops and our Iraqi partners.”
He later told ABC News that if Iran continues to help militants in Iraq, “then we’ll deal with them.”
Members of Congress are said to have been briefed by the administration about the rising Iran threat.
Iran did little to cool tensions when it announced that it had begun installing 6,000 new centrifuges at its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz.
Centrifuges can enrich uranium to a low level to produce nuclear fuel or a high level for use in weapons.
The announcement of the new centrifuges by President Ahmadinejad came on April 8, Iran’s National Day of Nuclear Technology, which marked the second anniversary of Iran’s first enrichment of uranium.
Iran already has about 3,000 centrifuges operating in Natanz, and the new announcement was widely seen as a show of defiance to international demands to halt a nuclear program that the U.S. and its allies insist is aimed at building nuclear weapons. “
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/iran_nuclear_strike/2008/04/14/87887.html?s=al&promo_code=4940-1
Yes, training will need to step up. But remember, they will be fighting the Iranians, not the Gurkhas!
Let’s see. Just before the general election?
E, if ever.
Any possibility that, instead of attacking the nuke facilities directly, the U.S. has a plan to behead the Iranian leadership and aid in a more favorable replacement?
That might get some other countries in the region on board - the mulluhs in Iran have got to be making everyone else nervous.
Simply expressing a pre-meditated intent to question or disobey military orders is enough for removal. Someone in that position cannot waffle when told what to do. Order X may not be imminent or even expected, but if the superior considers it a viable option, he expects the subordinates to carry it out if given.
I know, but they didn’t do all that great the last time they fought the Iranians.
Considering the disparite sizes and numbers of men under arms the Saddam Iraqis had in the 80’s when compared to what the Iranians had, I’d say the Iraqis did rather well just to keep from being over run. And don’t forget, the war they were fighting was so savage that chemical weapons were being used by one and the other side had unarmed 15 yo kids being marched in front of assault troops to clear minefields with their own bodies.
It was not a spectacular performance by Saddam’s military — that would have required them getting more in their first campaign and then holding on to the gains they made in the initial ‘79 invasion. But avoiding total defeat, when large segments of the “rear echelon” was sympathetic to their fellow Shia’s, was actually a credit to the Iraqi military. It also gave some fuel to the doom and gloomers that forsaw body bags in the thousands during the run-up to the first Gulf War.
Even as a gas, the products are very heavy. They should settle within a small distance. This is unless there is a tremendously large explosion driving the products into the upper atmosphere (nuclear?).
The point about the Iraqi army, raised by Karnage, was that this was one of the reasons we are building up such a large Iraqi force. But there are significant differences between a military fighting on its "home turf" and trying to make that army into an invasion force. Historically, 3d party armies do NOT do well in invasions. So take whatever effectiveness you think the Iraqis have and cut it at least in half if they move into Iran. Yes, the Iraqis did a commendable job against a much larger Iranian force in the 1980s, but they got to play defense for the most part.
Bottom line, neither we, nor a combination of us and the Iraqis, have sufficient ground strength to take Iran right now without massively reordering our land troops from around the world. So unless you see all our troops pulled out of Korea and Germany, I wouldn't count on any kind of strike on Iran happening.
I would’nt mind seeing our troops pulled out of Europe.
We would be about 15 years late for the door as far as those ungrateful clymers are concerned. Let the EU puff on russian gas, let in more muzzies to do their work for them, and go extinct already. We know they won’t be around in another century, unless they suddenly grow a pair and if that were to happen, they would’nt need us anyway.
I would like to make sure there is still a US in another 100 years. What we do in the next decade, which fork in the road we pick, could well be the fulcrum for our history. Leaving Europe to gaze at their own navels and commit cultural suicide one muzzie immigrant and baby at a time is not a great choice, but may end up being our ONLY choice.
hmmmmm... so you would rather fight our enemies in OUR yard instead of theirs?
I’m going to bite my lip on this one. Both extremes of view can present compelling cases why we won’t or why we will.
Better there than here
Oh, well. The gurgling sound is this particular analyst's credibility going down the drain.
The author is an Indian diplomat whose attention is naturally focused somewhat disproportionately on international diplomacy as a means of remediation of this decidedly nondiplomatic issue. Were a genuine military strike imminent it is questionable if Rice would even be in theater much less sitting down at a meeting with her Iranian counterpart.
The issue at hand is Iraq. Sufficient Iranian meddling will keep U.S. troops in the area no matter who is elected President due simply to the fact that neither of the Democratic candidates can afford the opprobrium of a disaster following a precipitate withdrawal. International sources (Reuters, the Arab News, et al) seem convinced that a Democratic victory will mean an immediate sea change in that particular conflict.
They will be sorely disappointed. What would allow a presumptive Democrat President the ability to make that sort of change are precisely those actions the Iranians, Syrians, and others are least likely to commit to - an end to the stirring up of violence in Iraq and some sort of accommodation with Israel. They would prefer a propaganda victory to the real thing, and ironically the Democrats would be willing to offer them a real victory but not a propaganda one. That is the consequence of turning this illegitimately into a domestic political weapon - it will remain one after the election.
Things don't look any better from the Iranian point of view with a presumptive McCain victory in the election. My guess is that Rice is going to attempt to explain some of this to the Iranians. My guess is that she will fail to convince them.
Next administration.
E. Years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.