Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A ray of hope on Iran? ...I don't know whether to believe this or not...?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
99th_Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 11:43 PM
Original message
A ray of hope on Iran? ...I don't know whether to believe this or not...?
I'd LOVE to believe this, that some actual thinking is going on regarding attacking Iran, and cooler heads are prevailing. Could this be true?
Anyone else have a take on this? :shrug:

************************************
US and Israel 'face up to' Iran bomb
telegraph.co.uk
By Philip Sherwell in New York and Matthew Kalman in Jerusalem
Last Updated: 4:35pm GMT 18/11/2007

America and Israel are secretly drawing up plans to deal with an Iran that has acquired nuclear weapons, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.

Teheran's two arch-foes are preparing for what they have long declared is an unacceptable scenario, as the prospects for air strikes to cripple Iran's nuclear network fade, and China and Russia undermine efforts to forge an international sanctions regime.

The United States and Israel are sticking publicly to their threats not to allow the Islamic Republic to develop an atomic bomb. But intelligence chiefs and military planners have given warning that Iran has done better at hiding and dispersing its nuclear facilities than previously assessed, this newspaper has been told.
advertisement

The revelations come as the United Nations nuclear watchdog has revealed that Iran has stepped up its production of enriched uranium, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tightens his grip on Teheran's nuclear programme by threatening domestic critics with treason charges.

Pentagon strategists are updating US deterrence policies for a future nuclear-armed Iran, even though after the terrorist attack on New York and Washington in 2001 the Bush administration put a policy of pre-emptive military action at the heart of national security policy.

"The more they looked at the intelligence and the information they had, the more pessimistic they have become about what could be achieved on the operational front by military action," said Dan Goure, a Pentagon adviser.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/20...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Basileus Basileon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's no more "good news" than
Edited on Sun Nov-18-07 11:46 PM by Basileus Basileon
American military plans for an airstrike are "bad news." We find that there is a possibility that war will occur, so we plan for it. We find that there is a possibility of an Iranian nuke, so we plan for it.

You know, planning for all contingencies. It's what we were angry that Bush didn't do after the fall of Baghdad.

As for the strike being found unfeasible? That's good news, sort of, but I doubt it's anything that wasn't known in the Pentagon months ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
99th_Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Well, I know CENTCOM Commander Fallon has said "not on my watch"
AND I also know Cheney et. al. have been beating their war drums non-stop. Clearly there's something in play here.

I also know Petraeus just came back to DC for a week to lead the committee selecting new Generals, so there's that too.

It would appear there's a quiet mutiny among the current Generals & Joint Chiefs, and I hope they continue to stand their
ground. The last thing we need is a new war to further weaken and abuse our military.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. the professionals have become 'more pessimistic' the administration sure as hell hasn't
and we've all seen how the administration treats those professionals who dare to oppose their aims. they WILL have their war with iran, its only a matter of time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. And what's worse...
I don't buy the whole story. Bush has had it in for Iran since we went into Afghanistan. In short, Iran helped the US to get the Taliban. After they fell, Bush told the Iranians that he knew they were hiding OBL's brother. They insisted that they didn't have him, Bush insisted they did. So they stopped talking and 2 days later Bush added Iran to the "axis of evil".

If you all have not watched either of these 2 PBS docu's, you really should;
(about Iran)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/view /

(about Cheney, and inventing new laws for Bush)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/view/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
99th_Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. thanks. got them bookmarked now, for later. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
99th_Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Petraeus hand-picking a new crop of Generals as we speak.
Petraeus Helping Pick New Generals
Army Says Innovation Will Be Rewarded

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 17, 2007; Page A01

The Army has summoned the top U.S. commander in Iraq back to Washington to preside over a board that will pick some of the next generation of Army leaders, an unusual decision that officials say represents a vote of confidence in Gen. David H. Petraeus's conduct of the war, as well as the Army counterinsurgency doctrine he helped rewrite.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Looking for Generals That Will Say "Yes Sir" When Bush** Orders them to Attack Iran
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-20-07 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. a purge?
meep
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 06:52 AM
Response to Original message
8. All papers are coming out with Iran as enriching uranium
at a speed enough to have a bomb in a year. Not really sure it is true. The problem being of course, that lies have carried the day before and have not been dealt with. When there is a mix of truth and a mix of falsehoods, we are in trouble as a people. You don't know when and how much you are being manipulated. If Iran does have nuclear capability, we won't attack (I thought I would add).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
99th_Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-19-07 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. If you believe Cheney, Iran's 1-2 years away from a nuke. If you believe
professional experts it's more like 10 years. I'm going with the latter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-20-07 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. the papers are parroting bush lies and as usual ignoring the truth
the IAEA only seems to be treated with respect by 'other than american' media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 30th 2014, 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC