Panetta: Israel May Strike Iran This Spring
- Thread starter Pilgrim
- Start date
Israel may strike Iran this Spring...
I've been trying to follow this topic by reading and listening to "experts" in the media. Knowledgeable people such as former UN ambassador John Bolton, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney and several retired military folks seem to paint a dreadful picture of the coming showdown between Israel and Iran. Neutralizing Iran's budding nuclear program may be much more problematic than first thought.
Apparently, much of Iran's nuclear facilities is buried deep, deep underground or far inside impenetrable mountains. Moreover, the clever Iranians have scattered their nuclear sites all over the country; some sites are in urban areas, some sites are in remote areas and some sites are unknown. Israeli airstrikes alone won't demolish or fully eradicate Iran's nuclear program. It appears some nation or coalition of nations will have to put boots on the ground in Iran if success is to be achieved.
Occupy Iran? Let's hope not. What to do? Are we prepared to live with Iran's nuclear blackmail?
I've been trying to follow this topic by reading and listening to "experts" in the media. Knowledgeable people such as former UN ambassador John Bolton, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney and several retired military folks seem to paint a dreadful picture of the coming showdown between Israel and Iran. Neutralizing Iran's budding nuclear program may be much more problematic than first thought.
Apparently, much of Iran's nuclear facilities is buried deep, deep underground or far inside impenetrable mountains. Moreover, the clever Iranians have scattered their nuclear sites all over the country; some sites are in urban areas, some sites are in remote areas and some sites are unknown. Israeli airstrikes alone won't demolish or fully eradicate Iran's nuclear program. It appears some nation or coalition of nations will have to put boots on the ground in Iran if success is to be achieved.
Occupy Iran? Let's hope not. What to do? Are we prepared to live with Iran's nuclear blackmail?
Really though..no matter who tries what in the end....the human race has a history that is unflappable, undeniable.....we will find a way to kill, injury and maim ourselves...stalemate we all lose.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Well no matter what rhetoric we have been using, there will be blood shed on all sides for no real reason. The threat of a real war coming here is real, our own making and without the preparedness of the people to deal with it, the feds and states may have a hard time dealing with the people and the internal threat. Because many are either too stupid or blind by their ignorance, they don't see our priorties are so messed up, we have allowed people to be here with an open border while trying to fight someone else's war.
First secure our country, then help others - not the other way around.
So we allowed one horrible person to be replaced by another. Iran was no utopia under the Shah, his keeping a tight grip on the people was just as bad as the Ayatollah, in some cases worse.
Should we continue looking around and seeing what we have done to set us up for the future.
And when we go into a country to do pretty much the same thing, create a terror that changes political opinion, are we not a state sponsoring terrorism too?
Let's see ... the CIA in Libya?
OK who is the proven ally?
Israel?
Egypt?
Neither of them have proven themselves as a true ally, one takes our money and represses people with it while the other spies on us.
For that matter, I don't think we have a proven ally that we can count on, surely isn't France or Germany, maybe England if their interests are the same.
Shouldn't we start to look at the national guilt a bit more and move beyond that because it seems overall there isn't a lot of b*tching going on with using tax payer's money to fund the Muslim Brotherhood who seems to like the idea of our money but wants to see western values and for that matter the west gone.
Now that there are some "citizens" being "held" by the Egyptians, it is a big deal - screw what's going on along our border with thousands but 19 are far more important to the country.
I understand that and will help them defend themselves but not go to war for them over this issue. They said "we can handle it" and I beleive they can but why do we need to be there along side of them when they have not been with us on any war or engagement?
Not at all, I'll repeat what I said;
When will people get the idea that our involvement has a price and if we are going to attempt to contain a country while complaining about the president who is doing nothing, we can't afford the cost of this unless those countries [who needed us] pay for our involvement.
The submitted budget has $677B for defense and another $677B for dhs - without addressing direct threats to our country, NK and Iran are not those threats.
So if you are for the intervention of Iran, then you must side with Obama and his budget and policies because he is president - right?
If you don't want to continuely be part of a debter's nation, then stand with those who don't want to see more and more money leave the country with absolutly no return.
To summerize, it is easy to bash the president for the debt increased during his term but if one is to do that, then all operations overseas that have no direct bearing on our national defense (meaning preventing a DIRECT ATTACK) need to be critizied and included in the bashing. If one seperates the issues, then one is siding with Obama that the debt is not important as being arrogant and telling another country what we want them to do.
Why don't we cut all foriegn aid to all countries?
I see it as a problem with priorities, we are quick to point out that oil is a national security issue while it is, our border is number one national security issue, then our debt second. Iran may rank 10th or 11th if put in proper order but by no means it is higher than investing into securing our country's borders first and foremost.
Think again, there would have been a change of the republic again if the French engaged the Germans, at the time the strength of the French appeared good on paper but the mindet of the people didn't appear anywhere. The people were tired of fighting, one reason why Blum (one reason his government failed was because the people didn't want to deal with foriegn issues) and Daladier both would not engage the Germans, the people wanted ensurances of peace and when Daladier approached the Brits to see help in fixing the German issue, they refused so Daladier did nothing and that was fine with the rest of France.
That's true but the French didn't and this was the start of the problems for all of us. If Germany didn't fulfill their obligation with Japan by declaring war with us we would not have been involved with Europe, if we intervened in China in the early 30's (which was a far worse problem) and a whole bunch more things that happened when we could have been there to stop the Japanese or better yet like not participating in the first war, we would not have been in the weaken position by 1939.
What poltical crisis?
The AD being a crisis?
I think if anything, they depended on other's charity to help them with their German issue, going back to 1933 or 32 when they decided to default on our loan to them for financing the first war, it triggers a number of problems for us and our government responded by not allowing them to buy armaments until a solid agreement was worked out - we were supposed to get their territories in the caribbian and south pacific if I remember right.
Funny when you think about it, they squeeze everything out of Germany when Germany needed relief and then they default on the loan we made to them to fund a war of their own making then get mad at us because we would not give them more money to buy weapons from us.
I thought we were involved with one war?
Unpopular?
I don't know by the idea that we don't hear the truth about the war, or hearing how we actually lost it and one of our allies, doesn't seem to be a crisis - all good news from the front.
We drew down our military in the 20's, early 20's because we could not sustain the level of troops for a war that wasn't going to happen. The violations didn't come until 1935 - the obvious ones - and then we were in the midst of a self-induced depression.
I see it to a point but it is not the same thing. Iran is not seeking Lebensraum but is trying to show a force in the middle east under religions overtones. Pretty much the same thing throughout the region but not limited to the Middle East.
Yep I know history, Germany declared war on us, remember?
AND we were screwed over by our allies after the war, no one paid us back and countries like France crapped on us in the 50's while getting us into another war - remember Vietnam?
Well from the numbers, we have no choice. Our national debt affects our economy and the idea that we need to grow manufacturing at any costs are getting us in more debt. The military needs to be justified, having them state side and securing the border is one way of doing it but having them over in SK while defending SK from NK is not justified for any reason. I am trying to figure out where in our constitution it says that our military is used for that purpose. We might as well have a branch of the military that is a merciary branch that charges for their use.
I don't know about that socialist thing, Eisenhower did the same thing, he reduced the military's budget (A LOT I might add) and with the reduction of man power, we survived.
First secure our country, then help others - not the other way around.
So we allowed one horrible person to be replaced by another. Iran was no utopia under the Shah, his keeping a tight grip on the people was just as bad as the Ayatollah, in some cases worse.
Should we continue looking around and seeing what we have done to set us up for the future.
And when we go into a country to do pretty much the same thing, create a terror that changes political opinion, are we not a state sponsoring terrorism too?
Let's see ... the CIA in Libya?
OK who is the proven ally?
Israel?
Egypt?
Neither of them have proven themselves as a true ally, one takes our money and represses people with it while the other spies on us.
For that matter, I don't think we have a proven ally that we can count on, surely isn't France or Germany, maybe England if their interests are the same.
Shouldn't we start to look at the national guilt a bit more and move beyond that because it seems overall there isn't a lot of b*tching going on with using tax payer's money to fund the Muslim Brotherhood who seems to like the idea of our money but wants to see western values and for that matter the west gone.
Now that there are some "citizens" being "held" by the Egyptians, it is a big deal - screw what's going on along our border with thousands but 19 are far more important to the country.
Who's Glenn Beck?But seriously, yes they can defend themselves but they do need our help with the provision of arms and weapons. The point is that they declare openly their intent to eliminate a sovereign nation and its people - that's not good.
I understand that and will help them defend themselves but not go to war for them over this issue. They said "we can handle it" and I beleive they can but why do we need to be there along side of them when they have not been with us on any war or engagement?
Not at all, I'll repeat what I said;
When will people get the idea that our involvement has a price and if we are going to attempt to contain a country while complaining about the president who is doing nothing, we can't afford the cost of this unless those countries [who needed us] pay for our involvement.
The submitted budget has $677B for defense and another $677B for dhs - without addressing direct threats to our country, NK and Iran are not those threats.
So if you are for the intervention of Iran, then you must side with Obama and his budget and policies because he is president - right?
If you don't want to continuely be part of a debter's nation, then stand with those who don't want to see more and more money leave the country with absolutly no return.
To summerize, it is easy to bash the president for the debt increased during his term but if one is to do that, then all operations overseas that have no direct bearing on our national defense (meaning preventing a DIRECT ATTACK) need to be critizied and included in the bashing. If one seperates the issues, then one is siding with Obama that the debt is not important as being arrogant and telling another country what we want them to do.
Why don't we cut all foriegn aid to all countries?
I see it as a problem with priorities, we are quick to point out that oil is a national security issue while it is, our border is number one national security issue, then our debt second. Iran may rank 10th or 11th if put in proper order but by no means it is higher than investing into securing our country's borders first and foremost.
Think again, there would have been a change of the republic again if the French engaged the Germans, at the time the strength of the French appeared good on paper but the mindet of the people didn't appear anywhere. The people were tired of fighting, one reason why Blum (one reason his government failed was because the people didn't want to deal with foriegn issues) and Daladier both would not engage the Germans, the people wanted ensurances of peace and when Daladier approached the Brits to see help in fixing the German issue, they refused so Daladier did nothing and that was fine with the rest of France.
That's true but the French didn't and this was the start of the problems for all of us. If Germany didn't fulfill their obligation with Japan by declaring war with us we would not have been involved with Europe, if we intervened in China in the early 30's (which was a far worse problem) and a whole bunch more things that happened when we could have been there to stop the Japanese or better yet like not participating in the first war, we would not have been in the weaken position by 1939.
What poltical crisis?
The AD being a crisis?
I think if anything, they depended on other's charity to help them with their German issue, going back to 1933 or 32 when they decided to default on our loan to them for financing the first war, it triggers a number of problems for us and our government responded by not allowing them to buy armaments until a solid agreement was worked out - we were supposed to get their territories in the caribbian and south pacific if I remember right.
Funny when you think about it, they squeeze everything out of Germany when Germany needed relief and then they default on the loan we made to them to fund a war of their own making then get mad at us because we would not give them more money to buy weapons from us.
I thought we were involved with one war?
Unpopular?
I don't know by the idea that we don't hear the truth about the war, or hearing how we actually lost it and one of our allies, doesn't seem to be a crisis - all good news from the front.
We drew down our military in the 20's, early 20's because we could not sustain the level of troops for a war that wasn't going to happen. The violations didn't come until 1935 - the obvious ones - and then we were in the midst of a self-induced depression.
I see it to a point but it is not the same thing. Iran is not seeking Lebensraum but is trying to show a force in the middle east under religions overtones. Pretty much the same thing throughout the region but not limited to the Middle East.
Yep I know history, Germany declared war on us, remember?
AND we were screwed over by our allies after the war, no one paid us back and countries like France crapped on us in the 50's while getting us into another war - remember Vietnam?
Well from the numbers, we have no choice. Our national debt affects our economy and the idea that we need to grow manufacturing at any costs are getting us in more debt. The military needs to be justified, having them state side and securing the border is one way of doing it but having them over in SK while defending SK from NK is not justified for any reason. I am trying to figure out where in our constitution it says that our military is used for that purpose. We might as well have a branch of the military that is a merciary branch that charges for their use.
I don't know about that socialist thing, Eisenhower did the same thing, he reduced the military's budget (A LOT I might add) and with the reduction of man power, we survived.
Of course no one knows the exact details of all the locations for their nuclear facilities, but some are more critical than others. We do know that the U.S. is providing Israel more of the enhanced versions of the 30K lb bunker busters that would supposedly be effective against most of these underground reactors. The theory has also been advanced that if they're that far underground they could effectively be entombed and rendered ineffective by attacks from these huge bombs.
Any version of the above scenario is only a band-aid; the long term solution is regime change, and to allow the younger, more educated population of Iranians - such as the Green Movement - to get rid of the radical theocrats and hopefully put a more moderate government in place.
Something like this could be facilitated by pending legislation before the Senate that would encourage SWIFT (the international banking transaction network) to expel Iran's member banks and put some SERIOUS hurt on their economy plus severely limit funds that would go toward their nuclear development.
"The legislation’s banking provision, aimed at forcing the telecommunications network to expel Iranian banks that have already been blacklisted, would be financially catastrophic for Iran if carried out fully, according to proponents and sanctions experts. Expulsion from the network — the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, known as Swift — would deny to Iran many billions of dollars in revenue from abroad that is routinely routed into its domestic banking system."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/w...iran-penalty-clears-senate-banking-panel.html
No matter which alternative is taken - there's not going to be a perfect outcome. Of course Barack Hussein Obama would prefer to delay anything and everything until after the election, but it doesn't look like that's going to be the case. But at least the SWIFT alternative might stall Israel's military alternative, provide more encouragement to the Green Movement and weaken the mullahs' hold on power.
No matter what happens, we may as well get used to the idea of higher fuel costs - looks like they're here to stay for a while. Maybe Obama might want to reconsider the Keystone Pipeline after all.