Israel nuclear attack on Iran: conspiracy by an oil long?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by scriabinop23, Jan 6, 2007.

  1. We have 4 carrier groups now which is the reason an Admiral was put in charge. He is an expert in using naval firepower to destroy opposing forces.

    The price of oil has been high because everone knew the conflict between Iran and Israel was coming to a head sooner or later.

    This was leaked to scare the shit out of Iran and get leverage. and as signal to the Iranian insurgents that time is drawing closer for regime change. Iran can barely get its government in power. Once the facilties are blown out then the present Iranian leaders will be tossed out of office and a pro western government will emerge.

    Next we take care of Syria. Without Syria or Iran causing problems in Iraq, then Iraq will stablize.

    This was always going to be the way it came down.

    #11     Jan 7, 2007
  2. He also said there was no intention of attacking Israel and Iran was a peace loving country. As a matter of fact Iran has attacked no other country for a long time.

    So which do you take to be the truth ? Or is it just propaganda that interests you ?

    The only player that has any semblance of objectivity in all of this is the IAEA, and it has reported that it has found no evidence of nuclear materials being diverted to military uses in Iran. The IAEA was right about Iraq in the midst of a flood of lies and propaganda issueing from the US and UK. All the evidence suggests that IAEA inspections are effective in controlling proliferation in countries that have signed up to the NPT. Proliferation has occured in countries that didn't sign up - notably Israel.

    The Bush administration does not give a hoot about non-proliferation. It has consistantly attempted to undermine the credability of the IAEA in persuit of its neocon imperial dreams. The point is that Iran is perfectly entitled to enrich nuclear materials for peaceful purposes under the NPT. Destroy the NPT, which is effectively what the current US administration is about, and international control of nuclear weapons will end up in the hands of whatever nut case might be in power in the US at the time. This is the aim of the current US administration. Should it be achieved, the end result is far more likely to be proliferation, than non-proliferation.

    Whether Iran will develop nuclear weapons is not known. What is certain is that the more threats that are made against Iran, the more likely it will become.

    As a side note, one has to wonder about the current moves by Bush to replace top brass, send more troops to Iraq and the build up of naval and air power in the Gulf. Only an idiot could possibly believe that 10,000, 20,000 or even 50,000 more US troops in Iraq is going to make any real difference to the internal situation in that country. However the change of command and military build up may be a precursor to an attack on Iran. Who knows ?
    #12     Jan 7, 2007
  3. After the stupendous "success" of the misadeventure in Iraq, how can you possibly believe this fairy tale ? Utterly unrealistic.
    #13     Jan 7, 2007
  4. i agree with this perception on it. has anything really changed with the bush administration? Iran is one of the only serious remaining threats to our access of reliable oil supply, and what better time to deal with this than now?

    i do have my doubts and wonders about ahmadinejad's motives in his anti israeli rhetoric though (in particular the holocaust denying side of it).

    i'm honestly almost driven to the point of apathy on this whole conflict...

    back to trading: will the oil markets react to this?? i'm doubting it...
    #14     Jan 7, 2007
  5. This is science fiction, something out of star wars, like Skywalker taking out the death star, by dropping those bombs down that shaft.

    The odds of success without something going wrong (ie Radiation fallout) look pretty low to me, so i reckon they will use conventional bunker busters instead.
    #15     Jan 7, 2007
  6. dhpar


    you must be kidding me....

    I was in Iran about 10 years ago (long time) and along the roads were posters with skull wearing fascist helmet and headline "Destroy Israel"... what a peace loving country that is...
    #16     Jan 7, 2007
  7. clacy


    The only reason Iraq hasn't been more successful, is the Bush administration has not let our military do their job.

    What they need to do rather than send in more troops, is kick out the liberal media (which serves to protect the terrorists) and let the damn Marines do their job..................kill the bad guys.

    We could have Iraq completely under control in less than a month.
    #17     Jan 7, 2007
  8. dhpar


    dcraig fyi...from the last week...

    TEHRAN: Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a new verbal attack against Israel on Wednesday, saying he believed it would soon collapse, state media reported.

    Ahmadinejad, who has sparked international outcry by referring to the killing of six million Jews in World War Two as a “myth” and calling for Israel to be “wiped off the map”, made the comments in a speech in the southern province of Khuzestan.

    “I’m sure that soon we will observe the collapse of the Zionist regime (Israel),” the official IRNA news agency quoted him as saying, without elaborating. “The Holocaust was fabricated by the West in order to reach its goals,” state television quoted him as saying.

    Last month, he told delegates at an international conference in Tehran questioning the Holocaust that Israel’s days were numbered: “Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out.” reuters
    #18     Jan 7, 2007
  9. both sides of this argument have good points: 1) Iran's actions and statements aren't particularly likable and are not worthy of trust or credibility (further the holocaust denial just makes me lose all respect for their need for autonomy), 2) US' motives and effectiveness are doubtful, insincere and likely ineffective, and 3) there appears no solution in sight where there is a happy ending for all parties involved.
    #19     Jan 7, 2007
  10. I agree with that. I don't see anything particularly offensive about holding a view that the state of Israel should never have existed in it's current form. One could equally hold a view that the state of Iraq was really a creation of British imperialism and things could have been done far better. Right or wrong, there is no reason why somebody shouldn't hold such views without being accused of anti Semitism.

    However the stuff on the holocaust is another matter and is very offensive. Even if he believes it (which he may not, and be just playing to a perceived audience) it is just plain stupid to try to play on it.
    #20     Jan 7, 2007