Iraq attack?

[Architorture]

furthermore, what is this nuclear material you claim was used in fallujah? b/c then you say it was mustard gas ect ect... which was it? all of them?

granted the US does use depleted uranium rounds against armoured vehicles and such, but that isn't what foot soldiers and light cavalry are using...and it is also not considered a nuclear weapon

[SDR]

I don't think anyone is predicting an attack in the next month -- but Hersh makes the point that it would be preferable to move in time for things to simmer down for a couple of years, before the next US election, when the repugs very much intend to elect another of their number to the office of the Supreme Commander -- er, president.

Another report in recent days concerned the apparent indifference of the Bagdad command to the presence of the contingent of journalists housed in a Bagdad hotel during the height of the hostilities; he is quoted as telling them, in effect, that their position was not protected, despite the policy of "embedment" which granted certain journalists access and protection in exchange for carefully-monitored coverage of "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

SDR

[Richard Haut]

ask the Iraqi ministry of health - they are the ones who mention nuclear material. Perhaps they mean that among the assorted chemical weapons the troops used there was depleted uranium, perhaps they meant something else.

I agree that an attack on Syria or Iran would be lunacy.

Scott Ritter (who has tended to know what he is talking about) says that Bush has already signed off the orders for an attack on Iran in June. Now, that does not mean that an attack is hundred percent certain, but it does mean that - when combined with the threatening behaviour of your government - an attack is a distinct possibility.

As for threatening other countries, the list is almost ludicrous, from Belarus to Algeria. China has been marked for "regime change". And Russia knows exactly what it is dealing with. Look at a map.

Assad of Syria has openly stated that he believes that America will attack his country. Both Iran and North Korea believe that attacks are likely.

You seem to be surprised that so many of the nations that have been trying to tell America to back off will band together.

[Architorture]

the DOD and military are constantly updating war plans for just about any region or country in the world... it is a constant state of awareness and readiness in case something happens...

central command has publicly said they have a war plan for iran, but they have had a war plan for iran for 30 years... so its not any new news... but if you look at the deployment of troops...there is no way there would be an invasion in june of sure...

then you might say cruise missle strike... but there isn't enough battle groups in the region right now to effectively take out all of the nuclear sites in iran, not to mention that cruise missles aren't 'bunker busters' that would be required to attack buried sites...

the next option would be some kind of airstrike, which would be able to carry bunker buster weapons...but there are no AWACs [radar planes]in the region at all according to current records, those are a necessary part of any aerial bombardment especially considering that iran has air defenses and an airforce...they wouldn't send in big heavy bombers without any kind of radar support... and all of the US stealth heavy bombers are on US soil right now, although they can strike from the US, that isn't how they struck in iraq, they came out of diego garcia, which you would expect them to do again if it were against iran...

iran is entirely rhetoric right now, and that is all.... if you compare iran to iraq you can see a very big difference in the way the military postured itself in the days before the iraq invasion... what we are seeing now in the middle east looks nothing like it... none of the pieces of weaponry that would be needed are in place or even look to be heading into place...

[Richard Haut]

apparently bunker busting bombs, with the specially equipped planes to carry them, were kindly given by the American tax payers to Israel a few months ago.

starting a war may no longer be Bushs call.

[Donald]

[SDR]

So you are an advocate of an attack on Iranian soil (literally)?

[Donald]

Literally no....but I am an advocate for the Bush position, that being that the American position is Iran will not be allowed to possess a nuclear warhead. The media has taken this to mean that we are going to invade Iran to stop it from happening, but Bush says that's not the case. He wants other countries to apply pressure on Iran to make them understand it's not in their best interests to pursue nukes.

[Architorture]

[Richard Haut]

You are living in a dream world.

Do you seriously think that either war or peace will wait for the American technology to crank itself into place ?

The countries of the Middle East are realigning themselves. The Saudis are buying Russian weaponry. The Turks are telling America yet again that they do not want your tainted money - they have just refused a billion dollars. Turkey is moving its troops into position, and the Syrians will be alongside them - depend on that.

Meantime Bush issues more threats against Syria and who is the latest darkie bogeyman ? Al-Asad, a London-trained opthalmologist. I know that you are a rather nervous nation, but surely even Americans can manage to negotiate with an opthalmologist. You talk about bombing an Iranian installation where all the nuclear fuel, including the spent fuel, is handled a hundred percent by Russia.

And in Iraq even your puppet Chalabi is forming an anti-occupation coalition, a political platform whose common theme is to get you out of Iraq.

Even the Mayor of London has openly called Sharon a war criminal (and aint that the truth - well done, Ken).

And next month is the anniversary of the fall of Saigon.

[Architorture]

so now that i think i have demonstrated an attack on iran is by no means in the near future you claim that the "other side" is going to strike first?

b/c that certainly sounds like what you are contending here...that all the "free nations" of the middle east are going to team up and attack the united states?

[Richard Haut]

What are the chances of Iran or Syria - or Russia or China - attacking America if your nation stopped screeching abuse and threats and was not to start more wars of aggression ?

Nil.

However if the war monger in the White House does start yet another war, just do us all a favour and do not complain if some people shoot back.

[Architorture]

iran and syria already clarified that statement and said they were not claiming to be military allies...that it was just a bad translation...

russia and china...so are you now saying that you think russia and china will step in on the side of iran...or are you saying that russia and china are the next countries the US is going to invade after iran?

the list of countries the US WILL attack according to you just keeps getting longer and longer...and yet the one you claim is going to happen in no time at all seems to not be materializing...

but interesting bringing up china...why are the europeans so hip to the idea of selling arms to them? is it b/c china is much farther away than the last communist superpower they had to deal with?

[Richard Haut]

it really is not very difficult to understand. The list of countries subjected to the gutter abuse of your government is indeed lengthy.

Russia is already dealing closely with Iran.

and if Europe wants to trade with China, what exactly has it got to do with you ?

[SDR]

But --*hack*-- but -- *sputter*-- America is The Most Powerful Nation On Earth, and gets first crack at Deciding What Everybody Else Does!! Don't you know that??

Look at the baldly-stated reason for not joining the Kyoto Treaty: "It would be bad for the US economy." How DARE anyone suggest we inconvenience ourselves (as if we, among all nations, couldn't best afford to) for the greater good: ie, the material wellbeing all those places we're so intent on exporting Democracy to.

Can you SAY "hypocrisy"???

SDR