Anyone remember that report published years ago about how back in spring 2008, allegedly Israel asked President Dubya if he would publicly support them if they commenced military airstrikes against the purported Iranian nuclear development sites? He said no, and said strikes never happened. If that anecdote is true, Dubya made the right decision.

With that in mind...

UK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears









who's up for a 4th war in a decade? We've got another trillion bucks under our couch cushions somewhere. God knows that there is no Anti-War movement in America, with the population on Iraq/Afghanistan either apathetic or not giving a shit while playing HALO instead.

the NeoCons are beating hard the same drums for more war, and Romney such a pussy push-over to that party base, he would start a war if he is elected. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that I could say the same thing to a degree with the current President when you read this:



Finish it?

Of course this all could be hot smoke, alot of this shit leaked simply a public posture of braun, deter the Tehran regime. I mean that first link talks of the British planning contingency plans, not planning to do it tomorrow after it picks up eggs and booze at the store. Big difference. Then you also read about the debate itself in Israel turning against the proposed strikes:



To be continued?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/us-heading-war-iran-obama

http://972mag.com/finally-israel-wakes-up-to-the-israeli-threat/26931/

Bombing Iran Is Risky—but Doable

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...s-feasible.html

It would be an incredibly stupid idea.

That's never stopped us before.

Bombing Iran would almost definitely result in a massive increase of terrorist activity. Since Iran won't be capable of striking back themselves (they don't have the resources to hit America, probably not even Israel) they would likely retaliate with organizing terrorist attacks.

I think it would start a whole new chapter of terrorism activity.

Nuclear-armed Iran would destabilize the Middle East. Some countries fear Iran as much as Israel does--perhaps more, since they lack the military means to stop Iran. If Iran goes nuclear, so will Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and perhaps Syria. It has been widely reported that Saudi Arabia has been privately encouraging Israel to act, even offering some support.

The UN report that finally confirms Iran's nuclear activites could be viewed as a go-ahead for a preventive attack. But by whom? If the US attacks, Iran, which lacks the ability to strike directly at the US, will retaliate against Israel, possibly causing a major war. Knowing that, Israel might attack--but Israel would need guarantees of major diplomatic and possibly miitary support from the US.

BUT: US/Israel relations are at a near-alltime low--and got lower after the media reported on Obama's and Sarkozy's criticism of Netanyahu. Obama, who has said he doesn't want sanctions against Iran's central bank for fear of higher oil prices, isn't going to declare that any retaliatory attack on Israel by Iran would constitute an attack on the US. Very dangerous situation--not only for Israel and the entire Middle East, but for the world.

The Middle East (or at least the one we've known) has already destabilized in '11. Syria, Iran's only regional ally, might be next to fall. The brutal crackdown on democratic demonstrators after the '09 election was rigged really turned off all those people wanting to topple their tyrants as a possible alternative governmental model.* Not to mention it's heavily subsidized economy has gone to shit.

Iran is much weaker now than it was when the last U.S. President left office.



Or, American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan (you know, the countries situated inbetween Iran) are targeted in the first strike retaliation. If Americans strike first, that is the inevitable expectation retaliation.

If its the first strike in a campaign not merely to delay the nuke program, but regime change...regardless of who launched first strike, those American forces will be the target.



Paranoid hypothetical: Israel goes ahread with the pre-emptive strike without the American greenlight. What then? Would the outraged American electorate (and conversely Congress) push the government into a war it didn't start or agree with in the first place in order to finish it?

Unlikely, but I wouldn't dismiss it. Israel is an arrogant ally that pretty much bullies its way with the U.S. regarding foreign policy, and not necessarily always in America's best interest.



Totally disagree. That public threat would be enough. Come to think of it, what happened to Obama's "nuclear shield" promise to Israel back in '09? Unless I've misunderstood that, its still in place. If it was ever implemented.

I'm not worried about Iran attacking because it's like stepping on Superman's cape.

*=Turkey is the model. Islamic and democratic, which unsurprisingly is alot more appealing than a theocratic/fascist dictatorship.

iran wouldnt get any regional support. because of them being shiite muslims and not sunni. if their would be anyone helping them i think it would be turkey.

and i personally think that ahmedinejad is just a big bluffer.(how many times did he threat israel?)

Nice of this poxy Coalition government we have in the UK to offer support when they are currently ploughing through the biggest cuts to the military in recent years. I don't think we have any soldiers, planes or ships left to send anywhere??????

That's alright, they'll just recruit from the working youth to whom the promise of actual employment is too tempting.

Not sure if that's sarcasm, Mick, but there's some truth to that.

Young people are oftentimes forced to join the military in order to survive catastrophic economic times (like right now).

It was both sarcastic and true. And sad.

Not to mention Ahmedinejad is a total bitch within his own government, if I remember the statistics correct, he's only the 11th most powerful figure within that regime. Nevermind publicly flogged by the Supreme Leader (the real boss) with open suggestions of outright eliminating the Presidency in his feud with his henchman.

Anyway that GOP debate confirmed a thought I already suggested, with Romney saying that if elected, "Iran will not get the bomb."

Off-topic, but you happy Berlusconi is gone?

(A dumb question, I know but it still had to be asked.)

How will Italy cope without the great man???

How will Italy cope without the great man???[/quote]

It'll be tough for any successor to fill those shoes at the Bunga Bunga parties.

Honestly I'm not quite sure why Berlusconi stepped down. Was it the economy alone? I know he's had a reputation with young women but didn't think that was the reason. I mean in Italy?

Seriously, who is leading the country now or will there be another election?


TIS

Mario Monti is in charge right now for organizing a government for Italy. He's the commissioner for the EU. Complete opposite of Berlusconi.

The people wanted him out. Not so much about the women (some were underage and that was the issue with that), but his mob ties, the economy is toppling, etc.

I wonder now what will happen with Matteo Messina Denaro, #1 fugitive in Italy, now that Berlusconi isn't in charge. Somehow I think his time on the run is near over. But what do I know.

I wonder which European nation will be the next to go down the toilet??

So far we have had Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Italy and the thing that links these four is the fact i have been to these places which obviously makes me a jinx.

Also therefore means bad times ahead for Spain, Begium, Holland, Luxambourg, Norway and last (and certainly least) France!!

So have I, and I'm doing fine .

Maybe you really are a jinx, Yogi .

I knew it......

What if Iran gets the bomb? The most serious speculated scenario for war worth reading:



http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1...nuclear-program

An argument that the newly-released IAEA report actually decreases the likelyhood of war:



http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=244845&R=R66

Israel’s Secret Iran Attack Plan: Electronic Warfare

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...ic-warfare.html

That article posted above has something every American needs to read, specifically these passages:

They have been saying that for the past 20 years. The neo-cons are also really beating the drums over this. Witness the editorial by former CIA officer, PNAC participant and AEI approved neo-con Reuel Marc Gerecht.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/opinio...nyt&emc=rss

Basically he wants to reconfigure Iranian sanctions to drive out European buyers of/ dealers in Iranian oil and let China get cheaper oil. This is of course the SAME China that is ramping up military spending, making noise about owning the entire South China Sea, polluting like crazy, propping up dictators over the world, and telling the US, Brazil and anyone else to go f*** themselves anytime someone brings up the indelicate fact of China's cheating and stealing on currency, tariff and intellectual property issues. And the writer wants to help give China cheaper oil...Yeah THAT makes sense.

I agree 100%, Lilo. I hate to make a blanket statment that may come across as not quite politically correct, but it's enough already with the friggin Chinese.

There's a great article in this week's Time Magazine called "China: Obama's Real Problem." I can't seem to find a link online, but it's one of this week's cover stories.

Everyone should read it.

Take this however you will. An argument that there isn't a Iran nuke program:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2011/11/iran-and-the-iaea.html

Did anyone actually read the recent IAEA report? (I didn't, to be honest.)





http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/f...eas-report-iran

China seems to have gone power mad!!