U.S. ready to strike Iran in early April - intelligence source

[sabra]

Source: RIA Novost

MOSCOW, March 30 (RIA Novosti) - Russian intelligence has information that the U.S. Armed Forces have nearly completed preparations for a possible military operation against Iran, and will be ready to strike in early April, a security official said.

The source said the U.S. had already compiled a list of possible targets on Iranian territory and practiced the operation during recent exercises in the Persian Gulf.

"Russian intelligence has information that the U.S. Armed Forces stationed in the Persian Gulf have nearly completed preparations for a missile strike against Iranian territory," the source said.

...

A senior Russian security official cited military intelligence earlier as saying U.S. Armed Forces had recently intensified training for air and ground operations against Iran.

"The Pentagon has drafted a highly effective plan that will allow the Americans to bring Iran to its knees at minimal cost," the official said.


Read more: http://en.rian.ru/world/20070330/62861432.html

[wake.up.america]

1. Not another senseless war. I don't care how easy or difficut it is - It is not justifird.

[wordpix]

66. beginning to think the "surge" is taking place in IRAN

This appears to be the real reason behind the new 30,000 troops sent to "Iraq."

snip: Official data says America's military presence in the region has reached the level of March 2003 when the U.S. invaded Iraq.

snip: A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf. The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006. The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.

ILLEGAL! Another BushCo war without Congressional declaration of war. More grounds for impeachment! :grr:

[soothsayer]

2. the same 'minimal cost' we beat iraq with? lol, rotsa ruck!

[Theres-a]

16. Ugh.

A cakewalk,right,rorge?

[Dhalgren]

3. They had right up until this line:

"The Pentagon has drafted a highly effective plan that will allow the Americans to bring Iran to its knees at minimal cost" - yeah, right. That sure sounds like our military, doesn't it? I don't doubt that the US will attack Iran - stupidity is what we do - but "highly effective" and "minimal cost"? I don't think so...

[rodeodance]

17. I really do not think there is anything to this story--except propaganda

[VegasWolf]

21. "We'll be in Iraq 6 days, maybe 6 weeks, but I doubt 6 months" nt

[Dhalgren]

24. I no longer put anything past the criminals we currently employ to oppress us.

I won't be surprised at whatever happens...

[pampango]

39. If this one turns out to be bogus, there will be another

"intelligence source" that predicts an attack in May, another one in June and so on. There are probably other sources that predict no attack as air power could not achieve any significant success and there is not enough manpower in the army to achieve anything on the ground.

Maybe is like predicting the stock market. If you make enough prediction, you are bound to be right sooner or later.

[moodforaday]

44. But it may not be pointless

Publicly "predicting" an attack is one way of preventing one.

[Igel]

47. In which case I have a charm that'll sell you to

keep those European elephants from attacking you. I had one when I was in Europe, and didn't see even one elephant. (As a plus, it kept away vampires.)

Do you go to Lodz University? (My wife and I used some space in the English dept. there a couple of years ago ... I really have to get back to Ewa with our research results.)

[moodforaday]

49. Hi! :)

I studied there and taught there for 10 years. Ewa's a good friend, pm me if you want to get in touch...

[alfredo]

81. The only way is to use nukes. Is bush crazy enough to do that?

I don't think so. Even if he was, I don't think the generals would carry out the order. He would have to shop around for someone like Nixon had to do for the Saturday nigh massacre. By then the Generals would have have handed in their resignations and gone public. The only way he could do it is if he had true believers between him and the men who flip the switches.

I like to believe there are some in that chain of command who put loyalty to country above loyalty to bush.

[EnviroBat]

90. Well, I don't know if Blackwater has access to nukes,,, yet.

But the asshole-in-chief certainly has his little private army at the ready to do his bidding whenever he farts the command. This moron should have been stopped long, long ago...

[alfredo]

94. He won't invade. His own party will take him down. If he pulls anotherq

stunt and the GOP doesn't smack him down, the party is over for the GOP.

[EnviroBat]

100. I certainly pray for that outcome n/t

[alfredo]

101. Self preservation is already starting to kick in. They don't want to

go down with the ship.

[INDIA]

46. Amazing isn't it?

According to DU, the NYT, WaPO, CNN etc.etc. are rightwing propaganda tools, yet "RIA Novost" is unbiased gospel.

Truly amazing. I've referred to CNN stories before and been flamed to high hell, but apprently RIA Novost is a perfectly legit source.

It took 45 posts for someone to question the source. Wow.

[pampango]

62. the NYT, WaPO, CNN etc. are only referred to as RW or MSM when they have

stories that we don't like. More often than not you will see them cited here as the source of stories that are favorable to us or critical of Bush and the RW, but that does not absolve them of their identity as corporate media. ;)

[INDIA]

63. LOL! Thanks for spelling it out for me!

Two thing can ruin a debate for me. 1) The other side of the argument claiming my sources are RW propaganda. What can you say to that?
2)Conspiracy theories. How can I have a good political discussion with someone who thinks that holograms flew into the WTC?

I see it on DU all the time. I'm having a debate with someone and they pull out the crazy card and claim victory. Can we argue in reality please?

[ronnie624]

77. Any news Item

published by the NYT, WaPo, CNN etc., must be evaluated independently, and compared to other information available on the given topic,.

One can obtain useful information from the corporate owned media, but it would be wise of you to keep in mind, that they operate primarily in the interest of their owners, and that they regularly disseminate propaganda on behalf of the government. Do not so quickly, forget about Judith Miller.

The corporatist nature of big media, favors neither the right nor the left, but in fact, that which makes their owners the most money.

Here is an interesting item about CNN, which seems to suggest that CNN is no more reliable than a typical Russian source:

Col. Christopher St. John, commander of the U.S. Army's 4th PSYOPs Group, was quoted by a French Intelligence correspondent, present at the symposium, as (in the correspondent's words) having ``called for greater cooperation between the armed forces and media giants. He (St. John) pointed out that some Army PSYOPs personnel had worked for CNN for several weeks, and helped in the production of some news stories for the network.''

Reading this in Belgrade, where he's Trouw's correspondent, De Vries saw a good story, picked up the phone, and finally reached Maj. Thomas Collins of the U.S. Army Information Service, who duly confirmed the presence of these Army PSYOPs experts at CNN. ``PSYOPs personnel, soldiers and officers,'' De Vries quoted Collins as telling him, ``have been working in CNN's headquarters in Atlanta through our program `Training with Industry.' They worked as regular employees of CNN. Conceivably, they would have worked on stories during the Kosovo war. They helped in the production of news.''

<http://www.commondreams.org/views/032300-107.htm>

[depakid]

80. Who said this source is the unbiased gospel?

Whoever did is as media illiterate as someone who thinks the Washington Post is anything less than Pravda on the Potomac-

These early April rumors have been cited by numerous sources for months now.... whether there's any truth to them, only time will tell.

Even so, given BushCo's track record, it makes sense for people (and especially opinion leaders) to keep the issue out in the open, and get on the record now.

[heliarc]

84. How bout to this story...

DEBKAfile Exclusive: US financial sources in Bahrain report American investors in Bahrain advised to pack up business operations and leave

http://www.debka.com scroll down.

[harun]

88. Agreed (n/t)

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

114. the same was said about iraq

..and the same strategy was used to prepare the peasants for war

iran is a done deal; war within 12 months..

[calimary]

98. The terms "highly effective" and "The Pentagon" are mutually exclusive.

The Pentagon may have plans, but I seriously doubt they'll be effective. Especially since the military in general is completely exhausted, in tatters, under-supplied, under-trained, NOT AT ALL rested, and stretched to the breaking point. With what backups would we be able to mount yet another offensive in a completely new theater of operations? And if you think we'd be able to hold it to mere air strikes without upping the ante and suddenly having to deploy ground troops, you're simply dreaming. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if bush and rove and cheney and company are looking on it as one last gasp at bullying the American people into rallying around "our president." As if that will somehow shut up the critics and silence the investigations. Once bitten, twice shy, I think. We're already mired in a war we all hate. SURE we're gonna jump and clap and shout "Yippee!" for another one. Expecially it can't be solidly justified. Even if they try to sell it as backing up the British because of the Brit hostages now held in Iran, I'd guess most Americans wouldn't view it as our fight - not something we have any business getting into.

[panader0]

4. I doubt if a strike will "bring Iran to it's knees" or if the cost

would be "minimal". Messing with Iran would be the height of stupidity. So, bush may very well do it.

[Theres-a]

18. We'll be the ones bending over.........

In the long run,I think.Not to mininmalize what will happen to Iran at the hands of our out of control powermad govt,mind you.But we the people will,in fact,be screwn.

[Psephos]

19. Iran has exactly one gasoline refinery. If they take it out, Iran is in serious trouble.

If the US Navy were then to blockade tanker ships trying to resupply Iran with gasoline after a refinery strike, Iran would grind to a halt.

They're not looking at putting boots on the ground. This would be a USAF/USN effort, with special forces within Iran acting only as forward air controllers.

As you said, the height of stupidity. But unfortunately, logistically, it wouldn't be that tough.

Peace.

[sanskritwarrior]

75. Agreed Iran is in worse shape than Iraq was

economically, militarily, and domestically........I don't want a war, I pray there isn't a war, but the klaxon alarm soome people on DU sound is grating........For all our defects and problems, we are still a world class military power, Iran is not.

Hopefully Congress will stop a war from ever happening, I've been in one in the last few years, don't really want to fight the Persians.

[wordpix]

67. it will only serve to unite the Iranians who aren't united now

If you had bombs dropping on your homes and schools, wouldn't you want to join with your gov. to stop the bombing as quickly as possible? Ahmadinejad will use any US invasion as proof that what he's been warning about US is true.

[chefgirl]

5. Are any of us really surprised?

Everything is moving along, right on schedule for the BFEE. :mad:

-chef-

[Megahurtz]

87. Disgustingly So!

:mad:

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

6. Congress Is In Recess Until 4/17

You don't think King george would try to piss them off by launching an attack over the next 18 days, do you?

My guess is, he would.

[firefox_fan]

73. You'd think that COngress could come out of recess

If there was an emergency...

[hippiechick]

7. yepper ... heard it the other day ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2786432&mesg_id=2786439

[Auggie]

8. I refuse to believe this

[TheWatcher]

54. And in just five words

You have crystalized the very core reason why America continues to unravel and burn like Rome, and these monsters will continue to do whatever they wish.

The other five is "Maybe It Will Go Away."

[Auggie]

70. With what troops? What money? What support?

An invasion of Iran would have to lead to immediate impeachment proceedings. Chimp's GOP support would run for cover. Even this administration isn't that insane.

[TheWatcher]

85. You are in deep, deep denial

And don't take that personally. No one wants to believe what is happening. I don't have anything against you because of it.

"An invasion of Iran would have to lead to immediate impeachment proceedings."

If you still lived in the America you think you live in, it most certianly would.

"Even this administration isn't that insane."

I hate to break it to you, but yes they are. And Iran isn't even the beginning of what they plan to do.

Do I think it will happen on April 6th?

I have no idea.

But it will happen.

[Auggie]

86. I'm not in denial. I guess we'll have to wait and see...

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

116. denial is a natural reaction to something so absurd

but absurd or not.. it's going to happen

[rcdean]

89. The Russian sources are saying it won't be a ground invasion.

Instead, they say, it will be a 12-hour long air attack, similar to shock-and-awe designed to wipe out all nuke facilities.

The farce--and I blame this largely on Democrats for not exposing it--is that there is no way our conventional weapons can penetrate to the depths needed to reach their underground processing facilities and then to penetrate their concrete and steel reinforced bunkers.

So all this attack will do is really piss off the Iranians, radicalize Iranians who tend in that direction and shut up the Iranian moderates. They will spend another 3 generations trying to retaliate against us, as they have for our CIA Mossedegh coup in the 50s.

The Israeli lobby has done all it can to mute the Democrats on an Iran attack and to push it among the ideologues on the right.

I agree with TheWatcher. It's gonna happen. How we react to it is still an open question. It will certainly lead to horrific consequences. But will America impeach Bush in the middle of another crisis? Will the Dems impeach Bush to get Cheney? I don't think so on either count.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

115. "there's nothing i can do"

[orpupilofnature57]

9. No shit !! Victory in seconds, another occupation for how long?

Copratoppelocracy.

[Amonester]

37. For One Thousand Years?

Or for as long as the criminal plutocracy - that doesn't want to pay its fair share of taxes and prefers to launch PR campaigns on teevee & papers about how evil unions and public healthcare are - can continue to catapult their propaganda of lies and distractions.

That includes for as long as the 30% lemmings who still support this fascist regime will be allowed to win electronic-voted paperless "$elections" or for as long as we won't be forced to live under-water (global WARming).

[solara]

10. This needs to get "out" there

:kick:

INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT INCARCERATE :patriot:

[bdamomma]

11. where's cheney been???

he wasn't at that dinner the other nite. could something be up?

[BadgerKid]

38. I don't expect Pinky and the Brain

to be seen together. Single point of failure is generally not a good idea.

[paparush]

12. The question is what will WE do when Bush launches the next war?

What will WE THE PEOPLE do to stop this insanity?

What are WE willing to sacrifice?

[C_U_L8R]

20. they have us too afraid to honestly say

what we really should do... but I believe the constitution
prescribes in times like this it is OUR duty to act.

[Gemini Cat]

13. The hell?

What the hell? "The Pentagon has drafted a highly effective plan that will allow the Americans to bring Iran to its knees at minimal cost," the official said. Sure just like Iraq.

Impeach.

[twiceshy]

14. I don't think there is an intention to invade and occupy...

Maybe just bomb their military and nuclear infrastructure "back to the stone age". Military ground force activity would be at the border with Iraq - probably defensive. NOT advocating any of this, just trying to guess how the US military would play it.

[Tempest]

22. A bombing attack will have minimal effect on Iran's nuclear infrastructure

According to the Pentagon, Iran's nuclear facilities are too well spread out and too well bunkered for any bombing attack to have much effect.

The report says Iran will be back up and running within weeks and it will give them incentives to develop nuclear weapons in an expedient manner.

The Pentagon recommended against an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

[MGD]

27. Nuclear facilities just aren't very compatible with 2,000 lb bombs.

a single 2,000 lb dropped into the middle of any nuclear reactor facility has a strong chance of leading to a meltdown whether the core is breached or not and you can bet we would be using more than one. That being said, is it even really necessary to destroy their nuclear facilities? They can be forced to do pretty much anything including shutting down their enrichment programs via an air campaign. Bombing their reactors and centrifuges would likely result in issues that we probably wouldn't want to be responsible for anyways.

[Tempest]

29. Iran's facilities are buried too deep for a 2,000 bomb to have much effect

The Pentagon took that into account as well. According to the Pentagon, it would take a full nuclear weapon to do any sizable damage to Iran's main facilities.

Iran learned from Israel's bombing of Iraq's Osirak facility and buried their nuclear facilities deep and bunkered them heavily.

[MGD]

31. A nuclear reactor is a very delicate operation

that depends on a lot of factors operating in concert flawlessly and 2,000 lb bombs have a way of disrupting that kind of harmony. Furthermore, we have many battalions of airborne rangers capable of penetrating as deeply as we need to should it be deemed necessary.

[Karenina]

41. The nuclear facilities are a bogus target.

What they're after is to cripple Iran's ECONOMIC activity, i.e. selling oil in EUROS.

[MGD]

117. This thread is back?

Hmm. Anyways, I don't disagree with what you have said except that destroying Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons will still be a very high priority in any war against them. In fact, it will be the crux of the offensive.

[tanyev]

15. Happy Easter.

[madrchsod]

23. cool--riots at the gas stations! soup kitchens! bread lines!

riots in the streets! martial law! dam- "the future is so bright i `ll have to wear shades!"

[irish.lambchop]

25. Can bush still declare

war without Congressional approval? I don't think that particular item has been struck out of the patriot act (I think that's where it is). If there is substance to this, Congress can be called back to reconvene in an emergency session, yes?

[redqueen]

30. Hello Irish Lambchop!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

I don't think presidents have to care too much about getting congressional approval too much anymore, sadly. They shoot first and ask questions later, so to speak. (At least that seems to be the case with Clinton & the Pretzeldent... not sure if it was done before...)

[irish.lambchop]

34. Thank you

and I thought that, in past, Congress was the only body that had the power to actually declare war. They, unfortunately, gave that up just after Sep 11. Iran isn't really helping matters by parading the British military personnel on TV and showing their "confessions". I do hope this is hype and not how bush is planning on celebrating "Easter".

[redqueen]

36. It doesn't make sense the way Iran is handling this...

if they're working some deal behind the scenes, you'd think they'd keep that crap low-profile.

But then they're leaders are as batshit insane as ours, so... guess it's not really so surprising considering how much we've done to provoke others (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, etc.)

[warren pease]

93. The last "declared" war was WWII

And note how peaceably the US has behaved since then. Korea was a "police action." I'm not sure if Vietnam was ever called anything official-sounding. Then there were the attacks on Grenada and Panama, which were called a rescue mission and a battle in the drug war, respectively. Then GulfWar v1.0, which I guess was a multinational peacekeeping mission, incredible though that sounds. Then bombings and missile strikes in the former Yugoslavia, which was also a peacekeeping initiative. Somewhere along the line the US blew up a (I believe) Sudanese (or Somali?) drug factory, thereby eliminating any possibility of desperate people getting critically needed pharmaceuticals in one of the world's most dangerous petri dishes. Then GulfWar v2.0, a preemptive strike authorized by the fact that "9/11 changed everything," and don't forget the coalition of the coerced.

And of course the CIA has been busy busy the whole time doing its usual fine job of destroying anything remotely resembling a populist movement that might improve lives but, unfortunately, would be bad for corporate America, which needs cheap labor (actually slavery is better) to plunder dwindling natural resources and doesn't want any crap about the rights of indigenous peoples getting in the way of a quick buck.

And here we are, contemplating the possibility/probability of another terrorist strike, in our names with our money, as the world's most dangerous rogue state, ruled by an unprecedented cadre of utter madmen, puts the final touches on WW III.

Will the congressional democrats try to stop it? I doubt it. Instead, they'll probably do their usual BushCo suck-up dance, forming a giant conga line down the capital steps, wearing their new flag lapel pins, waving to the cameras, waiting their turn at the CNN microphones so they can pledge renewed support for "the war president" because it's not nice to oppose the sociopath in chief in time of war. Never mind that it's yet another unprovoked, entirely avoidable, shameless act of aggression brought to you by Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and the rest of the scum who turn blood into money.

And ably assisted by the cheerleading stenographers in our mass media, now the unofficial fourth branch of government.

I didn't really intend to write a speech, but I'm so very, very sick of these murderous sons of bitches that I find myself losing it every now and then and looking deep into the abyss.

Somebody tell me a joke.


wp

[CrazyOrangeCat]

32. Welcome to DU!

The way it stands, he can bomb first and deal with the blowback later.

Declaration of War just doesn't really happen anymore.

The neocons are a law unto themselves, and sadly, the Congress has taken a vacation at the worst possible time.

This cabal needs a diversion. So, once more, women, children, and the elderly will be bombed to oblivion, from the safe distance of 8 miles high.

This is too much madness.

[irish.lambchop]

35. Thank you

or his very, very sick, twisted way of celebrating "Easter".

[uppityperson]

33. He doesn't need to have War declared, can bomb whomever anyways.

All in the nature of preserving peace or protecting USA or US military.

[wordpix]

68. true, & he's been beating the drum for months re: Iranians entering Iraq to stir up trouble

:( :nuke:

[Hosnon]

69. Due to the vagueness of the Constitution, he will justify any action under his authority

as Commander-in-Chief to defend the United States. They'll trot out evidence (which, in my opinion, will have a grain of truth) that Iran has been helping the insurgents in Iraq. Therefore, an invasion would be justified as defensive.

And the President does not have to wait for a declaration of war from Congress to defend the United States.

In any event, the Supreme Court would stay out if it. The only way to stop such action is impeachment. And I've never been more serious about impeachment: If Bush invades Iran, we have no choice.

[daleo]

26. Maybe the Iranians believe this report (or reports like it)

It could explain why they want the British prisoners. They may think that Bush/Blair care about the lives of these sailors, which is not very likely.

[goodhue]

28. There is nothing so effective as bringing another nation to its knees

:crazy:

[hvn_nbr_2]

40. "Bring Iran to its knees at minimal cost" = another cakewalk

No doubt they'll be throwing flowers at our feet too. I'm sure they have a defector named Knuckleball or something who said so.

[superconnected]

42. Doesn't congress have to agree to this?

[orpupilofnature57]

43. Not really ,not if shrub can lie a link between the two.

[brentspeak]

45. Is this a reliable source?

[Igel]

48. Novosti's ok.

For reporting. I have no doubt that their sources said what Novosti says they said.

Now, as for the reliability of what their sources say ... different question.

[WhiteTara]

50. The Pentagon has drafted a highly effective plan - hmm right!

Their other plans have gone so well.
:scared:

[blues90]

51. Sitting here wondering about this attack is

almost as bad as the attack happening itself . We have been hearing about this at least as a possible for over a year .

I don't want this attack but it does get to the point where you just want to say do it or shut the hell up already .

Things are bad enough with enough to worry about already , this pending attack is just there almost like the straw that broke the american back .

[freedomfries]

52. thanks Karenina

you nailed it!

[Marie26]

53. RIA Novosti?

Aren't Russian media reports pretty unreliable? But then again, we've just sent another carrier group to the Persian Gulf, so that seems to be another indication that something might be planned.

[IsItJustMe]

I don't know how the Russian media could be any more unreliable than ours. Remember our media

teeling us there were WMD in Iraq. Honestly, our media is not only worthless, but a tool for the chimp.

[martymar64]

61. Our media is American version of Pravda

oem

[IsItJustMe]

56. I don't know how the Russian media could be any more unreliable than ours. Remember our media

teeling us there were WMD in Iraq. Honestly, our media is not only worthless, but a tool for the chimp.

[nolabels]

76. In poker, it's called bluff

We should raise the ante to the fact that the entire establishment is corrupt. The twisted government and fascist corporate media is just a symptom of it all.

[Marie26]

78. So they're both worthless

Where does that leave us? I'd tend to totally dismiss this, but we do know that the US is amassing 3 carrier groups in the Gulf & 30,000 new troops in Iraq, so I guess anything's possible. I'm actually starting to wonder if the troop buildup & stories about planned attacks are just a ploy - to make Iran so totally paranoid that they do something to provoke a war.

[MasonJar]

55. If Bush attacks Iran, he and Cheney must be impeached immediately and

must be charged with war crimes at the Hague. Enough is past enough. I really think that Congress will capitulate of Bush goes through with this.

[lovuian]

57. I believe WWIII is upon us

there are some dark days ahead

[heliarc]

83. And the scary thing is...

I don't know who the good guys are.

[Codeine]

58. Didn't we go through this

a while back with a Sy Hersch story, and a Scott Ritter story even before that?

I'll believe it when I see it.

[HuffleClaw]

59. a handful of british POWs will not justify a war

not to the public.

[Forkboy]

60. Since when did they care what the public thinks?

[kitty1]

74. Exactly, and that's why they're holding them. If Iran is attacked..

while the Brits are there, it's going to look like the assault was due to the kidnapping. And to the eyes of the world, that would be contemptable. Requiring impeachment proceedings for sure.
After the horrid mess in Iraq which was started under less than an approcpriate pretext, this will come off as looking like another justification to take over the ME. Using the kidnapping as a pretext.
All it would have taken to clear the Sailors is an apology and and admittance of trespassing into their waters.
Now look, they've started WW3 over this incident. The Iranians definitely have some things up their sleeve.

[progressivebydesign]

64. Of course, that's why we've been provoking them!

I figured we'd be flying in no-fly zones, sending UK troops into disputed waters, putting our aircraft carriers off their waters... we're tyring to provoke them, just as we did with Iraq, flying missions over their airspace, hoping to engage. We all noticed the cranking up on the propoganda machine last year.. with breathless tales of all things wrong with Iran. And of course, this morning, news from Iranian dissidents, reported on as gospel. Gosh.. it all sounds so familiar. It would be laughable, if you didn't know that thousands and thousands of people have been killed in Iraq based upon the same bullshit. Fuck the PNAC, driving our policy.

[wordpix]

65. this is reason to remove King GeorgeW & Chainsaw Cheney & IMPEACH

immediately. WTF is Congress waiting for?

Can you imagine if the Clenis were responsible for these treasonous activities, how long it would take Repukes to impeach him?

:grr:

[CRH]

71. No Safe Place ...

IMHO, ...

To attack Iran with conventional weapons won't do a whole lot more than piss them off, and will not accomplish the stated goal of shutting down their nuclear enrichment program. Conventional bunker busters can not be assured to get the job done.

The instant back lash against the troops on the ground in Iraq, would be formidable.

The US military is already weary, under supplied, and unsustainably deployed.

Without the use of tactical nuclear weapons, and with no following ground forces, the retaliation of the Iranian military in conjunction with militias and other resistance fighters, could over time devastate an American military spread thin.

For the Bush administration to ignore the above, it does so at its peril. The Administration does not have the political capital to proceed with an attack without unleashing an instantaneous bill of impeachment, with the backing of public opinion. That they don't care about public opinion has been well demonstrated, but, it would allow a publicly backed thorough investigation into the many scandals past and present, and the money behind the politics will not allow that to come to pass. Anything short of marshall law would not suppress the demand for this investigation.

The 'preemptive' use of nuclear weapons would create a political and real situation for Bush and his backers, of No Safe Place. Guarded communities of the elite, would not protect against the anger directed from abroad or from within, the US. The Bush family in total would have to live in a world where every movement would be a potential execution, a potential fatwa successfully realized, by a martyr of the cause, or a martyr presaging sanity.

The neocons and Bush are sociopaths, there is no doubt, but they are not stupid. They still must live on this planet, and can not do so, with No Safe Place.

[firefox_fan]

72. What is COngress gonna do about this?

n/t

[bklyncowgirl]

79. I really hope this is an April Fools joke

Sadly I don't think it is. The Decider is an optomist as is, "If at first you don't succeed, try try Iran."

[kitty1]

82. The Jerusalem Post has recently reported the same,,,,

story.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1173879220977&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
The J Post is hardly a tabloid rag when it comes to news stories.
I still hope this is all hyped propaganda though.
However wherever you see war games being conducted, it's a safe bet that the real thing isn't far behind. We've all seen that before.
Time will tell.

[bamacrat]

91. Wait a minute, its early April now.....

shit.

[ohio2007]

106. update; Bush plans to attack Iran in June

Scott Ritter article;

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/20/221619/711

[Odin2005]

92. Weren't the conspiracy nuts saying the same thing last spring?

[kitty1]

95. At the time the Gulf wasn't a parkade for military ships nt

[ohio2007]

96. Actually, the invasion of Iran talk goes back to early 2005

So far....nada......

[rcdean]

97. Looks like only the Coincidence Nuts are denying it now.

Oh, I just love it when people call us Conspiracy Nuts. We're the ones who actually read, research, think and draw conclusions and who find that conspiracies DO occur--all the time--it's human nature. It invariably speaks to the gullibility and level of the curiosity of the accuser.

[Odin2005]

99. Oh yeah? What happened to that bombing of Iran yoy guys were so sure would happen last summer?

[ohio2007]

102. Four reasons why the U.S. won’t attack Iran

from al Jazeera

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=13507

In one word;
China

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

105. Right.

What happened to the terrorist attacks before the elections? What happened to trotting out Osama in 2004? The predictions of the conspiracy nuts are reaching Nostradamus-esque levels of bullshit.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

103. How many times do you have to be wrong...

...about predicting a date for an attack on Iran before people stop paying attention to your "research" and predictions? The conspiracy theorists have a worse track record on Iran than the neoconservatives have on WMD in Iraq, and for largely the same reasons.

[ButterflyBlood]

108. Remember the rocket attack on the US embassy in Athens a few months ago?

No one was killed or injured. It was blamed on domestic groups, but there were loads of people here screaming it was definitely a US black op so it could be blamed on Iran and used as a reason to invade (like a broken window and destroyed toilet serve as a good causus belli.

Now nothing of the sort has happened and the story has basically died. So can the tinfoilers give me a reason to buy their stuff now? Remember the lesson of the boy who cried wolf.

[nodehopper]

104. self-deleted

[ButterflyBlood]

107. Is it still early April?

If so, we know what to think about this.

[ohio2007]

109. moved to '08, during the primaries

cuz it all makes sense at that time

[The Stranger]

110. Given the inundation of propaganda seeking an attack on Iran, the timing really seems

to be fairly inconsequential: You know people want to attack Iran. You know they have no justification for an attack on Iran. You know they have to come up with one.

What difference does it make whether it is one day or another?

[ButterflyBlood]

111. The point is "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" factor is at work here

Since the people who predicted an Iran attack now proved to be wrong, why should we trust them the next time they predict an attack?

[The Stranger]

113. Re-read post no. 110 again.

You know the Neocons want to attack Iran. You also know they will do anything to fuck the U.S. into another illegal war, this time with Iran. They have proven this already. These are the facts, and they are not disputed. No one is "crying wolf" over this.

Who gives a shit about what internet posters say about the precise date it might happen?

[ohio2007]

118. It's like trying to reason with hurricane season

Only pissing in the wind in the hopes some day that can beat their chest saying; "I knew it would happen" !
then....shortly followed by "we don't have an army that can fight in Iran,Iraq,Afghanistan,remain in Korea ect....
going into Iran was stupid.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x262202
same old song and dance ;)

[VegasWolf]

112. Yawn. Talking about attacking Iran, must be April of some year. nt

[ohio2007]

119. 08,April according to this article;

The Pentagon's "most likely" next target is Iran.

Hillary Clinton says "no option can be taken off the table."

Barack Obama says that the Iranian government is "a threat to all of us" and "we should take no option, including military action, off the table."

John Edwards says, "Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons." And: "We need to keep all options on the table


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x274657

I'll still say no boots on the ground next year either but......fear mongering sells papers and it's what the public buys.

[amandabeech]

120. What boots?

The ones doing 15-month tours now?

If anything happens in Iran, it will come from the skies. The army and navy boys haven't had enough fun in Iraq.

With the army and marines bogged down, the flyboys get to shine.

[Psephos]

121. But it's going to happen Good Friday FER SURE!!! (oops)

Not hearing so much about that all of the sudden.

The chance of war with Iran, given the consumption of available military resources in Iraq, is effectively zero. That's not even considering the political reasons. War with Iran = likely Bush impeachment, IMO.

That's not to say there won't be some cruise missiles lobbed in, ala Clinton, if the Iranians do something especially egregious. I'm sure there are about ten Tomahawks already programmed with the coordinates of Iran's sole gasoline refinery. Take that out, blockade the Gulf to prevent inbound gasoline tankers, and Iran is on its knees. No invasion, no war, no extra $$ spent, and a probable bump up in chimpy's poll numbers. Well, you can't fall out of bed if you're already on the floor.

If I can see this gaping hole in Iran's vulnerability from my living room, then why can't Ahmadinejad and the mullahs who pull his strings? That's the best argument I can think of that Ahmadinejad and the 12th-Imam cultists who run Iran actually *are* nuts.

[dysfunctional press]

122. can we now add ria novost to the list of banned sources...?

and it's about time if you ask me.

[Phrogman]

123. I believe this story is correct and the attack date was Apr 6th, but the Iranians played their cards

extremely well.