* planning nuclear attack on Iran.

[FloridaPat]

From the American Conservative through a forum. We know from Scott Ritter the war against Iran has started. Apparently a lot of other people know too. I wonder where * is getting the money for the planning of this invasion.


http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_news&Number=293807275#Post293807275

page 27 August 01, 2005 issue of The American Conservative

"In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing - that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack- but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."

[Eloriel]

1. Could you check your link?

I'm getting a bunch of garbage and not much content, for example:

Warning: mysql_pconnect(): Too many connections in /home/libertyforum.org/mysql.inc.php on line 26
SQL ERROR: Unable to connect to the database!
Too many connections: 1040
Warning: mysql_select_db(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /home/libertyforum.org/mysql.inc.php on line 33

Or does that mean too many of us a looking???

[sendero]

4. That's..

.... exactly what it means. They are accessing a mysql database for each page load and the database can only support so many simultaneous connections :)

[emcguffie]

7. I had to put the site on my "approved" list to get it. nt

[wli]

2. read between the lines

They mean pinning a nuclear false flag attack against the US on Iran as the pretext for going nuking Iran.

[punpirate]

8. Unfortunately, according to the changes in policy...

... in 2002, it won't be necessary for them to fake a nuclear attack by Iran to justify such a thing. Policy is now that it's the field commanders' discretion to use tactical nuclear weapons on non-nuclear countries.

Of course, that would violate a whole raft of treaties, would alienate the US from the rest of the world, probably would engender a massive economic boycott against the US and likely spawn a new wave of terrorism in the US and general uprisings in the Muslim world.

But, when have the Bushies ever been concerned with unintended consequences? :shrug:

[havocmom]

10. So, if the big corporations have moved all the production of goods abroad,

they don't have to worry about sanctions against the US? If nothing is made here and we aren't exporting anything (trade deficit is what now?) that just leaves us plain folk who have been getting over 40% of our chow from overseas in deep doo-doo.

Don't think sanctions will stop them. Explains a lot more about all the outsourcing.

[punpirate]

12. Hope you're right...

... but two-thirds of the economy is due to consumer spending, and a significant amount of that depends upon imports. There's more than one way to enforce an embargo. Watch what happens to the economy if all that junk doesn't leave foreign ports....

[politicaholic]

3. If that's true...that's some messed up shyte right there...

The United States domestic backlash would be severe. At least I and a few thousand of my closest protest buddies would hit the streets of Seattle and not leave until the National Guard was called.

[emcguffie]

5. I think everyone is speechless. Is there any more you can provide? nt

[FloridaPat]

9. That was all that was on the forum. The person had copied part of the

article from The American Conservative.

[bananas]

13. I saw the same paragraph quoted the other day

Somehow I came across this the other day,
probably linked from another message board,
it quotes the same paragraph.

In particular note that the author of the American Conservative
article is "Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is a partner in Cannistraro Associates".

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=38408

[ThomWV]

6. Not An Unusual Expenditure

I sort of hate to say this but planning for a nuclear attack of Iran, or Australia for that matter, would not be unusual. Since about the 1880's national militarys around the world have developed plans in the abstract for every imaginable contingency. It is a great deal of what War Colleges by various names around the world are all about. So out of any given DOD budget there is some portion that is earmarked for planning - has been for over a century.

[FloridaPat]

11. Problem is * has been pushing for more nuclear arm research and

more new types of nuclear bombs since he's gotten into office. Now he has to watch where he puts the bombs, else no one will ever get the oil. But then again, that would put him in control of Iraq and Saudi oil and Iran shut down totally.

[Windy]

14. Now this article makes sense...and scares the hell out of me!

Most of the initiatives in the package were previously requested by the Bush administration as part of the 2006 defense budget, which is pending before Congress. They include raising the maximum re-enlistment bonus to $90,000; maximum hardship duty pay to $750 a month; special pay and incentive bonuses for nuclear qualified officers to $30,000; .....


http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-983408.php