The Coming Catastrophy in Iran - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-24-2008, 05:16 PM   #1
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,455
Local Time: 10:10 PM
The Coming Catastrophe in Iran

David Debatto is a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence officer and Iraqi War Veteren. In this article he gives several scenerios that he believes may happen soon. Many in the media are writing about an attack following the coming U.S. election. Just days ago the Isaeli air force launched a massive air "practice drill" leading most observers to think that it was the predecesor to the coming attack on Iran. I have always personally held the belief that the Bush administration would never just fade away in the typical "lame duck" manner - that there was this one card hidden away in Dick Cheney's sleeve if you will. Unfortunately this may be the card.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=ra&aid=9437

I tested this link but for some reason it didn't work. Sorry. Damn, can anyone fix it???
__________________

Harry Vest is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 05:22 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
vaz02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: manchester
Posts: 7,447
Local Time: 03:10 AM
Thats all we need $300 for a Barrel of oil.
__________________

vaz02 is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 05:26 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,657
Local Time: 05:10 AM
The Coming Catastrophe?
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 05:31 PM   #4
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,455
Local Time: 10:10 PM
Thanks!!!

Sorry for spelling Catastrophe wrong too.
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 05:54 PM   #5
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,455
Local Time: 10:10 PM
Israel 'will attack Iran' before new US president sworn in, John Bolton predicts - Telegraph
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 06:09 PM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaz02 View Post
Thats all we need $300 for a Barrel of oil.
Just to note, it's been argued that Iran's oil infrastructure is decaying from neglect, as no serious maintenance has been done since the late 1970s, prior to the Iranian Revolution. If they are correct, Iran will cease to produce oil around 2012--no military attacks required.
melon is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 07:15 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
vaz02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: manchester
Posts: 7,447
Local Time: 03:10 AM
^ Wont the Saudi's start fiddling around to show their disaproval ?

To be quite honest all i care about is oil going up further.
vaz02 is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 08:06 PM   #8
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,455
Local Time: 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaz02 View Post
^ Wont the Saudi's start fiddling around to show their disaproval ?

To be quite honest all i care about is oil going up further.
Geez, great answer...no concern about the thousands who would be killed on both sides, the reprecussions to the whole middle-fuckin-east, the possible domino effect of such an attack etc. etc. Hmmm.
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 08:26 PM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
vaz02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: manchester
Posts: 7,447
Local Time: 03:10 AM
^ They dont care about me. We all have our own problems.
Im not going to lose sleep over some saber rattling.
If a nuke drops, its over for us all. Why worry about it.
vaz02 is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 09:35 PM   #10
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:10 AM
[q]Iran hints at nuclear talk progress, but world still wary of possible conflict

By Arthur Bright
Christian Science Monitor, July 03


Reuters reports that Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, in New York for a meeting at the UN, told reporters Wednesday that he did not think Israel or the United States would attack Iran before next January, when President Bush leaves office, and added that he saw a "new sort of atmosphere" in talks with the West over Iran's nuclear program:

Speaking through an interpreter, Mr. Mottaki told reporters that "constructive statements and approaches" and an earlier proposal by Iran had "paved the way for creating a new sort of atmosphere." On behalf of the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana handed over an offer on June 14 of trade and other benefits designed to help persuade Tehran to curb its nuclear work. "Very soon I will respond to the letter given to me by the six foreign ministers," Mottaki said at the United Nations.

CNN reports that Mottaki also suggested that Iran would be willing to open diplomatic contacts with the US. CNN notes that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has approved preliminary examination of opening an "interests office" in a third-party foreign embassy in Tehran. Such an office would open diplomatic channels with Iran in the absence of a US embassy:

"Contacts between Iranians and the American people will be a useful step for better understanding of the two nations," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency...

Rice said recently that the United States has for some time been attempting to reach out to the Iranian people. "We want more Iranians visiting the United States," she said. "We want the efforts that we've engaged in to have Iranian artists in the United States, American sports people in Iran. We're determined to find ways to reach out to the Iranian people."

Mottaki, in New York to attend a meeting of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, said Iran supports academic and sports exchanges between the two countries, IRNA reported. "Iranian academics and students have invited their American counterparts to the country to share their research and scientific achievements," Mottaki said, according to IRNA.


The more upbeat diplomatic overtures from Tehran come as both President Bush and the Pentagon expressed interest in avoiding armed conflict with Iran. The Los Angeles Times reports that when asked at a White House press conference Wednesday whether he would try to discourage Israel from a rumored preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, Bush said that "the first option ought to be to solve this problem diplomatically." Shortly after Bush's press conference, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, who recently returned from a meeting with Israeli military leaders, told reporters at the Pentagon that an attack on Iran by Israel would have very negative consequences for the US:

"Opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful for us," [Admiral Mullen] said, referring to the prospect of a direct clash with Iran while fighting continues in Iraq and Afghanistan. "This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don't need it to be more unstable." In his trip to Israel, Mullen met with Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, chief of the Israeli defense staff. Mullen declined to say whether an air strike was broached in his meetings but acknowledged that the Iranian threat was discussed and said he agreed that Tehran was a destabilizing force in the region. Mullen has expressed his concerns for several months about the risks posed to U.S. troops in Iraq by a strike on Iran, Defense Department officials said, but those warnings have been made mostly in private. Mullen declined to say whether he had delivered his assessment to the White House in recent days.

The comments from both Iranian and US officials Wednesday follow heated rhetoric from both sides. The Associated Press reports that earlier this week, Iran threatened to close off the Strait of Hormuz, choking the world's oil supply, should any attack be made against it. But Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, commander of the US 5th Fleet based in Bahrain, said that the US "will not allow Iran to close" the Strait and would regard such an attempt to be an act of war. Agence France-Presse reports that if Iran were attacked, OPEC Secretary General Abdallah el-Badri said the price of oil would likely surpass $145 per barrel, since "it is difficult to replace [the] 4.1 or 4.2 million barrels a day" that Iran produces.

This week also saw the release of a New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh that warned the US may be preparing to invade Iran by increasing covert operations within the country. Mr. Hersh wrote that at Bush's request, Congress approved a $400 million funding increase of such operations, which "are designed to destabilize the country's religious leadership" and "involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations" as well as further intelligence gathering on Iran's nuclear activities. Agence France-Presse reports that the White House declined to comment on Hersh's report.[/q]
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-04-2008, 04:17 AM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,657
Local Time: 05:10 AM
I don't think the US does want to start any war during election time. And Israel probably will be very hesitant to do anything as long as they don't have the full support of the US in their backhand.
However, should Israel do any shit there and a war break out Germany would be in and the US and the rest of Europe either.
We can't let that happen.
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 07-04-2008, 04:50 AM   #12
War Child
 
thatsnotmypuppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 921
Local Time: 03:10 AM
Having read the article I think the overall scenario is unlikely. While I could believe a pre-emptive strike to be on the cards from the Israeli point of view - however I doubt the US would be silly enough to get involved. I doubt the Saudi's would get too upset as they don't tend to like the Shiite's anyhow - though they run the risk of inflaming their own Shiite minority which is based near the major eastern oilfields. I would be more concerned with what Pakistan and Russia's reaction would be.
thatsnotmypuppy is offline  
Old 07-04-2008, 05:00 AM   #13
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 10:10 PM
Israel has quietly been picking off supposedly non-existant nuclear weapons facilities all over the middle east for years, and we've (US) has been quite happy about that.

Change our position now?
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 07-04-2008, 05:03 AM   #14
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 10:10 PM
Quote:
"Opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful for us," [Admiral Mullen] said, referring to the prospect of a direct clash with Iran while fighting continues in Iraq and Afghanistan. "This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don't need it to be more unstable." In his trip to Israel, Mullen met with Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, chief of the Israeli defense staff. Mullen declined to say whether an air strike was broached in his meetings but acknowledged that the Iranian threat was discussed and said he agreed that Tehran was a destabilizing force in the region. Mullen has expressed his concerns for several months about the risks posed to U.S. troops in Iraq by a strike on Iran, Defense Department officials said, but those warnings have been made mostly in private. Mullen declined to say whether he had delivered his assessment to the White House in recent days.
We're fighting the Iranians now in Iraq, albiet quietly. An open war with them would stretch us. If this did happen, I'm guessing we would leave Afganistan an concentrate on Iraq/Iran.
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 07-05-2008, 11:30 PM   #15
Refugee
 
A stor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: U.S.A. East Coast
Posts: 2,464
Local Time: 03:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Vest View Post
David Debatto is a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence officer and Iraqi War Veteren. In this article he gives several scenerios that he believes may happen soon. Many in the media are writing about an attack following the coming U.S. election. Just days ago the Isaeli air force launched a massive air "practice drill" leading most observers to think that it was the predecesor to the coming attack on Iran. I have always personally held the belief that the Bush administration would never just fade away in the typical "lame duck" manner - that there was this one card hidden away in Dick Cheney's sleeve if you will. Unfortunately this may be the card.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=ra&aid=9437

I tested this link but for some reason it didn't work. Sorry. Damn, can anyone fix it???
Good lord, I hope not. But, you are not the only one who fears this. Many of us, states side are worried that the current admid will get the next term president into a situation, they may not have foreseen or can handle.
A stor is offline  
Old 07-06-2008, 02:40 AM   #16
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadelynIris View Post
Israel has quietly been picking off supposedly non-existant nuclear weapons facilities all over the middle east for years, and we've (US) has been quite happy about that.
Well, not exactly...the Reagan Administration (Baker, Bush Sr., Weinberger and Kirkpatrick in particular) were openly condemning of Israel's 1981 attack on the Osiraq reactor, and the US supported UN Res 487 condemning the attack (in fact, Kirkpatrick co-wrote it). Of course, given that we were at the time beginning to cultivate Iraq as a counterweight to revolutionary Iran, this response was unsurprising; and doubtless the present Administration, given their original case for invading Iraq, would take a more "nuanced" view of that incident. It is true that the Bush Administration said relatively little about last year's attack on Syria (though I wouldn't really characterize their response as "quite happy"); however, there was a bizarre international silence in general on that incident, including from the rest of the 'Arab world'--perhaps in part because of the considerable doubt, confusion and conflicting 'leaks' as to what exactly the target was and how convinced the Israeli government was about that. Of course it should also be noted that Iran is a considerably more formidable power than Syria circa '07 or Iraq circa '81.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-06-2008, 03:50 AM   #17
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 03:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Of course it should also be noted that Iran is a considerably more formidable power than Syria circa '07 or Iraq circa '81.
Not when comes to the quantity and quality of conventional military weaponry available to the Syrians vs. what Iran currently has. For example, Syria has nearly 3 times as many main battle tanks as Iran and nearly 6 times as many modern main battle tanks. Iranian tank inventory still includes tanks from when the Shah was in power in addition to Iraqi tanks captured during the Iran/Iraq war. The comparison with Iraq in 1981 might be closer, but even here prior to much of Iraq's military build up in the 1980s, Iran today is behind in numbers of tanks and other conventional weapons that Iraq had in 1981.
Strongbow is offline  
Old 07-07-2008, 10:08 AM   #18
Refugee
 
A stor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: U.S.A. East Coast
Posts: 2,464
Local Time: 03:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Vest View Post
Geez, great answer...no concern about the thousands who would be killed on both sides, the reprecussions to the whole middle-fuckin-east, the possible domino effect of such an attack etc. etc. Hmmm.
I care....about the thousands who would be killed. Forgive me if I am wrong, but what right do they or even we (Americans) have to "attack" another nation?

Look what happened in Iraq. Where are those weapons of mass destruction? Faulty information, lead to war. And thousands have paid the price.

And didn't Iran comply with the inspectors and it was determined that their nuclear capabilities were being used for energy sources?
A stor is offline  
Old 08-05-2008, 08:25 PM   #19
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:10 AM
A bit tangential to the thread topic, but likely to be very relevant in the long term...
Quote:
Israel's Political Vacuum
The nation is looking for a leader and an agenda. It can't seem to find either.


By Shmuel Rosner
Slate.com, Aug. 1


To the American spectator, the parallels with Israel seem obvious. The departing leader is unpopular and scarred by an unsuccessful war. For the time being, the focus is on the primaries in which two candidates are vying for the leadership of the Kadima Party. One is a woman, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. The other is the "dark-skinned candidate," Transportation Minister and former Defense Minister and military chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, a member of the Sephardic Jewish diaspora, none of whose members has ever been prime minister.

But Livni is no Hillary Clinton—she's the more dovish of the two candidates, and she would not be Israel's first woman prime minister; Golda Meir played that role almost 40 years ago. And Mofaz is no Barack Obama. He has a lot of experience, is more hawkish, and the group of Sephardic Jews he belongs to—Mofaz was born in Iran—is not a minority in Israel. Still, this political fight will be all about the rules of the Kadima primary: Livni is more popular with the general public, but Mofaz has the edge when it comes to mastering the game of political deal-making.

When one of them wins the primaries in September, he or she will have the opportunity to form a coalition without elections—but most Israelis assume such a coalition couldn't survive for long. As tired as they might be, Israelis want elections. They want to reshuffle the cards yet again. There's a problem, though: The candidates—from the other parties as well as Kadima—aren't all that promising. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, the leader of the Labor Party, was prime minister in the late '90s and has never managed to recover his popularity with the public. Likud's hawkish leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, was prime minister before Barak. Netanyahu is currently ahead in the polls, but half the country seems to shudder whenever his name comes up. Both Barak and Netanyahu were kicked out of office by unhappy voters way before their terms were scheduled to expire.

The early departure of Ehud Olmert—a result of his mounting political and legal troubles—is another sign of Israel's leadership crisis, which I wrote about at the end of 2005, when his predecessor, Ariel Sharon, collapsed. The younger generation of leaders, "first Netanyahu and then…Ehud Barak were so disappointing, such juvenile prime ministers, that they sent Israeli voters rushing back to older, more experienced leaders—the men who were already there when the state of Israel was born"—men like Sharon. But after Sharon's collapse, "when the shift to a younger generation is no longer a luxury, it's not…clear where the leaders will come from."

Olmert was the accidental successor who just happened to be there when Sharon slipped off stage. Olmert inspired no awe—but whoever succeeds him will have the same problem. Livni, Mofaz, Netanyahu, Barak—none will have the benefit of personal dominance; all will find it difficult to win over voters. One of them will become prime minister—but only because the country has to have someone playing that role. Lacking the aura of natural authority, whoever is elected will have to find an achievable agenda in order to survive. Olmert supposedly had one when he was elected: He promised to continue Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories. A worthy cause, but there was one problem: It was a goal out of tune with reality. The conditions for an agreement with the Palestinian Authority, or the Syrians for that matter, were not in place. Olmert kept trying, but Israelis looked on with dismay. They thought, perhaps rightly, that the prime minister was playing politics, that his talks with the Arabs were aimed at diverting attention from the failed war he launched and from his own legal problems.

But the agenda Olmert's potential successors represent does not make voters confident. Arguably, there's close to a consensus about the solutions (or lack thereof) for the problems Israel now faces and very little difference among them: All will continue peace talks, but none believes that talks can lead to a lasting solution; all will emphasize the challenge posed to the region by Iran; all will struggle with the apparently unsolvable problem of Hamas' rule in Gaza; all understand that the international community failed to follow through and contain the power of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Rhetorical differences aside, all four candidates will take Israel in approximately the same direction—or will be dragged to similar conclusions by the conditions on the ground.

Returning to the Democratic primary parallel, the Israeli election will be more about personality than agenda. That's ironic, since a dominant personality is what Israelis are having trouble finding.
The comparison to the US Democratic primary is somewhat interesting.

I sure hope it doesn't wind up being Mofaz or Netanyahu.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×