WSJ: U.S. military seeks more powerful bomb against Iran

[flying]

"In October 2005, recently elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quoted Ayatollah Khomeini and declared, “As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.” “And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism” (AP, October 26, 2005)."

Can we really take any chances and let Iran have a nuke?

Israel will not let it happen I guarantee.

As it pertains to Iran I would like to answer........

You are linking The Jewish Virtual Library A division of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise

As such again I would say lets judge a tree by its fruits.

If Iran made an actual physical attempt at war of course it would be met with force by others.

Yet the truth/Facts of the matter is Iran has been inspected multiple times...Others who have the same or worse have not.

We cannot go around the world dictating who is worthy of having things & who is not.

Again if we judge by action not rhetoric we are hard pressed to make such claims against Iran who historically

has invaded or attacked who exactly? In modern times we find none.......

Judge by actions not words

If the USA or Israel make the first physical aggressive move it is they who are wrong

even if they wish to term it preemptive strike..... It is what it is.... an unprovoked attack

on a country that has done nothing wrong.

Again lets not call breaking a treaty that has long been broken wrong...Especially considering

those who are already in default would like to use it as a tool/excuse.

It is not right nor fair.

If a country fears another country then it is that countries right to build up their defense.

It is not their right to attack the other country they fear.

You can apply that thinking to any of the countries involved & it is true for all.

Edited January 29, 2012 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

You are linking The Jewish Virtual Library A division of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise

This quote is what he said and can be verified by plenty of other legitimate publications and sources.

Here is another one:

"They (the Western powers) launched the myth of the Holocaust. They lied, they put on a show and then they support the Jews."

-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

This lunatic and his masters are not to be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

An off-topic post aimed at baiting other posters and a rehash of an old topic has been deleted.

This is the final public warning. Either stay on THIS topic or find yourself in the penalty box for a while.

[bangkaew]

Bombing iran? Madness. War is never the best option and those that think it is have no clue to the reality of it. A Belgian once explained the difference between the continentals and anglos. The continentals are against war because they have hosted plenty and had their women raped in the process. It has been centuries since the American and British public hosted a war and that is why they are war mongers. It is like a video game to them.

[maidu]

"In October 2005, recently elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quoted Ayatollah Khomeini and declared, “As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.” “And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism” (AP, October 26, 2005)."Can we really take any chances and let Iran have a nuke? Israel will not let it happen I guarantee.

I've read up an Khomeini quotes. The man was a dangerous sicko, and it's sad that he so strongly influences so many Iranians. He was so fixated on bodily fluids (which ones were ok, which ones demonic, distance of penetration of penis in a rape, etc) that things like paedophilia and incest, anal intercourse, and rape itself faded in significance - in his warped perspective.

To risk WW3 over such as this is a tragedy in the making.

So we should just let these lunatics develop nuclear weapons? Sorry, but the Neville Chamberlain approach does not work.

It appears we have a polarization of views. One side thinks pre-emptive strike, the other side says something like; 'sit back and wait and see and hope for the best.'

As for precedent, there was a pre-emptive strike by Israeli jets against an Iraqi nuclear facility, several years ago, before the invasion of Kuwait. At that time, though Iraq was run by sicko dictator Hussein, there was no retaliation. Not even a complaint within the UN.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Scott
formatting

[Orac]

"In October 2005, recently elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quoted Ayatollah Khomeini and declared, “As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.” “And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism” (AP, October 26, 2005)."Can we really take any chances and let Iran have a nuke? Israel will not let it happen I guarantee.

I've read up an Khomeini quotes. The man was a dangerous sicko, and it's sad that he so strongly influences so many Iranians. He was so fixated on bodily fluids (which ones were ok, which ones demonic, distance of penetration of penis in a rape, etc) that things like paedophilia and incest, anal intercourse, and rape itself faded in significance - in his warped perspective.

According to a number of sources, the quote attributed to Ahmadinejad is a fabrication/exageration and what he actually called for was the removal of the regime in Jerusalem rather than 'wiping Israel from the map'. Useful article here:

Cole said this week that in the 1980s Khomeini gave a speech in which he said in Persian “Een rezhim-i eshghalgar-i Quds bayad az sahneh-i ruzgar mahv shaved.” This means, “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time.”

source: http://www.washingto...JIKML_blog.html

[meom]

Any ideas as to how long it will take Congress to approve the additional funding, upgrade the MOP, ship the upgraded MOP to Diego Garcia, load the thing in a B-2 bomber and plan the flight to Fordow?

I guess they would need two B-2’s. The first one to take out Iran’s air defenses around Fordow and the 2^nd one that will drop the MOP?

[flying]

War is never the best option? What were the French to do when the Nazis came charging through the Ardennes forest like army ants in 1941? Offer them Bonbel and smiles? Methinks you need to study some history, in order to offer opinions that don't make you look like a neophyte.

While I agree with some things you said.............this is in no way the same.

No attack has been launched nor suggested by Iran.

Instead it would be an unprovoked attack on them period.

We have no more right to do so than to attack other countries that have nukes yet do not partake in treaties nor abide by them even when they are signatories.

It is flat out madness

Edited January 29, 2012 by flying

[bangkaew]

Any ideas as to how long it will take Congress to approve the additional funding, upgrade the MOP, ship the upgraded MOP to Diego Garcia, load the thing in a B-2 bomber and plan the flight to Fordow?

I guess they would need two B-2’s. The first one to take out Iran’s air defenses around Fordow and the 2^nd one that will drop the MOP?

Exciting ain't it?

[metisdead]

Off topic posts have been removed.

[meom]

Any ideas as to how long it will take Congress to approve the additional funding, upgrade the MOP, ship the upgraded MOP to Diego Garcia, load the thing in a B-2 bomber and plan the flight to Fordow?

I guess they would need two B-2’s. The first one to take out Iran’s air defenses around Fordow and the 2^nd one that will drop the MOP?

Exciting ain't it?

I wouldn’t call it exciting but interesting nonetheless.

[Pedzie]

Back to the OP. It does show the US is hell bent on war with Iran and has been for a few years at least, when George W Bush was in the white house,him and the rest of the Neo-Cons said Iran will not be allowed a nuke and any circumstances. Fair enough, Iran with nukes is not a nice thought!

When they do strike Iran will they just go for the nuke sites or try take out the Iranian leadership also ? If they go for regime change then this will be one hell of a mistake with Russia/China having close ties with Iran. It could easily escalate into a bigger conflict, The US has already sent a few thousand troops in to Israel and also placed It's mighty military strategically across the globe incase the worst happens..Scary times ahead in 2012!

[Jingthing]

So you think the US wants to make the exact same mistake made in Iraq in Iran? No way! The better bombs are a good idea IF it comes to the need to bomb the bunkers. There is no way the US would take on an all out regime change style war in Iran on purpose. Of course that could happen if Iran attacks civilian targets in Israel, Europe, and the U.S.

[Thongkorn]

With the technology of to day you can land smart bombs in the same position, just land a few one after another. with a time laps, why bigger bombs.

[Ulysses G.]

When they do strike Iran will they just go for the nuke sites or try take out the Iranian leadership also ?

IMO, if they have to do it, they should just take out the Nuke sites and any Iranian forces that are necessary to accomplish the mission. No more nation building.

Israel took out the nuclear weapons capability of Iran and Syrian this way and put a permanent stop to their programs.

[Pedzie]

So you think the US wants to make the exact same mistake made in Iraq in Iran? No way! The better bombs are a good idea IF it comes to the need to bomb the bunkers. There is no way the US would take on an all out regime change style war in Iran on purpose. Of course that could happen if Iran attacks civilian targets in Israel, Europe, and the U.S.

The megalomaniacs in Washigton and the UK are hell bent on regime change, like they where with the leaders of other Arab countries JT, The Arab spring was partly instigated by the US-UK, Sure the people of the Arab world did want to get rid of these crackpot regimes, quite rightly so...It's not up to other countries to determine the fate of the Arab world.

America wants friendly relations with all the Arab world but under US terms! There is a lot more going on that neither you or me are fully aware of. Russia recently sold war planes to Syria. Another fact is oil, this is the real reason the US meddles in the middle east. The US has bases all around the oil rich middle east. And if the Iranian people really wanted regime change don't you think we would see mast protests in Iran like we have seen in Syria, Egypt etc ?? Yes Iran has a hardline leadership that would not allow such protests, the same with Syria, but they choose to come out and protest against Assad.

Another aspect is the peak oil situation, most of the worlds oil is in the middle east, I don't think the US would be involved in the middle east if it wasn't because the vast oil that countries like Iraq/Iran/Saudi have...Why no NATO intervention in Syria or Egypt? Both countries don't have much oil or gas, But lybya is sitting on an ocean of sweet crude oil! Surprise we had the UK France take down Gaddafi. For the sole purpose of getting the nations oil reserves back onto the world markets.

[Thongkorn]

If the state controls the media , how would the people get there point of view across

[Ulysses G.]

And if the Iranian people really wanted regime change don't you think we would see mast protests in Iran like we have seen in Syria, Egypt etc ?? .

They already tried that and were crushed by the Iranian government.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Pedzie]

If the state controls the media , how would the people get there point of view across

The internet!

[Pedzie]

And if the Iranian people really wanted regime change don't you think we would see mast protests in Iran like we have seen in Syria, Egypt etc ?? .

They already tried them and were crushed by the Iranian government.

People power is much stronger than any national Government, look at Syria! Their Government control the media, yet the population still come in the 100'000s to protest against the leadership.

[Ulysses G.]

That is great, but they are getting murdered by the thousands.

[meom]

When they do strike Iran will they just go for the nuke sites or try take out the Iranian leadership also ?

IMO, if they have to do it, they should just take out the Nuke sites and any Iranian forces that are necessary to accomplish the mission. No more nation building.

Israel took out the nuclear weapons capability of Iran and Syrian this way and put a permanent stop to their programs.

How would the Iranians retaliate though?

[Pedzie]

Another reason why Iran/Pakistan should not have nukes is because the techology to begin both countries nuclear ambitions was infact stolen by a Pakistan nation from a Dutch nuclear research institute, he brought the technology home to Pakistan and this sped up Pakistan's nuclear ambitions. He also sold the technology to countries like Iran and N Korea. So you could argue this man is indeed responsible for Pakistan's current nuclear weapons.

He was treated as a national hero, but now under house arrest thanks to US pressure.

Pakistan should defo not have nukes, neither Iran should or indeed Israel. The whole area would be such a safer place, Israel in backed by the US so should't really have the need for nukes, it only makes it's neighbours wanting to require such devices.

[Pedzie]

That is great, but they are getting murdered by the thousands.

Yes they probably are, but why no intervention by NATO or the UN ?? Less people got killed in the Libya conflict but wee seen rapid intervention, double standards i think!

[Ulysses G.]

That is great, but they are getting murdered by the thousands.

Yes they probably are, but why no intervention by NATO or the UN ?? Less people got killed in the Libya conflict but wee seen rapid intervention, double standards i think!

IMO, intervention in Libya was only attempted because it was so much cheaper and easier, Syria would be MUCH more difficult.

[Pedzie]

Israel in backed by the US so should't really have the need for nukes,

Would you trust Barrack Omama to back you to the hilt in a major war with all the countries that have sworn to destroy them over many decades? I sure wouldn't and either would they.

I would't trust Obama no ( it's not that it's him who decides anyway), he's just the front man/puppet in the US.

Israel has more non nuclear weaponry at it's disposal than probably all of the Arab world combined, excluding Pakistan, soon to be Iran! Iran should have It's nuke ambitions stopped. YES!! but unless Israel is surrounded by It's Arab neighbours who had nukes all pointing at Israel.Then yes Israel should also have nukes, this isn't he case tho! A middle east devoid of nukes totally = a much safer area (vital to the whole world)

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted.

This thread seems to be dominated by a discussion of Israel. There are other threads where the topic is Israel. I am sure there are other reasons for the problems with Iran than Israel.

[Exsexyman]

Because their values are a threat to western values. Yes, I am talking about Islamo-fascist totalitarian radical Islamic fundamentalist extremism and Iran has shown evidence they are into exporting those values, including in Muslim Thailand. Sorry, no!

Mind boggling rant. Iran are no threat to the UK or The US,( although i suppose if they start accepting gold for oil payments that would upset the banksters). No doubt Iran would argue that Western values are a threat to their values. Who are you to decide that The US / Israel should attack Iran because you don't agree with their "values'. Has it ever occured to you that the population in Iran may be quite happy with their "values". Very few people in the West , certainly very few Americans know anything about Iran, only the propaganda BS they are fed by their governments, relayed to them by the tame media. Iran is a vast, sophisticated, educated country with a civilisation going back centuries. What they don't have of course is a Western controlled Central Bank, with Western owned debt, and for obvious reasons have no desire to join this club. If they want to sell THEIR oil to whoever they like and receive payment in gold, up to them. America really has to get over this belief they have that all the oil in the world belongs to them. And if the countries that are sitting on this oil don't like it, well, we are a superpower, we have the biggest bombs, and we will use them if you don't fall into line. This policy is doomed to fail, look at the mess in Libya now, and Iraq. I understand how you feel about hanging homosexuals, and adulterers, of course this is abhorrent to us in the West, but Saudi Arabia, Bahrain etc all have the same values as Iran, why aren't you slavering for The US to attack them too? Because they sell us cheap oil and buy billions of dollars of weapons from us? The US and the UK even sell instruments of torture to these regimes. Rank hypocrisy and double standards. And when it comes to terrorizing people, well, since the end of World War 2 The US has dropped bombs on the people of more than thirty countries, with countless casualties, probably running into millions. Bombing Iran will cause death and destruction, not just there but probably in the wider Middle East as well. The beneficiaries will be bankers and arms manufacturers. As a wise man once said, 'war is a racket'. And if you really do believe that the US has no interest in regime change in Iraq, well, you really are capable of believing six impossible things before breakfast!

[Exsexyman]

Sorry, typo. I meant regime change in Iran.

[Jingthing]

What I meant, of course, that there is no American appetite for another ten year invasion and occupation of Iran as a copy of Iraq. OF COURSE!!!! there is great desire for regime change in Iran. The hope is the Iranian people themselves will make that come about.