• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are we about to attack Iran???

Er... about 4 years too late, don't you think? I take it from the link that you mean Iran.
 
billydkid said:
I brought this up a while back based on comments by Scott Ritter. Here is another opinion. And please don't get hysterical because it's on Lew Rockwell.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts193.html
Click to expand...
I thought we already attacked Iraq?

Assuming typo.

I dunno. But - if Bush DOES attack Iran? I believe this country, for a time, will come apart.

Perhaps that is what Bush wants? Who knows. Least of all - him.
 
Architect said:
Apparently the US are seriously preparing for it:
http://www.sundayherald.com/interna..._sites_from_bases_in_bulgaria_and_romania.php
For those outwith Scotland, the Sunday Herald is the sister paper of the Herald, Scotland's best selling broadsheet, and is recognised as an all round good egg.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, Arch.

Did you look at a chart and see what nations a plane beginning in Bulgaria or Romania have to overfly in order to get to Iran?

I am skeptical of this report. Turkey didn't oblige W with the 4th ID, I don't see Turkey obliging the US with overflight now. The tensions with EU are not making things better for Western interests in Turkey. Likewise, I don't see Russian helping, given their irritation at US bases being leased in their old area of influence.

So, Arch, who is going to grant the US overflight rights for a USAF strike into Iran? Do you think Georgia is going to do that, as well as Armenia and/or Azerbaijan?

If there are indeed two CVBG's in the Gulf, there is plenty of striking power right there to do the job, as well as from the other bases the US have in the PG.

This analysis seems to be made by people who play a lot of Risk. I read a lot of Paul Craig Robert's articles, and as much as I like his experience and analysis, he has a tendency to histrionics these days that damages his message a bit. A pity, since he has seen things from the bird's eye view.

DR
 
Last edited:
Oh my God, I mistyped! Please, please, can you find someway in your hearts to forgive me????? Obviously, I meant Iran.
 
Big Les said:
And also for those outwith Scotland, "outwith" means "outside of".

:D :boxedin:
Click to expand...


Whit? Outwith is a common word. It's used in the courts ("outwith our jurisdiction") and in construction ("outwith the site boundaries"). I don't believe all you damned Sassenachs never use it?! :rolleyes:

Darth - Sunday Herald has provedn right quite a few times, and has a very strong foreign desk. Don't dismiss them lightly.
 
Big Les said:
And also for those outwith Scotland, "outwith" means "outside of".

:D :boxedin:
Click to expand...
Here "without" is same thing OR not having - does outwith also have the same second meaning in Scotland? (ex. The young gentleman waits without. VS The young gentleman left without his umbrella.)
 
fuelair said:
Here "without" is same thing OR not having - does outwith also have the same second meaning in Scotland? (ex. The young gentleman waits without. VS The young gentleman left without his umbrella.)
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose you could say "a young man waits outwith these very doors, having failed to realise that basic physics is outwith the grasp of Dylan OR Jones....."


;)


Isn't "without" as in "without these very walls" antiquated in normal English usage? Whereas "outwith" is pretty much in eveyday use here.

I notice these things sometimes, spending so much time in Manchester and all, but to be honest I'm adopting the attitude that the Sassenachs have to learn how to understand me - not the other way around!:p
 
The old hymn:

There is a green hill far away
Without a city wall

Caused so much confusion they had to change it.
 
Architect said:
Darth - Sunday Herald has provedn right quite a few times, and has a very strong foreign desk. Don't dismiss them lightly.
Click to expand...
Not lightly, and skeptical of, not dismissed.

This is why I asked you the question: what leads you (or the Sunday Herald) to think Georgia, Azerbaijan, and - or Armenia would be willing to provide overflight rights to USAF strike aircraft into Iran's back door?

It's a rather pointless expenditure of political capital. If the attack is allegedly pending, the US could just as easily launch strike aircraft from Iraq (there is a base there) tank them over Iraq, and penetrate from there (not to mention the CVBG assets) without having to expend political capital with Turkey, or the above mentioned states.

DR
 
Arthur Silber has a good essay about this.

Let us state the final conclusion boldly and unmistakably, so we may appreciate its full horror: the Bush administration has already decided, and probably decided some time ago, that it will attack Iran. They want a wider war. Everything that is now going on is simply the cover for the moment when the bombing begins, intended to provide what will be accepted as "justification" for the attack by the American public and the world.

And all of it is a lie from beginning to end.
Click to expand...
 
I just don't believe Cheney (oh, and by the way, Bush) are so dumb as to directly attack Iran. Especially if congress passes the measure now wending its way through committee that would explicitly state that Bush needs congressional approval for such a move.

If it does come to pass, look for an impeachment motion in the House.
 
I posted this in another forum.

me said:
Iran put up with airstrikes and missles from Iraq for 8 years during it's war with Iraq. I don't think us sending in a couple hundred soties of F-14s and F-18s is going to do much more than erode the good will many Iranian citizens still (somehow) have for the U.S.
Click to expand...
 
I think UnrepentantSinner has cited an important strategic factor. By my reading, young Iranians are not sympathetic to the ruling mullahs and have an attraction to western culture.

If so, then our strategic moves should be to support the upcoming generation...or at least not to alienate them...which an attack would surely do.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Not lightly, and skeptical of, not dismissed.

This is why I asked you the question: what leads you (or the Sunday Herald) to think Georgia, Azerbaijan, and - or Armenia would be willing to provide overflight rights to USAF strike aircraft into Iran's back door?

It's a rather pointless expenditure of political capital. If the attack is allegedly pending, the US could just as easily launch strike aircraft from Iraq (there is a base there) tank them over Iraq, and penetrate from there (not to mention the CVBG assets) without having to expend political capital with Turkey, or the above mentioned states.

DR
Click to expand...

Because the USAF has often used Blakenheath and other UK sites as a base for distant bombing missions, despite the same overflying issues.
 
SezMe said:
I just don't believe Cheney (oh, and by the way, Bush) are so dumb as to directly attack Iran. Especially if congress passes the measure now wending its way through committee that would explicitly state that Bush needs congressional approval for such a move.

If it does come to pass, look for an impeachment motion in the House.
Click to expand...


I would think they have two chances (none and f-all) of support from the UK and other allies this time, which will make things difficult for the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom