US attack on Iran 'inconceivable'

[Guy_Montag]

US attack on Iran 'inconceivable'

Mohammad Khatami has offered a compromise in nuclear talks
UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said it is "inconceivable" that America would try to bomb Iran.

There has been speculation about whether the newly re-elected George Bush will be more hawkish over Iran.

Pointing to talks with Tehran, Mr Straw said: "I don't see any circumstances in which military action would be justified against Iran, full stop."

Mr Straw said President Bush's re-election gave the world the chance to make new progress on Middle East peace.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3981307.stm

[cornermouse]

1. Whistling in the dark.

Bush doesn't care what they think or say. I, for one, won't be surprised if we attack Iran.

[Guy_Montag]

5. Kinda what I was thinking n/t

[hatrack]

26. Or would that be "whistling past the graveyard"?

By the way, great username - wish I'd thought of it!

[Midlodemocrat]

9. Ditto. He sure didn't care what the world thought about attacking Iraq

[Javaman]

34. And throw in Syria for good messure.

[Mnemosyne]

2. I thought another theft of the gov here was "inconceivable"

So sorry to the rest of world for what the Lunatic in Thief will do under the guise of "spreading democracy" throughout the world.

May the world and God forgive us.

Thanks for the post Guy, and hey, what a great hobby!! Hurts no one and promotes good health!!!Thanks for good laugh, I really needed it after yesterday's debacle.

[ilovenicepeople]

29. I thought that people would'nt stand for another "STOLEN" election

What a mistake thinking American's would stand up for thier country.:cry:

[slipperduke]

3. Once upon a time,

Jack Straw was the head of the UK Student Union. He marched against nuclear weapons, against fascism and all the rest.

He was such a powerful part of the UK Left that our secret servics actually had a dossier full of spy reports on him, an irony considering that he went on to be Home Secretary.

And then something happened. All of a sudden he hurled his principles to the floor, shifted right, whirled his tongue around *'s ring and started to argue in favour of silly wars.

Seeing him out there today, placating the masses on behalf of * is no surprise at all.

He really is a cunt.

Sorry....still angry.

[drhilarius]

4. "I don't see any circumstances in which military action would be justifie

I think your neighbor said likewise.

[Englander]

6. Since when has the justification of military action....

stopped the Fascist Chimp?
I'm not a genius or a prophet,and it is clear that Iran is intent on
getting nuclear technology,the neo-cons will then talk themselves into attacking Iran next year.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

33. Ahhhhh, they are looking for that safety net that the N. Koreans have

woven for themselves. Wonderful.

[4dsc]

7. AWOLbush has ENBOLDENED the clerics

I believe the hardlines clerics are cracking down now more than ever. They see the QEUAGMIRE that AWOLbush has created in Iraq and they know the US cannot and will not invade Iraq too!! No way in hell..

[MSgt213]

8. Mr Straw Bush doesn't have to listen to you. He can invade who ever he

wants now because we have values.

[atreides1]

30. And Don't Forget

We have morals too.

[LynnTheDem]

10. What does JUSTIFICATION (or laws) have to do with what bush does???

Just wondering, Mr. Jack "Yes I was warned the invasion of Iraq would be illegal" Straw.

[Owlet]

11. Bush has Sharon's blessing

..for any attack on Iran. That's all that counts.

[ET Awful]

12. Mmmmhmmm, it was also inconceivable that Bush was wrong about

WMD's in Iraq.

Lot's of things are inconceivable.

Anyone that thinks Bush gives the world a chance to make new progress on Middle East peace must equate "progress" to "massive destruction and human suffering."

[Diana52]

13. Typo?

Ummmm....shouldn't that headline read, US attack on Iran "inevitable"?

The misunderestimation continues.

[Nimrod]

14. "That word you keep using..."

"I don't think it means what you think it means."
--Inigo Montoya

[Pert_UK]

16. NO MORE RHYMING - I MEAN IT!

Damn you, I was typing first.......

P.

[anakie]

18. does anybody want a peanut?

[Pert_UK]

15. That word you use...I don't think it means what you think it means...

A big shout out to all you Princess Bride fans out there...Big up yourselves!

I heard this interview on Radio 4 this morning.

IMHO it's one thing to say, "I don't see any circumstances in which military action would be justified against Iran, full stop....and therefore it won't happen" and,

"I don't see any circumstances in which military action would be justified against Iran, full stop...but Bush is so batshit crazy that he'll probably be lobbing in nukes by Christmas."

Will the US attack Iran? - There's no justification, but it hasn't stopped them before....

[Bridget Burke]

27. ....never argue with a Sicilian....(thud)

[Tempest]

17. U.S. won't bomb Iran

But Israel will.

And it's the same thing.

[demokatgurrl]

19. Go ahead, pull the other leg, it has bells on it.

[Az_lefty]

20. We don't have to, Israel will do it for us.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

21. An attack on Iran is inconceivable

Until the repukes get the draft cranked up in the next couple of years and we get a million men under arms.

I'm not sure what the neo-cons want to do next, but if they are serious about their quest for world domination, a military draft is inevitable.

I pray they are saner than I think they are.

[jpak]

22. The US won't do it - but Israel will with US help.

The Chimp and Sharon will give Jordan "an offer they can't refuse" regarding transit of Israeli aircraft through their airspace.

The US will then establish a secure air corridor across Iraq and possilbly supply Israeli warplanes with mid-air refueling.

and all HELL will break loose...

[JohnyCanuck]

23. It could get real dicey real fast all right.

Iran: A Bridge too Far?

by Mark Gaffney

<snip>

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes “violent end maneuvers” to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution –– not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder “just in time.”

The Sunburn’s combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat.

<snip>

Let us pray that the US sailors who are unlucky enough to be on duty in the Persian Gulf when the shooting starts can escape the fate of the Roman army at Cannae. The odds will be heavily against them, however, because they will face the same type of danger, tantamount to envelopment. The US ships in the Gulf will already have come within range of the Sunburn missiles and the even more-advanced SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles, also Russian-made (speed: Mach 2.9; range: 180 miles) deployed by the Iranians along the Gulf’s northern shore. Every US ship will be exposed and vulnerable. When the Iranians spring the trap, the entire lake will become a killing field.

Anti-ship cruise missiles are not new, as I’ve mentioned. Nor have they yet determined the outcome in a conflict. But this is probably only because these horrible weapons have never been deployed in sufficient numbers. At the time of the Falklands war the Argentine air force possessed only five Exocets, yet managed to sink two ships. With enough of them, the Argentineans might have sunk the entire British fleet, and won the war. Although we’ve never seen a massed attack of cruise missiles, this is exactly what the US Navy could face in the next war in the Gulf. Try and imagine it if you can: barrage after barrage of Exocet-class missiles, which the Iranians are known to possess in the hundreds, as well as the unstoppable Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. The questions that our purblind government leaders should be asking themselves, today, if they value what historians will one day write about them, are two: how many of the Russian anti-ship missiles has Putin already supplied to Iran? And: How many more are currently in the pipeline? In 2001 Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that Iran was attempting to acquire anti-ship missiles from Russia. Ominously, the same report also mentioned that the more advanced Yakhonts missile was “optimized for attacks against carrier task forces.” Apparently its guidance system is “able to distinguish an aircraft carrier from its escorts.” The numbers were not disclosed…

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

[burrowowl]

32. I hope not

but it is a very likely scenario.

[The_Casual_Observer]

24. He didn't say no. Inconceivable means nothing.

chimp will have troops in Iran by April if for no other reason than as a cover while eliminating social security.

[daleo]

25. This man is a known liar

His word means nothing.

[jobycom]

28. "You keep using that word,"

"I don't think it means what you think it means." Inego Montoya, Princes Bride.

[Nag Champa]

31. I can already hear our drunken King:

"If we wait until it is justified, it will be too late."

[Ilsa]

35. Of course * won't attack Iran...

until he bombs Syria into a pile of pulp first.

[peterh]

36. And the twit will say…there’s no attack plan on my desk….

‘cause it’s been signed off and given to rummy….