'US builds 4 bases on Iraq-Iran border'

[G_j]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=61437§ionid=351020201

'US builds 4 bases on Iraq-Iran border'
Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:42:19

An aerial image of Iraq-Iran border
The US military has constructed four advanced bases 20 miles from Iraq's border with Iran, a senior Iraqi police officer has announced.

The bases, equipped with missile launch pads, have been set up over the past four months on the Iraq-Iran border; Iraqi al-Noor newspaper quoted the official as saying.

He added that one of the bases has been located 30 km (20 miles) from the first border town with Iran and houses remote-controlled launching pads as well as radar systems similar to ones used in Kuwait during the first Persian Gulf war.

"The bases do not serve military intentions and its staff would not be military personnel."

According to the official, the bases are only precautionary measures in case of a military strike against Israel by Iran.

A team consisting of high-profile US marines, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) alongside Pentagon experts oversee the bases.

MP/MMN

[global1]

1. And If You Believe This - I Have A Bridge In Brooklyn To Sell You........

"The bases do not serve military intentions and its staff would not be military personnel."

According to the official, the bases are only precautionary measures in case of a military strike against Israel by Iran.

Where is the Doomsday Clock at today?

[Supersedeas]

2. almost 'as if' they had actionable intelligence that an 'attack' was imminent...

[spanone]

5. then one must ask, what is their purpose?

[G_j]

11. "in case of a military strike against Israel by Iran."

I think they really mean the opposite:
in case of a military strike against Iran by Israel.

[NightWatcher]

3. we're staging a lot of people and assets real close to an area that we are about to nuke

that doesnt seem to make too much sense to me

[Meiko]

4. What makes you think

that we would use nukes...no bet's on Israel but us, I don't think so. Using a nuke would be a MAJOR escalation right from the start.

[NightWatcher]

6. I keep hearing about the use of "tactical nukes"

I too think that would escalate things to the point of no return, but I think any strike would do the same

[Winterblues]

8. If you bomb a nuke site what do you think will happen?

Do you think there will be any fallout? Or do you give it any thought at all?

[madokie]

9. The thing that worries me about the nukes thing is, remember when bushco was wanting

some 'tactical nuclear weapons' well what you reckon he wants them for, Iran. When they say tactical they are saying small, imo so as to not turn the whole desert to glass after all theres still oil under that sand that belongs to them oil barons you know. If and when this comes down it will be done with shock and awe like we've never, or the world for that matter, has ever seen. Bushco is planning to go out with a big bang, that I do believe. Dick and W have to know by now that they've really fucked things up and theres no turning back the clock.

[tuckessee]

10. Because you can't whip them conventionally.

The US will wind up using nukes (remember, they have not only a "first strike" policy but a proven history as well) because they won't be able to handle the casualities their troops incur.

Don't worry about the "major escalation" part holding them back, that's already being done by trying to provoke a war where none is necessary..

[G_j]

12. Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html

Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; Page A01

The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.


At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would "respond with overwhelming force" to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said "all options" would be available to the president.

The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.

Titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" and written under the direction of Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the draft document is unclassified and available on a Pentagon Web site. It is expected to be signed within a few weeks by Air Force Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, director of the Joint Staff, according to Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer in Myers's office. Meanwhile, the draft is going through final coordination with the military services, the combatant commanders, Pentagon legal authorities and Rumsfeld's office, Cutler said in a written statement.

..more..

[didact]

7. Good duty station if you can get it

:hide: