U.S. Studies Military Strike Options on Iran

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I find it rather disturbing about how casual you are about nuke usage.

CIV syndrom.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I find it rather disturbing about how casual you are about nuke usage.

This is him restraining himself. You should see him on the other board.

[MKSheppard]

This is him restraining himself. You should see him on the other board.

BUWHAHAHAHHAhAHA

[Cort Haus]

Can anyone point to a quote from a named and current US govt official which states an explicit intent to attack Iran?

Is there a primary source for the story other than Seymour Hersh? - whose sources in turn are, according to David Aaronovitch in The Times (London) :

"a former senior intelligence official…one former defence official…one military planner…a discouraged former International Atomic Energy Agency official…one recently retired high-level Bush administration official."

Isn't this remeniscent of the anonymous 'sources' that brought us the WMD in Iraq? In other words, how credible is all this?

Apart from laptop bombadiers like Kristol, and lunatics like Perle, (who'll attack anyone for fun), is there anyone who thinks its a good idea?

[germanos]

Originally posted by MKSheppard

The US is essentially the world's nuclear hedgemon.

For a moment I thought you had any credibility...

[IMG][/IMG]

[Ramo]

Sy Hersh is one of the most solid investigative reporters in this country. He broke stories such as My Lai and Abu Ghraib. I'm weary of anonymous sources too, but the man is reliable as just about any other journalist in the country. Pretty much anything he publishes shouldn't be ignored.

[Cort Haus]

Doubtless all the media purveyors of WMD in Iraq were seen as credible sources, too.

[Ramo]

Well, they were actually reflecting common sentiment in the US intelligence community. It's the Saddam-al-Qaeda connection writers who did not reflect said community, and were often in hack news publications (i.e. the Weekly Standard).

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Its obvious the intention at present is to try diplomacy whilst leaking information saying military options are on the table to give teeth to negotiations.

Stay tuned as to how that course of action works out.

[germanos]

I think the opposite scenario is quite as likely:
Bush intends to bomb and is just waiting for diplomacy to fail.
It worked once, why wouldn't it work again?

Stay tuned.

[Cort Haus]

Iran is a far bigger country than Iraq, and to say that the US forces are stretched and demoralised is an understatement. If you're gonna rattle the sabre, it's best to do it when you're not already scrabbling about trying to hold together the previous adventure. Make that the previous two adventures.

[Patroklos]

and to say that the US forces are stretched and demoralised is an understatement.

While the other part is also incorrect, where did you get that bolded part from?

[Cort Haus]

So you're saying that morale is booming?

[Patroklos]

Actually it is pretty much the same. You see, as the military is not really over stetched, most of the military, like 80% of them (ie those not actually in Iraq/Afghanistan), live a life little different than what it was immediatly post 9/11. Most have a little more money in their pocket to boot.

Operational tempo is a little higher, but really just superficial differances. It would always be considered high if you stuck a civilian into our shoes.

And in Iraq and especially Afghanistan, morale is definetly not low. You won't find even the media saying that.

[MKSheppard]

For a moment I thought you had any credibility...

Not very familiar with the use of hedgemon in international relations?

Link to Wiki article on Hedgemony

The US since the end of the Cold War fits the classical definition of a Hedgemon.