Iran can be bombed says General Petraeus

[TriWooOx]

Quote:Gen David Petraeus, head of Central Command or Centcom, did not elaborate on the plans, but said the military has considered the impacts of any action taken there.

Asked about the vulnerability of Iran's nuclear installations, he told CNN: "Well, they certainly can be bombed. The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have, and what capability they can bring to bear."

He added: "It would be almost literally irresponsible if Centcom were not to have been thinking about the various 'what ifs' and to make plans for a whole variety of different contingencies."

Iran maintains its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, but the United States and other Western nations fear Tehran wants to acquire nuclear weapons.

Israel has called Iran's nuclear programme the major threat facing its nation. Gen Petraeus declined to comment about Israel's military capabilities, according to CNN.

Iran had until the end of last year to accept a deal offered five permanent UN Security Council members – Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany.

It did not do so. Instead, Tehran gave the West until the end of January to accept its own proposal.

Petraeus said he thought there was still time for the nations to engage Iran in diplomacy, noting there is no deadline on the enactment of any US contingency plans.

But he added that "there's a period of time, certainly, before all this might come to a head".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...raeus.html

[h3rm35]

"Well, they certainly can be bombed."
General Patraeus... the legal scholar...
"Gen Petraeus declined to comment about Israel's military capabilities, according to CNN."
look! at least he listens to legal scholars... If he had told the world they they could nuke them into a giant crater, Israel would be one step closer to sanctions and repercussions under the nuclear proliferation treaty.

[Ctrl]

I fail to grasp your point....

[h3rm35]

sorry if it seemed too vague...

Basically, I don't believe we'll be bombing Iran. Patraeus was simply saying that there are contingency plans in which the scenario is bombing Iran, and of course there are. The only people that'll be bombing Iran are Israeli... if they don't completely wipe them off the map, which I know they've been waiting for the opportunity to accomplish, and Iran retaliates, then we'll step in and help Israel, but we certainly won't be the first ones to let the missiles fly.

The legal scholar point was that I wouldn't necessarily listen to patraeus as the voice of the US government on this issue - he doesn't have the ability to chose to bomb them. He has to wait for the process to be approved by congress and the president before he can do anything, and he was simply stating that we have the capability and the plans drawn up on the military aspect on how to do it.

Granted, Israel is basically the most powerful state of our union (tragically,) due to lobbying interests, but the government of this country still, to a certain extent, has to listen to public sentiment, so I don't think the Israeli lobby can convince us to make the first strike, unless of course Mossad stages another false flag op that scares the shit out of the general public so badly that they back a war.

Iran is no Afghanistan or Iraq. They have a powerful military and very advanced weaponry. They're ready to defend themselves. We would suffer more casualties attacking Iran within the first year of conflict than we would in all the years of Af/raq combined. We'd have to pull forces from protecting pipelines in Afghanistan and oilfields in Iraq. No matter what the Israeli's say about how dangerous Iran is, they'd have to make a case that it was more important than cementing our strategic positions around the vast natural resources that we've secured access to before they even attempted to bomb Iran themselves. The US attacking Iran would also incite China and Russia to come to their defense, basically WWIII.

If this happened, we could all stop worrying about poisons in our food, water and vaccinations, as the elite would have chosen to use a hard kill method. I doubt this to be the case, because they'd like to be able to insure who the 500,000,000 that will be left are. The whole global thermonuclear war thing is just too damn messy, and who knows? Maybe it would end up killing a Rockafeller?

the second point in my post points out the fact that if Patraeus had said anything about Israeli nukes, it would set off a total shitstorm, because if the US ever said that they gave nukes to Israel, or Israel admitted publicly that they had them, they'd have to face the same scrutiny that Iran is currently facing over it's nuclear program due to the non - proliferation treaty. That's something I'd personally love to see happen, and most of the rest of the world would as well, but Patraeus won't say it because he listens to his handlers, and his handlers say that Israel pays them far too well for that to happen.

[Ctrl]

(01-11-2010 10:29 PM)h3rm35 Wrote:  Granted, Israel is basically the most powerful state of our union (tragically,)

Not even fucking close, and it just shows your ignorance about your neighbour to your north. To Wit: Canada.

Both Israel and Canada are armed with the USA's latest and greatest killing toys. The difference is Canadians have 34 million people. The Isaeli's have 6 million. In a conventional warfare theatre the Jew's wouldn't stand a snowflake's chance in Hell of beating the LITERAL 51'st state in the union.

Moreover, Israel would be FUCKED (cease to EXIST!) without the USA's handouts. OTOH, the USA doesn't give Canada one thin dime and we don't NEED IT to survive either.

I think you read too much WorldNetDaily...

[h3rm35]

I meant politically, not militarily...
AIPAC has the short and curlies of huge swaths of our government, both federal and local... the canadians don't. They don't have to be politically powerful here.

That was the crux of the post you're commenting on... the headline lead you to believe that Patraeus was on the verge of bombing Iran, which is a pretty ludicrous concept, since that would be a major political decision, not a military one.

In your context, would Mexico be the 52nd, or would Israel? Or someone else?

By the way, as far as wing nut daily is concerned, I've only linked through to them by accident - the reputation came far before my first visit there. I prefer getting well researched, sourced news.

[Ctrl]

(01-12-2010 03:40 AM)h3rm35 Wrote:  In your context, would Mexico be the 52nd, or would Israel? Or someone else?

I dunno man, but with Obongo in office as prez maybe Kenya is? LOL

[h3rm35]

Iran says US general's attack remarks 'thoughtless'

(AFP) – 1 day ago

TEHRAN — Tehran on Monday dismissed as thoughtless comments by a top US general that Iran's atomic sites could be attacked if the nuclear issue remains unsolved, the official IRNA news agency reported.

"His comments are thoughtless and it is better that any statement made in this regard take a constructive approach," foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast was quoted as saying.

General David Petraeus, head of US Central Command (CENTCOM) that oversees the Middle East, told CNN on Sunday that Iran's nuclear facilities "certainly can be bombed," even though they are reported to be heavily fortified.

"The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have, and what capability they can bring to bear," Petraeus added.

Petraeus said the United States had contingency plans to address Iran's nuclear ambitions if negotiations falter between the Islamic republic and Western nations.

"It would be almost literally irresponsible if CENTCOM were not to have been thinking about the various 'what ifs' and to make plans for a whole variety of different contingencies," he told the broadcaster.

But he would not comment on reports that Israel, which says Iran presents an existential threat to the Jewish state, may attack its arch-foe's nuclear facilities.

Tehran is at loggerheads with Western nations, which believe it is developing nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear energy programme. Iran denies the charges.

Without elaborating on the contingency plans, Petraeus said it could be some time before Washington decides whether to execute them and that diplomatic efforts would continue in the meantime.

The United States is leading efforts to impose a fourth round of UN sanctions on Iran after it failed to meet an end-of-year deadline to accept a deal offered by five permanent UN Security Council members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany.

Iran has given the West until the end of January to accept its own proposal of a gradual swap of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) for further-enriched uranium to fuel a Tehran research reactor.

Mehmanparast reiterated that Iran was ready for "staged swap."

The UN deal, however, envisages the shipment of most of Iran's LEU abroad to be further refined into reactor fuel by Russia and France.