LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

I was bored so i went on google earth and started looking for the some of the Iranian Nuke facilities. I found one on the coast inside what looked to be a navy/airforce base. I measured its distance and its only about 184 miles from our theater command in Bahrain. At modern jet speed if they did get them they wouldn't even need missile technology. they would just need a pilot with some balls and about 10 mins of free time. sounds crazy what do yall think.

I too and a google earth afficianado! Can you give me the coordinates so i can check it out myself?

I would not worry about and Iranian stealth missile attack on Baharain. I'm sure that the massive U.S. military presence there (lone of if not the largest in the M.E. at one time) would be able to handle itself. Furthermore, Bahrain (often referred to as the hong kong of the middle east) used to be a part of Iran and therefore would not be likely destroyed by them due to sentimental and practical socio-economic reasons. Just my two cents.

Here's Andy Borowitz's take:

U.S. TO SEND ONE TROOP TO IRAN Rumsfeld: Army of One Can Get it Done In an effort to punish the government of Iran for its nuclear ambitions, the Pentagon announced today that it was preparing to send one troop to Iran.

The troop, Private John R. Klugian, who is currently stationed at Fort Dix, could be deployed to Iran as early as next month, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon

To read the whole column:

http://www.borowitzreport.com/Default.asp

If you're really interested in the story about Iran and our plans there, read this article by Seymour "Sy" Hersh.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/a ... 417fa_fact

He is a highly respected reporter with lots of sources inside the intelligence community and the DOD. There was the big report about possible plans to use tactical nuclear weapons here. Pres. Bush called it "wild speculation", but after reading the article you'll see why he didn't call it a damn lie.
The noted parallels to the runup to Iraq are eerie -espeically the statements by Condi Rice this week. People would question how we could do this, with our forces stretched in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the plan would be for a massive air campaign with limited feet on the ground as spotters (and who are already in place).

One quote: "A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.” "

Of course, I've never known a president in political trouble on the home front turning to foreign action to rally the populace.
After reading the reactions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to these plans (they are against them), I believe that the calls by five retired generals for Rumsfeld's resignation stem not so much from his horrible blunders in Iraq, but from a desire to stop him before this Iran plan can get underway. I think we're much closer to this plan happening than many people realize. Check it out.

If you want to learn more about the current operation in Iraq (before we get too distracted by the war in Iran), there was an excellent article in last week's New Yorker. Please read it. It's long, but well worth the time. It kept me up until 2 one night once I started the article.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/a ... 10fa_fact2

Posting all this made me look through their archives for an article I remember reading a LONG time ago, back in December 2001, when we had just gotten involved in Afghanistan. I read this article and thought "this is crazy, there's no way they can be planning this". This was over a year before we invaded Iraq. The article also happens to be by Sy Hersh. Anything he writes, I read.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/a ... 224fa_FACT

One quote stands out for its prescience;
"One of Zinni's close aides told me, "Our question was 'What about the day after?' How do you deal with the long-term security aspects of Iraq? For example, do you take the Republican Guard"—the military unit most loyal to Saddam—"and disarm it? Or is it preferable to turn it from having a capability to protect Saddam to a capability to protect Iraq? You've got Kurds in the north, Arab Shia in the south, and the Baath Party in the middle, with great internal tribal divisions. There's potential for civil war. Layer on external opposition and you've got a potential for great instability. I'm a military planner and plan for the worst case. As bad as this guy is, a stable Iraq is better than instability."

Remember, this is December '01. Too bad nobody listened.

laxfan25 wrote:If you're really interested in the story about Iran and our plans there, read this article by Seymour "Sy" Hersh.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/a ... 417fa_fact

Check it out.

I agree with Laxfan25 that this column is important reading. But so is this:

http://www.borowitzreport.com/archive_r ... 1366&srch=

you can get a really close image if you have the GIS landscape program.... i got so close looking at my house i could see the cars in the driveway, and i could have swore i saw my dog in the backyard

A missle strike on Iran? Good thing I've still got my draft card!

The attention will not only focus on Iraq and Iran. Someday the attention will be on Syria.

Laxfan, Sy Hersh is always a quality read. Very, very respected and knowledgeable. I also really enjoy his work. I'll definitely read the suggested articles. You know the missile strike is absolutely in the realm of possibility. Many believe as do I, that it wouldn't be us that led the strike, but it would be the Israeli's. It would be along the same lines as what happened with Saddam. Saddam seemed to keep all his eggs in one basket though. They knew he was fairly close to the technology, and working on it, so have the country who's reputation can't get any worse conduct the mission. Not to mention they would probably be the first target. I'm sure the Iranian's would not make the same mistake knowing this is an option.

The thing I do find interesting about the Iranian culture is that it has a more western thought process than most of the middle east. There's a strong sense of free thought, nationalism, and democracy in the "western" sense of the words. Also, many of the elite of Iran have been educated in the states and the west. The country is also very young and eager for change.

Zeuslax wrote:The thing I do find interesting about the Iranian culture is that it has a more western thought process than most of the middle east. There's a strong sense of free thought, nationalism, and democracy in the "western" sense of the words. Also, many of the elite of Iran have been educated in the states and the west. The country is also very young and eager for change.

We never should have helped toppled their democracy back in 1953. That really helped set the stage for the 1979 revolution. It's a shame, because they could have easily become a more modern, stable country like Turkey. Of course, maybe they would have needed an Ataturk figure to secularize the country.

Hackalicious wrote:

Zeuslax wrote:The thing I do find interesting about the Iranian culture is that it has a more western thought process than most of the middle east. There's a strong sense of free thought, nationalism, and democracy in the "western" sense of the words. Also, many of the elite of Iran have been educated in the states and the west. The country is also very young and eager for change.

We never should have helped toppled their democracy back in 1953. That really helped set the stage for the 1979 revolution. It's a shame, because they could have easily become a more modern, stable country like Turkey. Of course, maybe they would have needed an Ataturk figure to secularize the country.

Soo very trrue! All they were trying to do was nationalize their oil industry. Shame on us.

Hackalicious stated:

We never should have helped toppled their democracy back in 1953. That really helped set the stage for the 1979 revolution. It's a shame, because they could have easily become a more modern, stable country like Turkey. Of course, maybe they would have needed an Ataturk figure to secularize the country.

Couldn't agree more. This was probably one of the worst snafu's in American foreign policy. The people of the middle east and eastern Europe have long memories. They don't easily forget things like this. They're still discussing Alexander and his conquest of the region. Try to find one Greek over the age of 50 and ask them how they feel about the Turks. It's going to take generations of steady, fair, and a honest US foreign policy to gain favor in this region.

The thing I'm still grappling with is why our dialog changed so quickly with the Iranians. They were very supportive and on our side with operations in Afganistan. From what I understand they feel very betrayed by our change in communication with them. Even though it wasn't open knowledge of thier assistance, things seemed to be moving along nicely. As for the Ataturk statement, I'm not sure? Iran is predominately Shiite.

Military action in Iran is a frightening proposition and not one that should be taken lightly but the United States must not ignore it's responsibilities as an ally. Regardless of how Iran may have come to its current government the fact remains that their president has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel. As such, they must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. I hope that sanctions will be enough to convince the Iranians to forget their nuclear aspirations but I have little faith in the UN, or more specifically Russia and China. It appears that the UN has decided that it is perfectly acceptable for one of its members to threaten the destruction of another member.

WMDs in Iraq were the primary reason for regime change. They may have not been found but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Iran is controlled by radical Muslims bent on the destruction of Israel and the Western civilization. They have stated that in the event of US military action they will conduct terrorist attacks on civilian populations both in the Middle East and in the US, thus admitting they are a terrorist state. The US has made mistakes in Iraq but that is not a valid reason for ignoring what cannot be construed as anything other than a grave threat.

It appears that politics is going to play a part in this crisis and so I ask, is a hatred of President Bush really a good reason to allow a terrorist state nuclear capabilities?

GPS on the places we'll probably blow up soon.

Ispahan main facility: 32 32'43.36" N 51 49'15.37"E

my personal fav.
Bushehr: 28 49'41.30" N 50 52'53.93" E


Arak: 34 22'12.24" N 49 14' 35.67" E

Natanz: 33 43'33.09" N 51 43'16.91" E