Panetta Says U.S. Now Ready to Attack Iran

3ph0ib.jpg
 
Ready to attack? Or planning possible actions? Big difference. The military is constantly making plans on how to possibly deal with global situations. No- he did not say that we were now ready to attack.

Quote from the original story (following link from Alex Jones piece):
http://www.nationaljournal.com/nati...p-iran-from-creating-nuclear-weapons-20120527
“We have plans to be able to implement any contingency we have to in order to defend ourselves,’’ Panetta said on ABC’s This Week. Earlier, Panetta said, “The fundamental premise is that neither the United States or the international community is going to allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.’’

Having plans does not necessarily mean you have forces in place to execute those plans. It does not say he said things were ready to go.
 
Last edited:
Having plans does not necessarily mean you have forces in place to execute those plans. It does not say he said things were ready to go.

“ready from a military perspective’’

If Iran doesn't pose a threat to Israel, how are they possibly posing a threat to us?


The military is constantly making plans on how to possibly deal with global situations.

Ah, well, that is obviously part of the problem. We don't need to stick our nose in every situation around the world. China and Russia are much more viable threats to us.
 
Shakil Afridi was convicted last week of high treason and sentenced to 33 years, sparking outrage in Washington. Some lawmakers suggested cutting U.S. aid to Pakistan.

lol, I would have thought that harboring Osama bin Laden would be enough to cut aid to Pakistan, or maybe the fact that Pakistan said it would support Iran if the US attacked it.
 
All this means is that the bombers are in place, and he figured everyone knew that so he could say it ?
 
“ready from a military perspective’’

If Iran doesn't pose a threat to Israel, how are they possibly posing a threat to us?




Ah, well, that is obviously part of the problem. We don't need to stick our nose in every situation around the world. China and Russia are much more viable threats to us.

The military has plans for them too. Dosn't mean they will actually use them. We do not have significantly more military force in the area than we did five or ten years ago. Iran is also more than twice as big as Iraq meaning if you want to go in on the ground (a real war) you will need a lot of troops ready to go in. They aren't there. The headline was an exaggeration of what was actually said. "ready from a military perspective" is not something Panetta said in the article Infowars was quoting.
 
Last edited:
Ready to attack? Or planning possible actions? Big difference. The military is constantly making plans on how to possibly deal with global situations. No- he did not say that we were now ready to attack.
Having plans does not necessarily mean you have forces in place to execute those plans. It does not say he said things were ready to go.
You are sadly mistaken if you think we are not going to go to war with Iran. It has been in the make for years. There will surely be a "reason." Just as sure as Al Qaeda was in Iraq. Alex Jones's sensationalism makes not a damn bit of difference.
 
They have been ready for 10 years or more. Someone, or something has been stopping them. All I can say is, I pray that God stops them. If not, then America will reap the reward of its sins against mankind throughout the world very soon.
 
To 'attack' Iran!? What the fuck, they aint even trying to bullshit it with the "defensive" language!?
 
They spent nearly a year building up forces in the area before Iraq was invaded- putting tens of thousands of troops and tons of supplies in place. Those are not ready today. As I pointed out- Iran is much bigger and has a stronger miltary than Iraq and then there is the threat of cutting off oil flow thourgh the Strait of Hormutz where about 40% of the world's oil supply passes. The resulting spike in oil prices could send the country back into recession which would hurt Obama's chances for re-election. So no, I don't believe we are about to attack Iran. The best we could do right now is drop a few bombs (which can slow things down but not stop them if they want to develop weapons and may encourage them to proceed with such actions).
 
Dropping bombs is exactly what they want to do. They will bomb until they provoke a retaliation, either from the government directly or via "terrorists," and use that to justify boots on the ground, which will probably not even be service members, or not many at least. It will be subsidized private contractors which will cost much more money, be subjected to less media scrutiny, and cause maximum blowback. If you think Obama did a good (evil) job silencing the anti-war left this term, you ain't seen nothing yet...
 
Dropping bombs is exactly what they want to do. They will bomb until they provoke a retaliation, either from the government directly or via "terrorists," and use that to justify boots on the ground, which will probably not even be service members, or not many at least. It will be subsidized private contractors which will cost much more money, be subjected to less media scrutiny, and cause maximum blowback.
Hit the nail on the head. You left out the part about an UN Resolution, though. ;)
 
Dropping bombs is exactly what they want to do. They will bomb until they provoke a retaliation, either from the government directly or via "terrorists," and use that to justify boots on the ground, which will probably not even be service members, or not many at least. It will be subsidized private contractors which will cost much more money, be subjected to less media scrutiny, and cause maximum blowback. If you think Obama did a good (evil) job silencing the anti-war left this term, you ain't seen nothing yet...

I have heard from somewhere that Iran has many sleepers in the US. Can't remember where. Not sure if true or not, but yeah, we can see where that discussion is leading.
 
I think if Panetta is so anxious to get in the fray that he he ought to slap on his uniform, grab a weapon and lead the charge. He can take the commander in chief along.
 
Last edited:
I have heard from somewhere that Iran has many sleepers in the US. Can't remember where. Not sure if true or not, but yeah, we can see where that discussion is leading.
Being in the position they are in, they obviously have some plan to remain so calm in this crisis.
 
CONgress is getting in on it too, even after Panetta pronounced they have no say in the matter.

The National Attack Authorization Act?

We all know that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) signed by President Obama on New Year’s Eve contained a now-struck-down provision to authorise the indefinite detention of American citizens on US soil.

But did you know that the NDAA also paves the way for war with Iran?

From Dennis Kucinich:
This language represents a significant shift in U.S. policy and would guarantee that talks with Iran, currently scheduled for May 23, would fail. Current U.S. policy is that Iran cannot acquire nuclear weapons. Instead, H. Res. 568 draws the “redline” for military action at Iran achieving a nuclear weapons “capability,” a nebulous and undefined term that could include a civilian nuclear program. Indeed, it is likely that a negotiated deal to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and to prevent war would provide for Iranian enrichment for peaceful purposes under the framework of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty with strict safeguards and inspections. This language makes such a negotiated solution impossible.

At the same time, the language lowers the threshold for attacking Iran. Countries with nuclear weapons “capability” could include many other countries like Japan or Brazil. It is an unrealistic threshold.

The Former Chief of Staff of Secretary of State Colin Powell has stated that this resolution “reads like the same sheet of music that got us into the Iraq war.”

The notion of a “nuclear weapons capability” seems like a dangerously low standard. Let us not forget that Mossad, the CIA and the IAEA agree that Iran does not have a bomb, is not building one, has no plans to build one.

But the bill clearly spells out its intent:

EC. 1222. UNITED STATES MILITARY PREPAREDNESS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

Section 2 (A) pre-positioning sufficient supplies of aircraft, munitions, fuel, and other materials for both air- and sea-based missions at key forward locations in the Middle East and Indian Ocean;

(B) maintaining sufficient naval assets in the region necessary to signal United States resolve and to bolster United States capabilities to launch a sustained sea and air campaign against a range of Iranian nuclear and military targets, to protect seaborne shipping, and to deny Iranian retaliation against United States interests in the region;

(D) conducting naval fleet exercises similar to the United States Fifth Fleet’s major exercise in the region in March 2007 to demonstrate ability to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and to counter the use of anti-ship missiles and swarming high-speed boats.

As Kucinch notes:

This is an authorization for the use of military force against Iran. It ignores the warnings of both current and former U.S. top military brass who have spoken in opposition to the use of military force against Iran, including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and current Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. A February 2012 poll demonstrated that less than 20% of the Israeli public supports an Israeli strike on Iran if approved by the United States. Congress must avoid the same mistakes it made in the Iraq war and reject any language that can be construed as authorizing war against Iran.

It seems like the framers of the bill are exceptionally keen on striking Iran as quickly as possible. Maybe they are receiving lots of money from defence contractors?

Unsurprisingly, the biggest Congressional recipient of donations from defence contractors was Howard “Buck” McKeon, the chairman of the armed services committee who also happens to be the sponsor of the NDAA: [...]

Still, even though the bill hints very strongly toward it, it doesn’t mean that it is going to happen. Congressmen might be hungry for a war but the military — already overstretched — isn’t. Admiral Fallon was reportedly the force that kept Bush from hitting Iran, and it would not be surprising to see the Pentagon put up fierce opposition to a future war with Iran. It would be a long, expensive war, with the potential of massive negative side-effects, like dragging in other regional powers, disrupting global trade, and squeezing the US economy by spiking the oil price.
 
Back
Top