Tuesday, Feb 20, 2007
Keep an eye on oil!
BBC: US 'Iran attack plans' revealed
US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned.
It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.
Posted by tyrellcorporation @ 09:09 AM (324 views) Add Comment
33 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. tyrellcorporation said...
Just as I forecast at the beginning of the month. The war-of-words and accusations has hotted up in the last few weeks and I reckon an Isreali attack backed by US troops on the ground and in the air is on the cards. Is it a coincidence that George Dubya has introduced his -surge- in troop numbers into Iraq when all the opposing talk is of a reduction in troop numbers.
US stockpiles of OIL are at there highest ever - IMHO they're planning for a severe cut in the amount of oil coming onto the market.
2. mrmickey said...
With tension being racheted up in the middle I can't understand why the price of oil is so stable, what is going on has somebody invented an engine that runs on water and not told us.
3. Dugmug said...
Yes, Mr Mickey, it's called a hydrogen fuel cell, and if half as much money and effort had been poured into research and development of these as has been used in desperately searching for new oil fields, they'd probably be cheap enough by now that one would be sitting in your car. Oh well, why let a good idea get in the way of profits?
4. sovietuk said...
This is the major issue of the day IMHO. A holocaust denier with a stated aim of wiping Israel off the face of the map, yes and in charge of nuclear weapons. The economic implications are very serious, can the US afford a second war with its current budget deficit? Damned if you do, damned if you don't comes to mind.
5. Ttimgg said...
sovietuk,
Ahmadinejad did not state he wanted to wipe isreal off the map, and he does not have nuclear weapons. Even if he did, a nuclear attack on isreal would be suicide.
Think through the hype and look at the facts. Iran has not attacked any other nation in living memory. THe US has attacked vietnam, Iraq (twice), Haiti, Somalia, Nicaragua, Chile,... it has nuclear bombs, it has used them and it has threatened to use them on Iran.
Any rational person would have to conclude that US is the threat to peace, not Iran.
6. inbreda said...
Errrr - SovietUK I don't think he does have nuclear weapons. Even the US and UK intelligence suggest it will be 5 to 10 years.
And what's worse a holocaust denier with a stated aim of wiping Israel off the map (cos Israel are the good guys yeh?)
or George Bush and his neo con cronies. Invading sovereign nations. Lieing to the public. manipulating democracy. The only country in the world to have useed nuclear weapons. Twice. That used agent orange and still deny the human mutations it has caused. Who condone torture. Imprisonment without trial. Rendition flights. Who refuse to sign up to the Kyoto agreement. Who actively try to discredit scientists studying climate change. Who use depleted uranium in Iraq.
I'm not saying one is better than the other - but please don't get all commando on us and make out that Iran needs wiping off the map. They have oil - we want it - we're happy to slaughter millions of innocent men women and children to get it. Let's at least be honest about it.
7. dohousescrashinthewoods said...
Plenty of people have invented water engines. Apparently several died in odd circumstances.
I can see Iranian civilians dying pretty soon as the US tries to manipulate the market to protect profits.
8. Ttimgg said...
inbreda,
Quite right - except that wanting the oil is not a credible reason for bombing Iran. This will disrupt oil supply! There are no plans to invade.
The real reason is... who knows? A combination of ignorance, stupidity, incompetance, arrogance, racism, political expedience and greed (the US military contractors will make a fortune) is my guess. Any other offers?
9. lvmreader said...
@SovietUK: You simply have your facts wrong. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was misquoted by a biased press.
Translation of phrase "wiped off the map"
Many news sources have presented one of Ahmadinejad's phrases in Persian as a statement that "Israel must be wiped off the map"[4][5][6], an English idiom which means to cause a place to stop existing[7].
Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:
The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[8]
According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel
10. george monsoon said...
Who cares if your actions upset people, if the outcome means you control the vast percentage of oil in the world?
Its ALL about oil. Any other given reason is purely spin to mask power moves in the eyes of the public.
Lets face it, the only way the US and the rest of the western world will be able to compete against the asian developing countries is by controlling the oil.
rant over.
11. lvmreader said...
@MrMickey
You are spot on. The low price of oil is indeed bizarre, considering the risks.
12. Ttimgg said...
george,
Wanting oil is not a credible reason for bombing Iran. It is easier to buy it. I have no idea what the motives are, but it can't be oil.
Also, not sure if you are serious or tongue in cheek. Are you suggesting that its OK to kill 600,000 innocent Iraqis to get their oil?
13. Layers said...
@lvmreader - Well stated. This is the problem with our Media Whores who don't bother to even check their facts, particularly when it serves Israel & US's interests - ie that the Arabs have got Nukes and are about to use them, when in fact they haven't, period. Israel is the only nuclear state in the region, and the Zionist (Israel) / Neocons (US) are itching to use them, and it may well happen. The HPC will become a moot point as the Biblical End Times are brought in (which is truly believed and actively encouraged by the Bible bashing idiots in the US hoping that JC will come down and Rapture them all). I apologise for the rant, but people need to know why this is really happening, and what the outcome maybe.....
And I see from the FT this morning that ‘apparently’ Iran will be able to enrich Uranium within 6 months! Thank goodness that America has a contingency plan – how very, blo*dy convenient.
So why hasn’t the market factored this in to the price of Oil? Because they know something we don’t, and aren’t about to share anything with the sheeple yet. Is there a US mid-term election going on which needs the people compliant and quiet?
14. nearly30 said...
All very alarming - what's worse is that if US do anything soon good olde Tony Blair will not stand down this year as he will see this as another one of his crusades and must steer 'the country' through more troubled waters!!!
The Iran action provides more fuel to the 'Peak Oil' theory - this is a big big problem IMHO.
UKs solution is to force through or support Road Pricing, Green Taxes, Recycling, Kyoto and Energy Conservation.
The USs solution is to freak out and invade other countries to protect supply - nice!
15. tyrellcorporation said...
The USs unprecedented stockpiling of reserves over the last 12 months has undoubtedly supressed oil prices (along with a mildish US winter). Regarding some of the comments above, I'd say that a nuclear armed Iran is in no ones interest and will lead to a Middle East arms race. A bit of applied pressure now will reap rewards in the future. I do not trust the Iranian regime, if they are truly building a nuclear capability for peaceful uses then why are they ramping up nuclear unrichment and expelling UN inspectors?
The Shahab missile systems can already reach the edges of Southern Europe. Things will be very different geo-politically if that range extended to France, Germany and the UK.
We always get some tiresome US bashing from certain people on this site - These are usually the same people who watch American films, wear Nike trainers and tap away on a Dell computer using Microsoft OSs.
16. lvmreader said...
@tyrellcorporation,
Why do you not trust the Iranian regime. Does this mean you trust the Israeli regime.
Let's look at the track record.
Number of countries Iran has invaded since 1948: 0
Number of countries Israel has invaded since 1948: Every single nation bordering it.
How many UN resolutions are there outstanding against Iran / Israel -> 1 / >40
Why do you not trust Iran? On its track record, you are better off with Iran than Israel.
17. sovietuk said...
lvmreader, inbreda, whichever way you look at it this siuation is likely to have a messy outcome, the relevant parties are too insecure and simply hate each other too much. War is absolutely dreadful and hopefully can be avoided but just think where all those Hezbollah rockets that landed in Israel last year were made. I don't see a pleasant outcome to the whole situation.
18. Boarder said...
SovietUK is accurate. It's Juan cole (well known far leftist) who was deliberatly mis-translating.
Imonajihads aim is the destruction of Israel in order to facilitate the 12th Imam who lives in a well. He's a nutter.
19. tyrellcorporation said...
I totally agree Israel is as much to blame for the current ME tension but if you reckon a nuclear armed Iran is ok then you are severely misguided.
20. Benh said...
That’s right, The Iranians won’t listen to our orders to disarm, even though they asked for negotiations a couple of years ago, and we completely re-buffed them, as “you just can’t trust them Moslems”
Weapons of mass destruction are just awful, hence why we are allowed them but not others. We plan to spin and lie to our celebrity & house price obsessed populations to convince them Iranians are bad people, and then bomb them into smithereens, because it is a noble cause…
Just how many innocent Iranians are going to die in all of this?.
And don’t bring in this cr*p about poor innocent Israel. This country has its fair share of genocidal (anyone remember Sabra & Shatila? ) acts which are over looked by its fans in the US and here.
If an attack is made on Iran, then all Iran has to do is bide its time and take out a US carrier anytime in the future. Do we want Iran to have nukes ? Nope, def not, but I also look forward to the Israeli reactor being taken out by Iran in the future to ensure honours are even!
21. lvmreader said...
@tyrellcorporation - I agree. A nuclear aremd country anywhere is dangerous.
Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel, India and Pakistan are not.
But, if Israel is nuclear armed, then I think all the others in the mideast should be too. Or, more sensibly, let us make Israel get rid of its nuclear weapons and abide by the several dozen UN resolutions against it.
All or none. Play fair or we WILL have wars. Big ones.
http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=-7269205919871967751&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=conflict&vidurl=http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-7269205919871967751%26q%3Dconflict&usg=AL29H20v6HXT7hZvK8khUuI2lC6eQqVdPA
22. lvmreader said...
@sovietuk
Where were all those cluster bombs used on Lebanese children made? US, UK, France?
What is your point? Is Israel "better" than Iran. On track record, Iran has behaved better.
23. sovietuk said...
lvmreader I'm looking at the situation objectively, both sides are equally af fault. The Bristish Army knows all too well about Israeli terrorism if you look back through history and I am no lover of Israel. Read point 12 again IMHO I don't see a pleasant outcome to the whole situation
24. lvmreader said...
There is one nation that is at the root of ALL of this. It is Israel's inability to live within UN sanctioned borders and behave like a responsible state.
Admittedly, without US/UK (and historically French (1956 Suez)) support, there would not be a problem.
I don't see a nation as evil. It is the leadership which is at fault. There were e.g many South Africans who detested Apartheid. Not all white South Africans (or white people or white people of Dutch / Boer descent) were racist just because The South African Govt was.
The USA had similar policies for far longer. You couldn't vote as a black person in many states until 1968. It was illegal to have "interracial" marraiges in North Carolina and Alabama right up until 1998 and 1999 respectively.
So I don't think that Israel, Israeli Jews or Jewish people are good, bad, evil or whatever. The policies of a corrupt, fetid regime are to blame.
Similarly, I think you will find most Iranians just want to live their lives, raise their kids and pursue happiness. In peace.
http://www.lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.html
http://tohellwithculture.blogspot.com/2007/02/iran-people-like-us.html#links
25. inbreda said...
tyrell - I agree - war is very nasty - but you seem to have completely defeated your point. I personally think Israel, US, UK etc should get ird of its nuclear bombs and stop starting illegal wars.
You sound like an american apologist with shares in Shell and Halliburton.
26. Cstanhope707 said...
Perhaps this is so that the BTL market can expand into Iran...
27. tyrellcorporation said...
Nuclear arms are with us and the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine has largely worked over the last 50 years. Everybody getting together for a group hug and plopping those MinuteMan missiles, etc into a skip is never going to happen. The UN should have behave much more decisively in preventing new states acquiring nuclear arsenals. It is the fault of this outdated talking-shop that we are in the mess we are with new nuclear powers cropping up every year or so.
Inbreda why don't you sign up for being a human shield just outside of Natanz. Like the other nutters who went out to Iraq before 2003 to wave their peace knickers for the cameras, they found it was a bit unnerving when Saddam decided to bus them out to military sites and gun emplacements. Suddenly they were fumbling with their mocasins and their return tickets to Hertfordshire! LOL...
28. autopilotengage said...
I just want to add "hear hear" to what imbreda said earlier.
29. lvmreader said...
@tyrellcorporation
So, Tyrell, this would imply that we need to give Iran, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen nuclear weapons and the relevant delivery system. And most importantly, let Israel know these countries have them. This will be the only thing that stops that country from invading and committing war crimes.
North Korea had nuclear weapons. US too scared to invade. Iraq didn't. They get invaded. I see a pattern here.
Tyrell: "Is this to be an empathy test? Capillary dilation, the so-called blush response? Fluctuation of the pupil... involuntary dilation of the iris?
Deckard: "We call it Voight-Kampff for short."
30. tyrellcorporation said...
Inbreda and Auto... If you guys have a cunning plan for getting the World's nuclear arms holders to hand them in, please write to Mr Ban Ki-moon at http://www.un.org/sg/
31. tyrellcorporation said...
IVM you're not seriously suggesting the US is afraid of North Korea are you?!? I think you'll find the US were more concerned about pissing China off with regards to sorting out North Korea. The single North Korean nuclear plant is 50 years old and is barely operational. This is probably why they have recently ceded to International pressure and said they'll close it for a ransom. The US would only have become involved if the North Koreans attacked the South or Japan.
IVM Reader, I don't really understand your conclusion to my statement. The issue is surely preventing new states from acquiring nuclear weapons. You have no answers to how this would be achieved other than to say lets hand all the weapons in - which will never happen. A bit lame...
32. denzil said...
There is no way there will be any altercation with Iran for at least this year and most probably next. Logistically it is a non-starter. The stability of the price of oil is a fair indication that there appears to be very little fire with this small amount of smoke.
33. lvmreader said...
Why should new states be subject to nuclear blackmail and suffer under the subjugation of an imperial power?
If there are thugs in your neighbourhood with weapons and the Police won't protect you (in fact there are no Police), wouldn't you be annoyed if having taken steps to protect your life, family and property, you are told to disarm, but the thugs who terrorise you aren't?