'The commander of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Admiral William Fallon, is to retire from his post early.

He cited the "embarrassing situation and public perception of differences between my views and administration policy" as the reason for retiring.

He was the subject of a recent article by Esquire magazine, which said he was opposed to the use of force against Iran over its nuclear programme.

The 63-year-old admiral became head of the US Central Command a year ago.' US Mid-East commander steps down

What happens next? Bush appoints a stooge who will do as he says, and then makes speeches - misty-eyed with patriotism and 'support' for the army - about how everyone should follow the professional advice of the military men and not be armchair generals.

"India and Iran are ancient civilisations whose relations span centuries. Both nations are perfectly capable of managing all aspects of their relationship with the appropriate degree of care and attention," Navtej Sarna, a foreign ministry spokesman, was quoted by the Indian Express newspaper as saying.

"Neither country needs any guidance on the future conduct of bilateral relations as both countries believe that engagement and dialogue alone lead to peace," he added. India rejects US advice on Iran

Well said.

We won't need to send any soldiers into Iran if Hillary nukes Iran into the stone age.

Does anyone know her exact words on this? "Back to the Stone Age" was Gen. Curtis LeMay's phrase. (Speaking of North Vietnam, in a 1965 book: "My solution to the problem would be to tell them frankly that they’ve got to draw in their horns and stop their aggression, or we’re going to bomb them back into the Stone Age.") I find it unlikely that she would have used that particular phrase.
--------
What I have found so far -

When asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
--------
Clinton’s remarks, made in an interview on MSNBC’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann,” clarified a statement she made last week in a Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia. In that debate, the US Senator from New York said an Iranian attack on Israel would bring “massive retaliation,” without defining what the phrase meant.

In the interview Monday, Clinton affirmed that she would warn Iran’s leaders that “their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States.”
--------

"We are worried about any escalation between the United States and Iran for a simple reason: We are the weakest party in this game," said Sadiq Rikabi, an advisor to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki. "Our policy for our neighbors is to go to them, face to face, speak with them in a planned, frank and direct way about any problem." Iraq jumps into U.S.-Iran tussle

Amazing the difference a few thousand miles make, eh? Iran's neighbours would prefer to negotiate. Dick Cheney, safe in Washington, wants to start another war.

Hi Gang :

So Hillary ,the great negotiator,wants to obliterate Iran...way to negotiate,Hillary!!!

hippolips

I don't believe she said she wants to. I think she basically told Iran that the US would respond in kind to a nuclear attack by them on Israel. There is a world of difference in the two sentiments.

'At least 400 dissidents, activists and intellectuals--a number far larger than previously reported--were murdered in Iran during a wave of officially sanctioned, government death-squad activity that ended in 1999, according to Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Prize-winning human rights lawyer who is currently on a speaking tour in the United States. But Ebadi insists that US threats against Iran and rhetoric about regime change could make things worse, giving Iran's leaders an excuse to intensify repression...

...she warns that threats and bellicose rhetoric from American leaders and politicians is not helping matters. "The most important thing is not to militarily attack Iran, or to threaten to attack Iran militarily," she says. "Even the language of some of the candidates in the United States threatens Iran."' Shirin Ebadi: Don't Attack Iran

John Bolton: US should bomb Iranian camps.

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
John Bolton: US should bomb Iranian camps.

And while they are at it, they should bomb and invade Iraq.That should protect the USA and bring stability to the region. That man Saddam is dangerous.

'Iraqi officials also have accused Iran of meddling in violence and had echoed the U.S. accusations of new Iranian-made arms being found in Basra. But neither the United States nor Iraq has displayed any of the alleged arms to the public or press, and lately it is looking less likely they will...

...A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was canceled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran. A U.S. military spokesman attributed the confusion to a misunderstanding that emerged after an Iraqi Army general in Karbala erroneously reported the items were of Iranian origin...' The elusive Iranian weapons

Deja vu all over again. Do they really expect anyone to give any credence to these tales of WMD Iranian-supplied weapons? I guess it's kind of like the ritual "You spilled my pint" or "You were looking at my girlfriend"; it doesn't matter whether it's true or not - anyway, the fight can begin.

'A new US approach is urgently needed. Peace and stability can only be reached in Iraq with Iran's cooperation, and this will not happen until the US president announces a timetable for leaving Iraq. As for stability in the region, this will not be decided by a few adjectives in an IAEA report, nor by UN security council sanctions. Whatever one's view of Iranian intentions, even the most sceptical analyst does not believe Iran could acquire a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it for several years.

The more immediate danger is that the Gulf becomes a theatre for artificial Sunni-versus-Shia tensions, deliberately stoked by outsiders. There is no axis of evil. There is no arc of crisis. There is just a series of states which need sovereignty and mutual respect, and the chance to trade and work together.' The road to peace in Iraq runs directly through Tehran

Iran is using the same kind of nuclear fuel development that Iraq was successful in using, and likely already has some uranium 235 refined beyond 90%.

Iraq had thousands of staff members working on four different expiramental purification processes in the late 90's, and when we invaded, all of the scientists would have been out of work. It's very likely that many of them traveled to Iran.

'For many months, the propaganda line that explosively formed projectiles (EFPs) that could penetrate U.S. armoured vehicles were coming straight from Iran has been embraced publicly by the entire George W. Bush administration. But when that argument was proposed internally by military officials in January 2007, it was attacked by key administration officials as unsupported by the facts.

Vice President Dick Cheney was able to get around those objections and get his Iranian EFP line accepted only because of arrangements he and Bush made with Gen. David Petraeus before he took command of U.S. forces in Iraq...' How Cheney Outfoxed His Foes on Iran and EFPs

This is kind of scary, if it's accurate. Does Cheney want to go out with a bang? Could Dubya stop him, if he wanted to?

'Pentagon officials firmly opposed a proposal by Vice President Dick Cheney last summer for airstrikes against Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) bases by insisting that the administration would have to make clear decisions about how far the United States would go in escalating the conflict with Iran, according to a former George W. Bush administration official...'
Fearing Escalation, Pentagon Fought Cheney Plan

It seems Cheney and Co. have no answers to questions about what would probably happen after an attack on Iran - but they still want to go ahead.

Seems Israel has been practicing...I say let them have it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080620/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_israel_iran

What do you think would happen after Israel "let them have it"?

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
What do you think would happen after Israel "let them have it"?

Iran's allies will bad mouth Israel in speeches at the U.N. The Muslim world will get stirred up and hate Israel as much as ever. Nothing new. They've already seen it before. And behind closed doors, the U.S. will give Israel a pat on the back for a job well done.

And what retaliatory action would the Iranian government take - against the US in Iraq, for example? Nothing?

Do you think attacking Iran would strengthen or weaken the hand of hardliners there who want to increase Iran's military capabilities?