Bolton: Attack Iran, 'remove' its leader

[Logan13]

Bolton: Attack Iran, 'remove' its leader
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told Tory delegates in Britain Sunday that efforts by the UK and the EU to negotiate with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country.

Bolton said that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was "pushing out" and "is not receiving adequate push-back" from the West.
"I don't think the use of military force is an attractive option, but I would tell you I don't know what the alternative is.

"Because life is about choices, I think we have to consider the use of military force. I think we have to look at a limited strike against their nuclear facilities."

He added that any strike should be followed by an attempt to remove the "source of the problem", Ahmadinejad.

"If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change ... The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back," he said.

Bolton said that the fact that only partial intelligence about Iran's nuclear activity existed should not be used as an excuse not to act.

"Intelligence can be wrong in more than one direction... Responding after they (nuclear devices) are used is unacceptable."
Bolton also said the UN was "fundamentally irrelevant".

The former envoy criticized Britain's "softly softly" approach to Iran's imprisonment of 15 British sailors in April.

They were released after Ahmadinejad announced he was making a "gift" to the British people. "They [Iran] got no response from the UK or the US. If you were the Iranian leader, what conclusion do you draw?"

[eliteforce]

Bolton is a complete idiot, he doesn't know anything about the military situation vs Iran to be suggesting attack strategies and it is Bolton that is "fundamentally irrelevant"..what was his job now? nothing.

[Roidal]

Now, that's easy.

[***xxx***]

lol wut a complete moron! seems like somebody didn t learn his lesson out of the iraq war...

[Bigen12]

lol wut a complete moron! seems like somebody didn t learn his lesson out of the iraq war...

Doesn't have to be a complete war,

Just some selective bombing,

Ask Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi

[Johny-too-small]

Bolton is a complete idiot, he doesn't know anything about the military situation vs Iran to be suggesting attack strategies and it is Bolton that is "fundamentally irrelevant"..what was his job now? nothing.

What makes you an expert?

[Logan13]

What makes you an expert?

I think that his knowledge of making roadside bombs makes him one...........

[mcpeepants]

Doesn't have to be a complete war,

Just some selective bombing,

Ask Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi

Iran will definitely retaliate if you bomb them. Would you do nothing if another country dropped a bomb on your house?

Gaddafi is still in power and his relationship with the US and Europe are better today than in the past. Bombing didn't do anything except killing some military personnel and civilians.

[mcpeepants]

What makes you an expert?

Eliteforce has been more correct about middle eastern issues than Bolton, Bush, and those other war mongers in the White House, Congress, and the media.

[Johny-too-small]

Eliteforce has been more correct about middle eastern issues than Bolton, Bush, and those other war mongers in the White House, Congress, and the media.

I didnt ask you.

[mcpeepants]

I didnt ask you.

Why such a harsh response?

[Johny-too-small]

Why such a harsh response?

Its not a harsh reponse, Im informing you that my question is directed towards someone else.

[Bigen12]

Iran will definitely retaliate if you bomb them. Would you do nothing if another country dropped a bomb on your house?

Gaddafi is still in power and his relationship with the US and Europe are better today than in the past. Bombing didn't do anything except killing some military personnel and civilians.

I seriously doubt that Iran would be stupid enough to retaliate, if they did they would really get it then. If there were to attack your favorite target Israel, it would signal the end of that nut's rein. See how Siria reacted to Israel's recent bombing, as example.

Gaddafi is still in power and being a good little boy, because he knows that another bomb could land on his house if he isn't.

You believe what you will.

[eliteforce]

They'll retaliate with balistic missiles on US bases in Iraq and anti-ship missiles on US warships and supply ships in the persian gulf, they won't even have to touch the oil sector. These attacks will as costly to the US as sending 2200 missile's and airstrikes at Iran. Iran is not in a position where they are forced to keep all their assets in fixed bases, they can spread things out because they are not under seige internally. The US attacks will not come from Kuwait or other gulf states because Iran has already told those countries that they won't launch missiles at them if the US attacks do not originate from those bases-a deal they are likly to take; that gives Iran opportunity to concentrate on Iraq.

The Syria thing was 1 chuk&duck airstrike against an unknown target of questionable value. It is nothing like a sustained campaign that draws out the target countries air defenses and their full capacity to retaliate; and Syria is a much smaller country with a much smaller missile deterent (although it's pretty big considering it is missiles in the thousands.)


The problem for the US is how would they launch a 'punitive' campaign when they will come under these types of attacks and take losses, that would force them into another costly round of airstrikes..other wise they will have to take a ceasefire and look like they lost.
How many years these neo-con retards like bolton been talking about this attack on Iran? Since 2003?

[Logan13]

Iran will definitely retaliate if you bomb them. Would you do nothing if another country dropped a bomb on your house?

Gaddafi is still in power and his relationship with the US and Europe are better today than in the past. Bombing didn't do anything except killing some military personnel and civilians.

The threat of regime change made him change his tune, not hugs and kisses........

[RANA]

The threat of regime change made him change his tune, not hugs and kisses........

I totally agree

[nbkandrew13]

im not a peace monger or war monger and the reality of it is that country is dangerous but that nut with an a bomb, if we decided too if we didnt care about the human cost we would have cleaned up iraq 2 years ago by blowing up every suggested groups or areas that pose a problem if they would have done that in the beginng it would have saved lives in the end. i mean the iranian top decision makers are asking for a problem i say we take out all suspected nuke sites as well as all other possible war making materials it would take all of 3 hours to change the regime if we start thinking of our soldiers instead of enemies people killem all let god or allah sort them out ,,, oh and if you think that there is any country that can do much about it your stupid im not talking invade im talking let them start over in a year or two kinda like japan......... they love us

[Logan13]

I didnt ask you.

lol..........

[Prada]

How do you think Iran would/could retaliate besides attacking US interests, mainly in Iraq? As though they aren't doing so already. This is something that has to be dealt and supported by many not just unilaterally. Even Sarkozy has stated that Iran has to be stopped. Since some have made the link with Iraq, contrary to Iraq, the goal in Iran would be more feasible and justified, IMO.

[eliteforce]

Oh yae your not a war monger ,
if the US did any of this (mass genocide, and nuclear attacks) it would be nuked itself-in the short term or near term; it's not and never will be an option, The United States cannot "do this if we wanted too"..It's not necessary to start spelling out exactly how nuclear weapons would find their way to American cities that was already done in another thread. Not to mention the immorality of such an action.

im not a peace monger or war monger and the reality of it is that country is dangerous but that nut with an a bomb, if we decided too if we didnt care about the human cost we would have cleaned up iraq 2 years ago by blowing up every suggested groups or areas that pose a problem if they would have done that in the beginng it would have saved lives in the end. i mean the iranian top decision makers are asking for a problem i say we take out all suspected nuke sites as well as all other possible war making materials it would take all of 3 hours to change the regime if we start thinking of our soldiers instead of enemies people killem all let god or allah sort them out ,,, oh and if you think that there is any country that can do much about it your stupid im not talking invade im talking let them start over in a year or two kinda like japan......... they love us

There was no threat of regime change in 1986 when the United States raided Libya with about and hour of airstrikes! In fact the UK based American planes that conducted the raid-had to circumvent the entire European continent because none of those countries would grant the US overflight permission to conduct the raid. The US had NO troops stationed anywhere near Libya and there is no way airstrikes alone will ever cause a regime to fall. The US had no possibility of launching an amphibious assault either--it was just a quick raid because the US blamed Libya for a bomb attack on a disco in Italy. obviously everyone else thought it was a weak case considering Italy wouldn't cooperate with the US action either.
safe bet that Khadafi felt no threat to his rule in the 1980's.
Relations with Libya only thawed many years later, and of cource the PanAm bombing (which was traced back to Libya) occured well after this raid in 1986. And there was again no threat of regime change at that time either, military action played no part in any perceived change of Libyan policy.

The threat of regime change made him change his tune, not hugs and kisses........

[farrebarre]

elitforce your the man

[Bigen12]

They'll retaliate with balistic missiles on US bases in Iraq and anti-ship missiles on US warships and supply ships in the persian gulf, they won't even have to touch the oil sector. These attacks will as costly to the US as sending 2200 missile's and airstrikes at Iran. Iran is not in a position where they are forced to keep all their assets in fixed bases, they can spread things out because they are not under seige internally. The US attacks will not come from Kuwait or other gulf states because Iran has already told those countries that they won't launch missiles at them if the US attacks do not originate from those bases-a deal they are likly to take; that gives Iran opportunity to concentrate on Iraq.

The Syria thing was 1 chuk&duck airstrike against an unknown target of questionable value. It is nothing like a sustained campaign that draws out the target countries air defenses and their full capacity to retaliate; and Syria is a much smaller country with a much smaller missile deterent (although it's pretty big considering it is missiles in the thousands.)


The problem for the US is how would they launch a 'punitive' campaign when they will come under these types of attacks and take losses, that would force them into another costly round of airstrikes..other wise they will have to take a ceasefire and look like they lost.
How many years these neo-con retards like bolton been talking about this attack on Iran? Since 2003?

You seem to be very optimistic, in your view of Iran's Ballistic Missile capability.

You also are assuming that they will still be in place after the first wave of bombings.

We all know that the first wave will certainly target any retaliatory capability that Iran has, after that they will be a sitting duck.

I think you are very off base.

[eliteforce]

In the first gulf war, unguided scuds made several hits on US bases in SA, and they continued to fire them at telaviv as planes from dozens of airforces searched for them intensivly. But in that war the US bases were kept far from Iraqi territory; the Iranians have many more this time and the bases are closer. And we're not even talking about the antiship missiles and the number of US ships going up and down thru the gulf..eventually the US will need these attacks to subside and will then need to reach a cease fire..also Iran could start to smuggle into Iraq sophisticated Russian made anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons and subversives to use them effectivly..the kind they gave to Hizbollah that knocked out 50 Israeli tanks during the recent flareup there..more problems..can't see the US sustaining such an esculation of an already disasterous situation in Iraq..

[Johny-too-small]

In the first gulf war, unguided scuds made several hits on US bases in SA, and they continued to fire them at telaviv as planes from dozens of airforces searched for them intensivly. But in that war the US bases were kept far from Iraqi territory; the Iranians have many more this time and the bases are closer. And we're not even talking about the antiship missiles and the number of US ships going up and down thru the gulf..eventually the US will need these attacks to subside and will then need to reach a cease fire..also Iran could start to smuggle into Iraq sophisticated Russian made anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons and subversives to use them effectivly..the kind they gave to Hizbollah that knocked out 50 Israeli tanks during the recent flareup there..more problems

You think the pentagon would go into a war with their head up their asses and let this happen? Like they dont already know and are aware of Iran's capabilities?

[Logan13]

There was no threat of regime change in 1986 when the United States raided Libya with about and hour of airstrikes! In fact the UK based American planes that conducted the raid-had to circumvent the entire European continent because none of those countries would grant the US overflight permission to conduct the raid. The US had NO troops stationed anywhere near Libya and there is no way airstrikes alone will ever cause a regime to fall. The US had no possibility of launching an amphibious assault either--it was just a quick raid because the US blamed Libya for a bomb attack on a disco in Italy. obviously everyone else thought it was a weak case considering Italy wouldn't cooperate with the US action either.
safe bet that Khadafi felt no threat to his rule in the 1980's.
Relations with Libya only thawed many years later, and of cource the PanAm bombing (which was traced back to Libya) occured well after this raid in 1986. And there was again no threat of regime change at that time either, military action played no part in any perceived change of Libyan policy.

Long-term economic sanctions(Khadafi was responsible for Pan Am 103, the Lockerbie massacre of school kids coming home for Christmas) and the overthrow of saddam caused the change in Libya. BTW, Pan Am 103 was blown up in 1988...........
In 2002, Libya offered the US $2.7 billion to settle with the families of the 270killed in the Lockerbie bombing. By doing so, the sanctions would be lifted over a set time period, as long as certain conditions were made. I do not recall what the conditions were. Obviously, the sanctions were tough enough on the Libyan economy that they ponied up the dough..........

[Logan13]

In the first gulf war, unguided scuds made several hits on US bases in SA, and they continued to fire them at telaviv as planes from dozens of airforces searched for them intensivly. But in that war the US bases were kept far from Iraqi territory; the Iranians have many more this time and the bases are closer. And we're not even talking about the antiship missiles and the number of US ships going up and down thru the gulf..eventually the US will need these attacks to subside and will then need to reach a cease fire..also Iran could start to smuggle into Iraq sophisticated Russian made anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons and subversives to use them effectivly..the kind they gave to Hizbollah that knocked out 50 Israeli tanks during the recent flareup there..more problems..can't see the US sustaining such an esculation of an already disasterous situation in Iraq..

How many US soldiers were killed in Gulf War 1.........end of story.
"Close" only counts in the game of horshoes..............

[Logan13]

You think the pentagon would go into a war with their head up their asses and let this happen? Like they dont already know and are aware of Iran's capabilities?

It is not possible to debate the delusional. A debate must have a basis in logic.

[Johny-too-small]

It is not possible to debate the delusional. A debate must have a basis in logic.

Agreed. These delusional members think that Iran is a military superpower and their missiles are state-of-the-art and powerful enough to drop the US to their knees just like Iraq did to us.

[soulstealer]

Personally My feelings are to leave freakin IRAQ and chill on IRAN I dont think we can afford to get into a war with IRAN I think it would be a terrible move and would aside from defacing us even more with the rest of the world would destabilize our dollar further..

[brewerpi]

There was no threat of regime change in 1986 when the United States raided Libya with about and hour of airstrikes! In fact the UK based American planes that conducted the raid-had to circumvent the entire European continent because none of those countries would grant the US overflight permission to conduct the raid. The US had NO troops stationed anywhere near Libya and there is no way airstrikes alone will ever cause a regime to fall. The US had no possibility of launching an amphibious assault either--it was just a quick raid because the US blamed Libya for a bomb attack on a disco in Italy. obviously everyone else thought it was a weak case considering Italy wouldn't cooperate with the US action either.
safe bet that Khadafi felt no threat to his rule in the 1980's.
Relations with Libya only thawed many years later, and of cource the PanAm bombing (which was traced back to Libya) occured well after this raid in 1986. And there was again no threat of regime change at that time either, military action played no part in any perceived change of Libyan policy.

So Libya gave up it's WMD programs soon after the invasion of Iraq, and Qadhdafi never considered that he might be next? He just gave them up out of the kindness of his heart or to impress Anjelina Jolie?

[eliteforce]

They are aware of Iran's capabilities, that why there is no war..your the ones that keep saying the US will attack Iran since 2003, where is this attack? The Iranians obviously are not worried about it, the American military itself always downplays the possibility of war with Iran, the only ones who talk about it are right wing politians with an agenda to look like they are the most hawkish.

And I never said Iran was "state of the art" or that it would "bring the US to it's knees" I just said they would launch costly counteractions, ones the US cannot afford while they are bogged down in Iraq.

Khadafi's decision to dismantle his WMD had absolutly nothing to do with the threat of military action, there was 0 talk of even bombing Libya in 2003 much less invading it, and there would have been no regional cooperation to do that, so of cource Khadafi was not worried about that scenario. In Iraq the US could only invade and occupy Iraq with regional cooperation from Kuwait & other Arab gulf states; had they refused to allow the US use of those bases for the war, there would never had been an invasion.
Libya's policies were cleary formed around economic benefits of cooperation with the IAEA and sanctions placed on that country as a result of the PanAm issue, they acted to improve their economic outlook, not to avoid a military strike. Strategically the only country Libya would want to deter with WMD is Israel and the have WMD stockpiled Egypt between them, so the economic considerations outweighed the benefits of having the deterent.

You think the pentagon would go into a war with their head up their asses and let this happen? Like they dont already know and are aware of Iran's capabilities?

[Johny-too-small]

They are aware of Iran's capabilities, that why there is no war...

How do you know this? You keep repeating it. IF its only your opinion, dont state it as fact.

your the ones that keep saying the US will attack Iran since 2003, where is this attack?

When did I ever say that? Find it in any of my posts.


Talking in the manner that you are is killing any real intelligent credibility that you may claim to have, in addition to the fact that you refuse to answer my basic question directed towards you. You need to talk in factual terms, if you want to be taken seriously, because you are starting to sound like a guy that reads to many fantasy books.

[eliteforce]

confused, how do I know what?..that US military planners are aware of Irans capabilities, I just assume that..US military officials usually downplay the possibility of an attack on Iran, and even Bush in his Al-Arabya interview yesterday said there is no immenent attack.

When I said "your the ones" I mean people like Bolton, other neo-con pundits, and the people who aggree with them..

What is your basic question directed towards me?

[Johny-too-small]

confused, how do I know what?..that US military planners are aware of Irans capabilities, I just assume that..US military officials usually downplay the possibility of an attack on Iran, and even Bush in his Al-Arabya interview yesterday said there is no immenent attack.

When I said "your the ones" I mean people like Bolton, other neo-con pundits, and the people who aggree with them..

What is your basic question directed towards me?

post #6

[nbkandrew13]

Oh yae your not a war monger ,
if the US did any of this (mass genocide, and nuclear attacks) it would be nuked itself-in the short term or near term; it's not and never will be an option, The United States cannot "do this if we wanted too"..It's not necessary to start spelling out exactly how nuclear weapons would find their way to American cities that was already done in another thread. Not to mention the immorality of such an action.





There was no threat of regime change in 1986 when the United States raided Libya with about and hour of airstrikes! In fact the UK based American planes that conducted the raid-had to circumvent the entire European continent because none of those countries would grant the US overflight permission to conduct the raid. The US had NO troops stationed anywhere near Libya and there is no way airstrikes alone will ever cause a regime to fall. The US had no possibility of launching an amphibious assault either--it was just a quick raid because the US blamed Libya for a bomb attack on a disco in Italy. obviously everyone else thought it was a weak case considering Italy wouldn't cooperate with the US action either.
safe bet that Khadafi felt no threat to his rule in the 1980's.
Relations with Libya only thawed many years later, and of cource the PanAm bombing (which was traced back to Libya) occured well after this raid in 1986. And there was again no threat of regime change at that time either, military action played no part in any perceived change of Libyan policy.

sorry maybe i didnt explain myself the words and morality should not be in same area im not concerned bout another country whos leader wants to bring upon the world the destruction of the western world. sorry if its us or them its them. you cry about mean president bush and i think hes not aggressive enuff if he had any nuts he would tacticaly nuke iran.... what are you obamas and ron pauls campaigne mgr your not realistic... we could mind our buisness if we could put up a magical wall to protect us and our intrests from all the lunitics in the world.. but this isnt disney world bitch... its real world your a punk....

[mcpeepants]

Its not a harsh reponse, Im informing you that my question is directed towards someone else.

OK but a private post on an essentially public thread

[mcpeepants]

I seriously doubt that Iran would be stupid enough to retaliate, if they did they would really get it then. If there were to attack your favorite target Israel, it would signal the end of that nut's rein. See how Siria reacted to Israel's recent bombing, as example.

Gaddafi is still in power and being a good little boy, because he knows that another bomb could land on his house if he isn't.

You believe what you will.

The US is going to bomb thousands of targets and you don't expect them to retaliate. Iran is three times the size of Iraq and about three times the populations with a much stronger military. We are essentially in good terms with the Kurds and Shia in Iraq and we're still struggling to gain control. We attack Iran, they could hit our military bases, ships in the gulf, and potentially the Shia in Iraq might rebel against us and we would be out of Iraq quick. Syria doesn't want the Israel, which is backed by the US, to goad it to war and it will probably retaliate less directly. Plus Syria is not Iran. Iran already has missiles that can hit Israel so if they're as nuts as you claim them to be, they would of already shot their missiles at Israel.

Gaddafi was never under the threat of regime change. He just wanted better relations with the US just like Musharraf after the 9-11 attacks.

[mcpeepants]

The threat of regime change made him change his tune, not hugs and kisses........

Gaddafi was never under the threat of regime change

[Johny-too-small]

OK but a private post on an essentially public thread

Thats so retarded.

[mcpeepants]

im not a peace monger or war monger and the reality of it is that country is dangerous but that nut with an a bomb, if we decided too if we didnt care about the human cost we would have cleaned up iraq 2 years ago by blowing up every suggested groups or areas that pose a problem if they would have done that in the beginng it would have saved lives in the end. i mean the iranian top decision makers are asking for a problem i say we take out all suspected nuke sites as well as all other possible war making materials it would take all of 3 hours to change the regime if we start thinking of our soldiers instead of enemies people killem all let god or allah sort them out ,,, oh and if you think that there is any country that can do much about it your stupid im not talking invade im talking let them start over in a year or two kinda like japan......... they love us

How is Iran asking for war? The white house is the one talking about regime change in every breath. Let the inspectors do their job and even if Iran eventually gets a bomb, they would be deterred from using it like every other country that has acquired it.

Being a citizen of the US does not mean you life is more important or more innocent than those of other countries. Your making no distinction between civilians and enemy troops just like al-qaieda does. Isn't this the type of behavior you claim the terrorists hold and that's why we are fighting.