+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/23/2018 09:48 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  3.625 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
05/20/2008 04:53 PM ID: 70879 Permalink   

Report: US to Attack Iran Within Months


The Israeli Army Radio and the Israeli daily The Jerusalem Post have both quoted unnamed Israeli officials today as saying that the US President George W Bush plans to launch an attack on Iran within the next few months.

According to officials a senior member of the Bush entourage on his recent trip to Israel said that both Bush and his Vice president, Dick Cheney planned to solve disputes with Iran “radically and resolutely”.

The unnamed sources claim the only reason the US Administration has not attacked Iran earlier is because of reservations expressed from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

    WebReporter: Hugo Chavez Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
I wouldn't be suprised. Since Olmert is under investigation for bribery and may step down soon, which could put Netanyahu into the drivers seat, ready and willing to pre-empt a strike from 'Anti-Zionists' Iran, I can't comment on the validity of the "chatter" but this seems all too plausible. Bible prophecy ...full steam ahead.
  by: crosimoto     05/20/2008 05:02 PM     
  Surely not  
They'll throw the entire youth of America into the meat grinder trying to maintain order there after an invasion. Unless they nuke the place and poison the entire planet.

Can't see this happening, they're not *that* mad.
  by: Maxx20     05/20/2008 05:33 PM     
I'm curious how the US could possibly plan to invade yet another country without a full-on military draft. Unless of course the whole plan is to simply destabilize Iran and let it sit in its own chaotic aftermath. However, if we are sending in more troops, I think it will be our undoing.
  by: deadtaco   05/20/2008 05:39 PM     
  you forget about  
the COALITION of ALL of our FRIENDS </sarcasm>
  by: crosimoto     05/20/2008 05:48 PM     
  Take into account  
The source is an Iranian website. I don't doubt the Bush Administration's policy of undue belligerence, but this is the Iranian media. Take with a grain of salt.
  by: Captainchainsaw   05/20/2008 06:15 PM     
Thanks for pointing that out. I don't know how I missed that.

The article just lost all credibility with me until I see another viable source. Let's face it, an Iranian news site isn't going to be very truthful about this.
  by: deadtaco   05/20/2008 06:21 PM     
If you pop “Army Radio Iran attack Bush” into Google you get a link to “Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term ...” on the Jerusalem Post which when you click on it has been updated to “US denies report on plan to attack Iran” Still it was reported by Army Radio …presstv just covered their coverage if you get my drift….

So there you have it nothing is true until it's officially denied. (Personally I think all this saber rattling is just to provoke Iran into doing something stupid)
  by: Hugo Chavez     05/20/2008 06:31 PM     
I am RREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEALLLY hoping that there isn't any truth to this. The president is stupid. I think we're all agreed on that. Let's just hope he's not crazy to boot.
  by: VermiciousG     05/20/2008 06:34 PM     
Thanks for the heads up. Found a few articles about it.

However, I agree, that this is simply to stir up the hornets nest and to see how Iran reacts.
  by: deadtaco   05/20/2008 06:39 PM     
more fearmongering?
  by: keanu1982     05/20/2008 06:43 PM     
they're probably trying to frighten the Iranian government into being more oppressive and thus fomenting internal resistance. It's a common tactic and one the US has used in the past ...also in Iran .
  by: Hugo Chavez     05/20/2008 06:47 PM     
How many articles have we had at shortnews describing and imminent attack on Iran? And every time its a news story from Iran.. lmao.. Never gets old...
  by: steme   05/20/2008 06:57 PM     
  Did He Say He Wouldn't Or Will?  
"Questioned during an interview with ABC television whether his intention was to not attack Iran, Bush replied: "Exactly" -- although he refused to rule out the use of force altogether.
Questioned during an interview with ABC television whether his intention was to not attack Iran, Bush replied: "Exactly" -- although he refused to rule out the use of force altogether."

captainchainsaw Hope this helps.

  by: ichi     05/20/2008 07:18 PM     
  In other news...  
oil once again breaks records topping nearly $130/barrel. Rhetoric, saber rattling, propaganda... complete BS any way you call it.
  by: BikerDude   05/20/2008 07:52 PM     
  Bush is  
just setting the next presidential candidate up for failure so that we can elect Jeb Bush in 2012.
  by: datsuncaptain1     05/20/2008 10:59 PM     
  They say jump  
and expect us to ask how high.

This could be complete suicide to this whole planet if the world followed this race of lunatics.
  by: captainJane     05/20/2008 11:29 PM     
With Russia and China (among others) on Iran's side of the fence, it sure would be a quick way to lower the planet's population by about 80%.
  by: WicWicky   05/21/2008 01:04 AM     
ok i have a joke. i dont care about politics much. but here is my joke.
*ahem* we will leave iraq and '09 cause we will be in iran in '09! *drum crash* *cricket chirps*
  by: DRK   05/21/2008 02:00 AM     
  story is fake i think  
it came from the "army news network"
its not associated with the army in anyway.
  by: cray0la     05/21/2008 02:26 AM     
"They'll throw the entire youth of America into the meat grinder."

Wrong! Bomb it to the stone age until Iran agrees to the U.S. and others terms and conditions. This would put their military and nuclear programs 20-30 years behind. Problem solved.
  by: slayer06   05/21/2008 02:58 AM     
  NO! Title is true!  
Just doesn't say within how MANY months. 12, 36, 1400? its all the same
  by: syoware   05/21/2008 03:51 AM     
i got a good title for everyone


* :-O OMFG!!!!!*
  by: DRK   05/21/2008 04:36 AM     
Because clearly the Iranians are just going to sit there and accept 'death from above'? So are their allies?

No, what we would actually see is Iran respond by blasting missiles into Israel and Iraq. They would then, I imagine, move forces into Iraq to fight the American military there because 'death from above' doesn't work nearly as well when there are a load of your own people down where the bombs are supposed to land.

Who knows what sleeper cells and terrorist mechanisms the Iranians have worldwide. That's before Al-Quaeda get a nice big delivery of Iranian arms as the state collapses. Just like Saddam released all the dangerous criminals before the US reached Baghdad, it's not a matter of winning or losing for Iran. It's a matter of telling the US population they'll be sending their children to a future of trans-national terrorism and improvised explosive whatever for the next 50 years if they try and blow up Iran.

Mark my words, it will be a mess. If you find the concept difficult, type 'Iraq war' into google, that should clarify.
  by: Maxx20     05/21/2008 11:49 AM     
  An attack on Iran...  
... is lunacy for so many reasons it is difficult to summarize them. Not to mention the humanitarian catastrophe a bombing campaign would cause.

Bush is an idiot, but the people controlling him are not.
  by: zalpha     05/21/2008 05:14 PM     
  Attack Iran NOW!!!  
I hate war and all it stands for unless you are fighting for something noble. In this case there is nothing noble whatsoever.

With that said I say we attack them. The US populace needs a lesson in how the world works. An attack on Iran will trigger an attack on Israel which will trigger a massive war in the middle east. We will be forced to reinstate the draft in order to have enough troops to wage this needles war. The Neo-cons will quickly loose support from their base as a huge portion of it will be getting slaughtered on the other side of the planet. In other words a vietnam type of scenario but on a much larger scale since this will probably involve half of the middle east.

These belligerent policies are going to be the end of the US as we know it. We will either collapse as a super power and become something similar to Russia, or we will totally and utterly collapse. I cant tell but I can see that there are bleak times ahead if we keep pursuing this destructive agenda.

Either what happens, the US will get a bloody nose or probably more from this mess. The "probably more" is more likely though. Especially when you bring Israel into the picture...
  by: slavefortheman     05/21/2008 05:49 PM     
  @ slave  
Yeah we need a(nother) world war so people forget what they're missing. Plus you thin out the ranks a bit too. I'm with ya.

lmao iran
  by: jimmyp   05/21/2008 10:04 PM     
  cmon now  
iran wont happen. the reason why? all the people that needed to make money during bush's term already have with afgan and iraq! but we'll see if they try to get blood from a stone
  by: syoware   05/22/2008 02:17 AM     
  please read  
  by: keanu1982     05/22/2008 11:50 AM     
Yeh, I'd seen that. I think the debate on this thread has become knowingly academic. That said, there is merit in academic debate.
  by: Maxx20     05/22/2008 01:38 PM     
i belive congress starts wars, not the president.

could be wrong
  by: snowman47   05/22/2008 03:57 PM     
Yes that is supposed to be how it works. But we have a soviet style government that bends to the whims of the dictator. And those that are against the war are to scared to actually cut off funding for it due to the possibility of losing their seats in congress or the senate.
  by: slavefortheman     05/22/2008 04:16 PM     
I'll take it as a given that their State Department are going to be ignored on
everything, but when your Secretary of Defense is saying attacking is not a good
idea, and you're going to do it anyway, that's the final confirmation that these
men are just insane. Given that the marines' duty is to protect the US
constitution, I think all of those guys should just refuse any orders from the
President from now on on grounds that he is damaging America's security.
  by: Mister crank     05/22/2008 11:22 PM     
  Has anyone thought....  
That there could be something to this and it just may be Bush's way of staying in office. If he starts a war, then invokes the "no election during a war" clause... he could stay in office forever... geez..
  by: flatdog   05/23/2008 02:44 AM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: