Scott Ritter Says US Attack On Iran Set For June

Not true.

 

Typical republican, attack the messenger, ignore the message.
It doesn't matter what you think about Ritter personally.
What matter is if he is right about an American attack against Iran.
Ritter was right there being no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

 

Still not true.

 

there is a pipe line inafghanistan it went soon after we ivaded

 

No there isn't. I challenge you to document that.

 

Iran will be attacked. Even though Bush said that it's absurd for people to assume that. We all know how honest Bush is. And then who will be attacked? It's going to keep happening. To more and more countries. . .

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

Turkmenistan, Afghanistan Agree on Pipeline
03.01.2005, 07:32 AM

Turkmenistan and Afghanistan have agreed to accelerate work on a long-delayed pipeline intended to carry natural gas to India, Turkmen President Saparmurat Niyazov's office said.

Niyazov and Afghan President Hamid Karzai discussed the project over the telephone on Monday following a visit by Karzai to India last week.

India is weighing whether to meet its expanding energy needs with pipelines from Turkmenistan or Iran, both of which would pass through archrival Pakistan, or alternately from Myanmar in the east.

The Turkmen-Afghan pipeline project's main sponsor is the Asian Development Bank.

The 1,680-kilometer (1,044-mile) pipeline, on which construction is to begin next year, is to run through Herat and Kandahar in Afghanistan, the Pakistani cities of Quetta and Multan and on to the Indian border town of Fazilka.

The US$3.5 billion (euro2.7 billion) pipeline would tap into natural gas wells at Turkmenistan's huge Dauletabad-Donmez field, which holds more than 2.83 trillion cubic meters (100 trillion cubic feet) in gas reserves.

Since the U.S.-led offensive that ousted the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, the pipeline project has been revived and drawn strong U.S. support. It would allow formerly Soviet Central Asian nations to export rich energy resources without relying on Russian routes.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html

 

That's not a logical argument. Just because someone is a habitual liar doesn't mean that the opposite of everything they say must be true.

Looking at the actual evidence, rather than partisan spin from either side, I just don't see any evidence that there's an imminent attack planned on Iran. There was a military buildup prior to the Iraq conflict at least a year in advance; if an Iranian invasion were imminent, one would expect to see the same type of thing. This is simply not the case.

 

There is a big difference between invade and attack.

 

True. But you'd also need a substantial military buildup for any kind of large-scale air attack. If anything is planned against Iran for the coming months, it would necessarily be very small-scale.

 

I don't think you'd need to build up anything. Launch a bunch of cruise missiles from the gulf, drop JDAMs from B2s based in Kansas, and that's about it. They certainly wouldn't want to use bases in Iraq or even friendly Gulf countries.

It wouldn't need to be that large scale as there are only two or three known targets and there is an element of futility anyway - we don't know what they have and where it is, and much of it could be rebuilt if destroyed. So big or small its not going to be the end of the Iranian nuclear program.

Personally I don't think they see it as a viable option.