or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Prepping started for Iran war
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Prepping started for Iran war

post #1 of 188
Thread Starter 
Same MO as Iraq.

Gradual drop by drop leaking of 'information' interspersed with ratcheting up the rhetoric (ie lies) till the sheep are softened-up and 'convinced' enough to demand action.

This time it's 'al-Qaeda links with Iran'.

Hell, it worked before....they even still believe it now.....



Utterly unfeasable unmitigated load of old *****
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #2 of 188
I love the picture used to represent 'extremists' crossing the border. If that's their extremist army, I think the U.S. is safe.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #3 of 188
No
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
"A more sensitive and caring Common man for 2005"
Reply
post #4 of 188
Ya
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #5 of 188
No -- America is stretched too thin. Not going to happen.

Besides, France, Gremany, Russia, China and Kofi don't have oil-for-food bribes riding on this -- so we will actually have their cooperation; war shouldn't be necessary.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #6 of 188
It won't be a war in Iran.
Morale side apart, even the US can't afford two wars simultaneously.
Note also that I don't know many democracy ready to commit suicide by entering in the war against all the muslim world.
post #7 of 188
Let's all hope not.
post #8 of 188
I like two letter words.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #9 of 188
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I like two letter words.

eh?
post #10 of 188
Dra...
...aft

post #11 of 188
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
eh?

ya. na. no. si. da. nien. oops.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #12 of 188
I have seen reports on Iranian misdeeds being directed to Conservative Evangelical viewers/readers in recent days.

Not sure why, since So-Cons won't support a war on Iran any more than the general public will. I'm thinking it's part of a hard-line approach in the first days of the new mandate, trying to get Iran to back down on nukes a la Libya.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #13 of 188
If only people knew history. Lybia "backed down" after almost twenty years of sanctions, and it had little if anything to do with Bush's idiotic threats and mindlessly chosen war.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #14 of 188
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
even the US can't afford two wars simultaneously.

Sure we can. We're doing it right now. Right...this...very...second. Just now. At this moment.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #15 of 188
I beleive the general aim for the US militray was to be capable to fight 3 wars anywhere on the globe at the same time. I haven't heard that statement in a while, I wonder why?
post #16 of 188
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Besides, France, Gremany, Russia, China and Kofi don't have oil-for-food bribes riding on this -- so we will actually have their cooperation; war shouldn't be necessary.

maybe we could get the vp and Halliburton to show them how bribing is done. Halliburton could also show them how to do business with countries under sanctions through subsidiaries aswell.

Heck, Rummy could also show them how to play dumb when a company he sits on the board of sells systems and equipment for light water nuclear reactors to axis of evil country members like North Korea.
post #17 of 188
I also don't believe that it'll happen. But as far as preparation for a war... well, the hardest part is done. The troops are already there. If they successfully wrap up Iraq within a year or two, elections take place and a sense of order and a self sustaining government takes hold.... they could easily move across the border.
post #18 of 188
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
maybe we could get the vp and Halliburton to show them how bribing is done. Halliburton could also show them how to do business with countries under sanctions through subsidiaries aswell.

Heck, Rummy could also show them how to play dumb when a company he sits on the board of sells systems and equipment for light water nuclear reactors to axis of evil country members like North Korea.


Halliburton doesn't have a vote on the UN security council.

I'll need you to cite chapter and verse on those.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #19 of 188
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Halliburton doesn't have a vote on the UN security council.

Didn't need anyone's "permission" to go around the sanctions did it?
Quote:
I'll need you to cite chapter and verse on those.

You mean Limbaugh didn't talk about that today? You had no clue did you?

I think you're smart enough to find links on your own. Here's a hint: there's a story about the Nigerian "bribes"(or "payments that may have been made") that came out just today.
post #20 of 188
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Didn't need anyone's "permission" to go around the sanctions did it? You mean Limbaugh didn't talk about that today? You had no clue did you?

I think you're smart enough to find links on your own. Here's a hint: there's a story about the Nigerian "bribes"(or "payments that may have been made") that came out just today.

No, I'm not "smart enough" to find those links. I disagree, so I'm stupid -- how refreshing.

In any event, it will not diminish the fact that the oil-for-food corruption surrounding Iraq wont be involved in any Iran decision.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #21 of 188
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
No, I'm not "smart enough" to find those links. I disagree, so I'm stupid --

Props to you for your honesty.

"God helps those who help themselves".
post #22 of 188
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Sure we can. We're doing it right now. Right...this...very...second. Just now. At this moment.

Real war. Afghanistan do not count.
post #23 of 188
I'd also like to add that Iraq, now as our ally, would serve as the base and staging point for any assault on Iran. So many troops, armaments and supplies are already there. Certainly it's plausible and honestly, it wouldn't surprise me at this point if it did happen within the next four years. Think of this... if it takes 3 or close to 4 years to get this fully prepared and get Iraq's shit together that would bring us to the next election. Another war time election. I don't doubt for a second that someone high up isn't thinking about some of this shit. Only time will tell if it happens. Like Segovius said, the rhetoric has started and that's the seed that's planted in the minds of the people. The earlier this is put into people's minds that we have to do it, the easier it is for the government to implement it.

[/drunken post]
post #24 of 188
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Real war. Afghanistan do not count.

There's the War on Islam and the War against the lower and middle classes.
post #25 of 188
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Dra...
...aft


Draft what?

I don't understand the fear of a draft. It is not bodies that the military is in need of. There is no shortage, nor will there be. Even at the current casualty rate, it is no where near severe enough to even consider a draft as a possibility.
post #26 of 188
Anytime there is a war in this country, there is going to be rumblings of a draft. That is just how it is.
post #27 of 188
Quote:
Originally posted by applenut
Draft what?

I don't understand the fear of a draft. It is not bodies that the military is in need of. There is no shortage, nor will there be. Even at the current casualty rate, it is no where near severe enough to even consider a draft as a possibility.

I don't know about that.

I think I'm justifiably worried about getting drafted, for several reasons. The first is that no one can categorically rule out a draft, especially when our military is heavily engaged in a conflict right now. There was a story at DailyKos the other day about a former soldier who received an honorable discharge 13 years ago. The military called him back. That's one example of the "backdoor draft" already going on because our forces *are* stretched thin at the moment. What if another conflict breaks out? You can assure a draft will happen then.

The second and third reasons apply specifically to me. I'll be of-draft-age during the next 5 years (the time when our military will be bogged down in a major conflict. (The selective service snatches 20 year olds first, then 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 19, and 18 year olds). Finally, there are no more education exemptions, which in the past would cover all seven years of my draft eligibility from college to law school.

It's a concern.
post #28 of 188
Quote:
Originally posted by applenut
I don't understand the fear of a draft. It is not bodies that the military is in need of. There is no shortage, nor will there be. Even at the current casualty rate, it is no where near severe enough to even consider a draft as a possibility.

Prior to the Iraq war, the military wanted 450,000 troops. Rumsfeld wanted far less. The compromise was around 140,000.

By all accounts we don't have enough troops in Iraq to control it.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #29 of 188
Thread Starter 
Looks like the Iran attack will be sooner rather than later:

Quote:
Counterterror specialists look for "chatter" in Islamic extremist circles preceding an attack. There is a lot of chatter going on today in Washington - only this time, it is about an American attack on Iran.

In seminars and hallways, there is eager anticipation of an airstrike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Sure, the talk goes, we may not get all those buried nuclear labs. But a few waves of cruise missiles and bombers will set Iran's program back several years, enough time to pursue regime change in Tehran.

Article
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #30 of 188
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Looks like the Iran attack will be sooner rather than later:

That would be a great idea to motivate 100,000 pissed of Iranians over the border to fight with the insurgents in Iraq.
post #31 of 188
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Prior to the Iraq war, the military wanted 450,000 troops. Rumsfeld wanted far less. The compromise was around 140,000.

By all accounts we don't have enough troops in Iraq to control it.

not having enough troops in Iraq is completely different from not having enough troops and requiring a draft.

there is no shortage of troops. the only shortage would be self-imposed.
post #32 of 188
A war against Iran would be a totally different proposition to Iraq. First Iran is far larger in surface area, second, the mostly mountainous terrain is far tougher to move an invading force across, thirdly, Iran's military is more disciplined and better equipped than the ragtag remains of Saddam Hussein's army when the Iraq war started, fourth, land access to Iran to an invading ground force would be via Iraq only (Turkmenistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan would be untenable launch points).

If the US was to attack Iran, it would be a "shock and awe" campaign, similar to how the Iraq war started, but on a far larger scale, with the first targets being Iranian Airforce bases. An air campaign would probably be launched from the recently constructed bases in Iraq, from ships in the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf, and possibly Israeli airbases as well. Heavy conventional bombs and limited yield 'bunker busting" nuclear weapons would be the weapons of choice, similar to what was used in northen Afghanistan in late 2001. As a last resort, larger nuclear weapons could be deployed against major urban centers where heavy industry and military support systems are concentrated. Ground forces would go in to secure vital facilities once the air war was 'complete', and ground resistance had been reduced to near zero from the intensity of the bombing campaign.

This I feel is more realistic than the more classic ground campaigns of the Gulf War and the ongoing Iraq war. The USA doesn't need to occupy Iran, and practically cannot...it is too large.

Just my 2cents
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #33 of 188
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
If the US was to attack Iran, it would be a "shock and awe" campaign, similar to how the Iraq war started, but on a far larger scale, with the first targets being Iranian Airforce bases. An air campaign would probably be launched from the recently constructed bases in Iraq, from ships in the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf, and possibly Israeli airbases as well.

It would have to be ships that played the major role of such a campaign and they are highly vulnerable to the SSN22 'Sunburn' missile which is an awesome weapon.

It has a range of 100 miles at a speed of more than Mach 2 and can complete highly complex manoevers to elude radar on the fly. It was specifically developed to beat the US radar system and even the Phalanx defense is useless against it (unless it has precise co-ordinates which the Sunburn is programmed to avoid). One could take out a destroyer or other ship of comparable size.

There is an even more advanced missile - the Yakhonts - which Iran most likely has. It has a far greater range and speed and is optimised to take out aircraft carriers. It can actually tell which of a flotilla of ships is a carrier and lock in on it from a range of 200 miles.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #34 of 188
I still think this discussion is insane.

Nobody's going to back an invasion of Iran, especially with Iraq being such a powder keg and the US low on available troops. The neo-cons may be detached from reality, but the Christian right, libertarians and the moderates like Powell and McCain will not stand for such nonsense in a second term. Pat Robertson's attack on Bush sent a good signal of that. There would likely be a battle in the halls of the White House and Congress that sends Cheney back to his undisclosed location.

I think the most realistic assessment says that an Israeli air strike would be far more likely.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #35 of 188
Thread Starter 
They're using the old Dissidents in Exile routine again now.

Hey - it worked in Iraq. Why change a winning formula ?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #36 of 188
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
It won't be a war in Iran.
Morale side apart, even the US can't afford two wars simultaneously.
Note also that I don't know many democracy ready to commit suicide by entering in the war against all the muslim world.

Yeah, but there were a whole lot of things we thought were too insane to be possible until the bush admin did them and got away with them. Now, with addition of all of the changes in the admin during the past couple weeks, we don't know what to expect.
post #37 of 188
Thread Starter 
I think we do know excactly what to expect.

They're telling us every day. If people can't see or hear it then that's a different story. They're telling us - literally.

'Democracy' and 'Freedom' will be spread by whatever means necessary (except to Saudi). And that means militarily in the case of certain 'super-evil' States.

In the UK there is even a new term for it 'Liberal Imperialism'.

Blair recently outlined the theory (curiously after just meeting Bush - presumably to get his instructions) in London:

Quote:
"Democracy is the meeting point for Europe and America. I am not - repeat not - advocating a series of military solutions to achieve it. But I am saying that, patiently and plainly, Europe and America should be working together to bring the democratic human and political rights we take for granted to the world denied them."

Officials declined to speculate on which countries might be targeted under Mr Blair's proposed doctrine, which has been described as "liberal imperialism". They stressed that he was "not advocating a military solution to every problem".

Note that little word 'every'.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #38 of 188
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Yeah, but there were a whole lot of things we thought were too insane to be possible until the bush admin did them and got away with them. Now, with addition of all of the changes in the admin during the past couple weeks, we don't know what to expect.

I think that many republicans politicians will admit secretly that the Iraq war did not help them in the last elections. Without this war, the election would have been a cakewalk.

The Bush admin is discovereging the complexity of the islam world, and even acoording to my agenda, they commited an error with Iraq, I dont think that they will be fool enough to repeat this error.

The Iraq war created a huge shift among occidental countries, and I think that both USA and many countries are interested to regain good relationships.
post #39 of 188
I'd love to agree with you, but segovius is absolutely right. No one believed that the Bush admin was going to go through with most of this stuff it has done and is planning to do. During the 2000 campaign most people believed that there was no way a bush admin could be anything but moderate, even though Bush and his future advisors all were proposing radical changes on everything from social security to the structure of the US military. Now we know better.

I'm not saying that I know at this point what they plan to do with Iran, but I have no illusions about the fact that the Bush admin is willing to totally blow off allies and engage in conflicts it can't sustain using justifications that don't stand up to scrutiny at all.

And right now it's clear the administration is removing opposition, no matter how slight, from itself and the intelligence community, so there is even more of a chance for abuse in the future.
post #40 of 188
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
I'd love to agree with you, but segovius is absolutely right. No one believed that the Bush admin was going to go through with most of this stuff it has done and is planning to do. During the 2000 campaign most people believed that there was no way a bush admin could be anything but moderate, even though Bush and his future advisors all were proposing radical changes on everything from social security to the structure of the US military. Now we know better.

I'm not saying that I know at this point what they plan to do with Iran, but I have no illusions about the fact that the Bush admin is willing to totally blow off allies and engage in conflicts it can't sustain using justifications that don't stand up to scrutiny at all.

And right now it's clear the administration is removing opposition, no matter how slight, from itself and the intelligence community, so there is even more of a chance for abuse in the future.

If what you say is true, it will mean that Bush is truly insane.
Let's expect it's not the case ....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Prepping started for Iran war