US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

"US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned."

To not have a plan would be unwise methinks.  However.... they're going to have a really hard time convincing us there is a believeable need to send troops in.

Cindi

That's my thinking.  It just seems a bit ominous for this information to floating around.

It's going to a tough sell to attack, considering we do not have spare troops for them to draw from.

How do I wake up from this horrible nightmare!

Reid: "This war is a serious situation. It involves the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country."

McCain: "I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history."

Could this administration be any more misguided? To even entertain the vaguest of notions regarding any action in Iran is folly beyond words...IMHO.

Kelly

I fear my cousin will never be sent home from this "war..." He's in Iraq now (well past the time he was supposed to leave), god knows where he'll be next if they start some nonsense with Iran.

Short of troops?  Are you kidding?  We've got millions here that can be drafted! We've got plenty!

We can't afford it?  Are you kidding?  We can put everyone to work in the munitions factories.  We can ration gasoline.  We can ration bread and butter.

And remember... there's just one "decision maker" who is "reading a book" that Kissenger gave him.  Yup, that's right.  The pres finally decided to read a book to try and understand what's going on.  Bully for him!  Let's rally round our esteemed leader.  He's reading a book!  I wonder if he's colored in it yet.

Oh... we can go a long ways.  Be scared, be very scared.  Don't believe the mosters if they lie to us again.  Check out their stories folks very carefully.

Cindi

I just wonder if their "reliable sources" regarding Iran supplying insurgents is the same one that gave us the info about weapons of mass destruction. It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Karen Lyn     

Quote from: Kaelin on February 19, 2007, 07:25:41 PM
US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

"US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned."

This is in some respect "old news". The US Military plays simulated war games continuously in one of several centers around the US with joint operations of the Defense Department, now Homeland Security, CIA, NSA, State, etal. They're always ready with plans and recommendations for any (well, almost any) contingency the other nations provide. All except insurgent warfare, it's the one that can't really fully understand and grasp (obviously) because it doesn't involve international situations but intra-nation conditions.

And how do I have some (slight) insight? A friend of mine, now retired, worked in the Naval War Games Center in Conneticut from time to time (they rotate people in/out) to keep ideas and work fresh. You can bet the President has had a variety of war plans for Iran "on the table" now for several years, as he had with Iraq shortly after coming into office in 2001, and only waited for the "trigger" to sell it to the UN and Americans. While he said as late as 2002 he didn't have any war plans for Iraq "on his desk", he had them in his briefcase.

The only question now is if Congress will approve a declaration for war with Iran or will GW "decide" (remember he is "the decider") previous authorizations for Afghanistan and Iraq covers any attack on Iran under the guise of supporting terrorism or protecting American soldiers. And the question is if Congress, especially the Senate has the nerve to follow the American voters to squash any effort in this direction. Considering the failure of the non-binding resolution, too many Senators are afraid of their own shadow. Where is Senator Byrd when we need him again?

Why a reporter hasn't asked, "Mr. President, why are there two carrier groups in the vicinity of Iraq if not for preparing for war with Iran?" You don't need two carrier groups to fight an insurgency, but to prepare for expanded hostilities of a new kind. But, as the military has advised the President, Iran isn't Iraq (2/2003), Iran has a good air defense system with lots of ground to air missles, a decent Air Force (compliments of US and Russia), a huge army just next door to Iraq with strong support inside Iraq, lots of ground to ground missles to target US facilities in Iraq and Kuwait, and worst of all, a small, decent, and quick navy with ship/ground/air to ship missles, good enough to inflict significant damage to our Navy including carriers.

In short they're not stupid, we and the Russians trained them, and neither is our military. The question is the President and VP. And as Rusty Wallace said, "Stay tuned Hot Rod, we're just getting started." I'll park the soapbox now.

--Susan--

Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 20, 2007, 04:33:58 AM
And remember... there's just one "decision maker" who is "reading a book" that Kissenger gave him.  Yup, that's right.  The pres finally decided to read a book to try and understand what's going on.  Bully for him!  Let's rally round our esteemed leader.  He's reading a book!  I wonder if he's colored in it yet.

I was under the impression he had to be read to...with lots of splaining.

Quote from: KarenLyn on February 20, 2007, 06:10:54 AM
I just wonder if their "reliable sources" regarding Iran supplying insurgents is the same one that gave us the info about weapons of mass destruction. It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Karen Lyn     

Or those forged Niger documents about yellow cake...

Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 19, 2007, 07:30:05 PM
To not have a plan would be unwise methinks.  However.... they're going to have a really hard time convincing us there is a believeable need to send troops in.

Cindi

Convincing "us" maybe, but not heir base of rubber stampers...beware of the next false flag event. My dreams are increasing in frequency. I believe we are on the brink of a major event to happen in 6 wks or less, no more than 3 mo.

Quote from: Kaelin on February 19, 2007, 07:35:53 PM
That's my thinking.  It just seems a bit ominous for this information to floating around.

It's going to a tough sell to attack, considering we do not have spare troops for them to draw from.

Hmm the "Surge" was a tough sell...Congress said "no" even...Der Bush did it anyway...

Quote from: SusanK on February 20, 2007, 08:02:23 AM

Quote from: Kaelin on February 19, 2007, 07:25:41 PM
US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

"US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned."

This is in some respect "old news".

but, this isn't...Second US aircraft carrier arrives near Iran http://www.rawstory.com//news/2007/Second_US_aircraft_carrier_arrives_near_0220.html 

Forgive me if i sound a little blunt but it's not my intention and it is not intended as a criticism of the citizens of the US, but more of a commentary.  As an outsider looking in I would have thought by now that US foreign policy in that neck of the woods would have changed by now, but it's still all about oil.

The US involvement has been a failure from the start.  Beginning with their support of the Shar of Iran.  He was overthrown because the Shar did nothing for his country but rape it, so Islamic fundamentalist took control and installed Khomeini.  So having lost that country the US then turned to Iraq and became the ally of Sodamn Insane and backed his war against Iran, which ended in a stalemate as of course the then Soviet Union was backing Iran.  Iraq lost so much, that it needed to restock it's coffers so it turned to Kuwait help and as we all know everything went to hell in a handbag.  Funnily enough a lot of the high tech fighter planes that Iran has to counter US threats are from Iraq, US planes sold to Iraq, flown to Iran for safe keeping when the US invaded Iraq.

The worlds a funny place.

Steph

Quote from: Steph on February 20, 2007, 12:57:48 PM
Forgive me if i sound a little blunt but it's not my intention and it is not intended as a criticism of the citizens of the US, but more of a commentary...

Well, when you put it like that...golly, we look kind of silly don't we. Yep, government by the people, for the people...what a f-ing crock! Not to sound negative, of course.

I'm just curious to see if we can stop before we are the butt of every joke. Soooo, any openings up there in the great-white-north?

Quote from: Kelly-47 on February 20, 2007, 01:22:18 PM


I'm just curious to see if we can stop before we are the butt of every joke. Soooo, any openings up there in the great-white-north?

I don't care about the jokes so much as wishing we could take our own country back before the bombs start dropping here.

The saddest thing of all is that I have to admit to an enormous ignorance of the government and politics, but that I can speak for the majority of my generation when I say this. It was something that was simply never taught to me. Everything painted in blue and red so to speak. And now all I can do is look around and wonder "what the hell is going on and how can I even do anything to stop it?"  So, large piece of humble pie here, where do I begin to understand these things? What do I need to read? A history book? I need a serious crash course in where all this began and what exactly is going on now. Where do I find this?

Quote from: angelsgirl on February 20, 2007, 02:22:16 PM
The saddest thing of all is that I have to admit to an enormous ignorance of the government and politics, but that I can speak for the majority of my generation when I say this. It was something that was simply never taught to me. Everything painted in blue and red so to speak. And now all I can do is look around and wonder "what the hell is going on and how can I even do anything to stop it?"  So, large piece of humble pie here, where do I begin to understand these things? What do I need to read? A history book? I need a serious crash course in where all this began and what exactly is going on now. Where do I find this?

That's easy...I have posted tons of info and resources here in the activism forum for one.
Best link you and anyone else can read is this entire 89 pg doc called Rebuilding America's Defenses aka the PNAC RAD doc:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

everything that we have done since Bush took office is in that document pretty much..,.funny how it was publised before he took office..
Oh BTW, after ya all read it compare it to the Bush Doctrine of June 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine which then became the The National Security Strategy of the United States of America in Sept 2002 http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

This is a good place to start to understand what has happened over the past 6 yrs or so...then we go from there...as for other things to do...get involved.
Lemme know if I can help...this is what I do



BTW even old Hans Blix knows it's coming any day...tic toc tic toc tic...

Will the United States Attack Iran?
by Hans Blix
Will the United States use armed force against Iran? Hardly any foreign policy issue is hotter right now. American planes are reported to be patrolling along the border between Iraq and Iran, and U.S. forces have been authorized to kill Iranian agents in Iraq. Two U.S. aircraft carriers are in the Gulf and missile defenses have been installed in Gulf states. The military buildup is either to scare Tehran or to prepare for American attacks on Iran.
Many remember that there was a U.S. military buildup in the Gulf during the autumn of 2002 and the first months of 2003 and that the U.S. attack on Iraq followed in March. Is something similar underway now?
Most commentators note that a large part of the American people would disapprove of more military adventures. Yet many worry that the Bush administration might be tempted to play up Iran's activities as an important reason for the anarchy in Iraq and to reduce the attention to the debacle in Iraq by opening a........
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0219-21.htm

But recent reports of large-scale Iranian arms transfers to other non-state groups suggest that such shipments are part of a coordinated government effort to advance key foreign policy goals, not low-level pilfering. In November 2006, UN investigators accused the government of Iran of providing three large shipments of arms and ammunition to the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia. According to the investigators, the shipments contained, inter alia, 1000 PKM machine guns and grenade launchers, 200 boxes of machine gun ammunition, dozens of shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles and rocket launchers, mines, and military uniforms, all of which was transferred in violation of a UN arms embargo.
--Strategic Security Blog

The article is rather long and takes a look at various possibilities.

Quote from: Steph on February 20, 2007, 12:57:48 PM
Forgive me if i sound a little blunt but it's not my intention and it is not intended as a criticism of the citizens of the US, but more of a commentary.  As an outsider looking in I would have thought by now that US foreign policy in that neck of the woods would have changed by now, but it's still all about oil.

The US involvement has been a failure from the start.  Beginning with their support of the Shar of Iran.  He was overthrown because the Shar did nothing for his country but rape it, so Islamic fundamentalist took control and installed Khomeini.  So having lost that country the US then turned to Iraq and became the ally of Sodamn Insane and backed his war against Iran, which ended in a stalemate as of course the then Soviet Union was backing Iran.  Iraq lost so much, that it needed to restock it's coffers so it turned to Kuwait help and as we all know everything went to hell in a handbag.  Funnily enough a lot of the high tech fighter planes that Iran has to counter US threats are from Iraq, US planes sold to Iraq, flown to Iran for safe keeping when the US invaded Iraq.

The worlds a funny place.

Steph

It's not just Iran. There have been tens of others... unless we've had a clear enemy to defeat, our foreign policy has been a complete disaster in every country where we've been involved.  We've made major mistakes in  just about every eastern block country, several in South America, and let us not forget Korea and the Nam.  No, we don't play well in our sandbox.  We can kick everyone out... but we can't get along unless it is clear that it IS OUR SANDBOX.

It's not necessarily about the oil.  It's about fostering support for the big multi-national corporations now.  They used to be US based companies, but now they are not.  We don't give a hoot about the oil.  We just want the corporations we like to control the sale of the comodity.  That's the "we" part of the equation.  GWB wanted this gig to prove something to his daddy.... or something like that.  He's in it to be a "war president".  He has the worst reason of all.

Now that we have provoked everyone in the Middle East with our stupidity, we are truly exposed.  They know how to fight us.  We only know how to drop bombs..... great for huge armies... totally hopeless against very small groups of people intent on commiting suicide.

Yeah!  Go team!

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 20, 2007, 05:58:39 PM

Quote from: Steph on February 20, 2007, 12:57:48 PM
Forgive me if i sound a little blunt but it's not my intention and it is not intended as a criticism of the citizens of the US, but more of a commentary.  As an outsider looking in I would have thought by now that US foreign policy in that neck of the woods would have changed by now, but it's still all about oil.

The US involvement has been a failure from the start.  Beginning with their support of the Shar of Iran.  He was overthrown because the Shar did nothing for his country but rape it, so Islamic fundamentalist took control and installed Khomeini.  So having lost that country the US then turned to Iraq and became the ally of Sodamn Insane and backed his war against Iran, which ended in a stalemate as of course the then Soviet Union was backing Iran.  Iraq lost so much, that it needed to restock it's coffers so it turned to Kuwait help and as we all know everything went to hell in a handbag.  Funnily enough a lot of the high tech fighter planes that Iran has to counter US threats are from Iraq, US planes sold to Iraq, flown to Iran for safe keeping when the US invaded Iraq.

The worlds a funny place.

Steph

It's not just Iran. There have been tens of others... unless we've had a clear enemy to defeat, our foreign policy has been a complete disaster in every country where we've been involved.  We've made major mistakes in  just about every eastern block country, several in South America, and let us not forget Korea and the Nam.  No, we don't play well in our sandbox.  We can kick everyone out... but we can't get along unless it is clear that it IS OUR SANDBOX.

It's not necessarily about the oil.  It's about fostering support for the big multi-national corporations now.  They used to be US based companies, but now they are not.  We don't give a hoot about the oil.  We just want the corporations we like to control the sale of the comodity.  That's the "we" part of the equation.  GWB wanted this gig to prove something to his daddy.... or something like that.  He's in it to be a "war president".  He has the worst reason of all.

Now that we have provoked everyone in the Middle East with our stupidity, we are truly exposed.  They know how to fight us.  We only know how to drop bombs..... great for huge armies... totally hopeless against very small groups of people intent on commiting suicide.

Yeah!  Go team!

Cindi

You folks had it right during the war of independence when the guerilla tactics you used defeated the huge british conventional armies of the day.  It's too bad that the joint chiefs didn't realize this.  As the worlds super power the US can indeed defeat any enemy in a conventional or nuclear confrontation, but it's when the other side uses unconventional tactics when things go awry.  Vietnam, The Iraq insurgency, Afghanistan, even the huge Soviet Union couldn't tame Afghanistan after they invaded.

Steph

It all boils down to this:  You can not kill an idea.  Once a people hold on to an idea, they fight and die for it until they win.  There is no stopping an idea... death only solidifies it (think of Christianity in its early years with the Romans for example).  Our version of facism isn't going to work.... we know countries that tried it.  It ain't gonna work for us either.  It's just a little too much to expect our people to stand behind the interests of the corporations for much longer.  There's just not much in it worth dying for.

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on February 20, 2007, 06:56:40 PM
It all boils down to this:  You can not kill an idea.  Once a people hold on to an idea, they fight and die for it until they win.  There is no stopping an idea... death only solidifies it (think of Christianity in its early years with the Romans for example).  Our version of facism isn't going to work.... we know countries that tried it.  It ain't gonna work for us either.  It's just a little too much to expect our people to stand behind the interests of the corporations for much longer.  There's just not much in it worth dying for.

Cindi