All the Kings horses....

Theres no question about it.
We are in the countdown, and final stages to a military strike on Iran.
Its all but assured.

1. The USA VP ( who really runs the country ) holds a conference :

Vice President Dick Cheney and ex-UN Ambassador John Bolton are both former members of JINSA. The organization sponsored a 2003 conference entitled: “Time to Focus on Iran — The Mother of Modern Terrorism.”

2.Israel declares them a major threat, and that the time to act is coming, with sources claiming HOW has already been established.

One source told the Times, “As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert calls Iran an “existential threat,

The time is approaching when Israel and the international community will have to decide whether to take military action against Iran

3.The USA is ensuring the right man, is in charge of the naval assets, that will assist.

Fallon, who is in the Navy, is currently head of Pacific Command

the appointment is highly unusual

A conflict with Iran would be a naval and air operation. Fallon is a naval flight officer. He flew combat missions in Vietnam, commanded an A-6 Intruder squadron, a carrier air wing and an aircraft carrier. As a three-star, he commanded Second Fleet and Strike Force Atlantic. He presently heads U.S. Pacific Command. His resume also includes duty in numerous joint and Navy staff billets, including Deputy Director for Operations with Joint Task Force Southwest Asia in Riyahd, Saudi Arabia.

If anybody knows how to run a maritime and air operation against Iran, it's "Fox" Fallon.

4. We have a barrarge of reports coming out from senoir/retired or annonomous American Government officials, of 'impending' strikes, staged strikes or deliberate raids involving Iran. To soften us up?
Or maybe they have heard things, but not enough to be definate

Former CIA analyst and Presidential advisor Ray McGovern, fresh from his heated public confrontation with Donald Rumsfeld, fears that staged terror attacks across Europe and the US are probable in order to justify the Bush administration's plan to launch a military strike against Iran, which he thinks will take place in June or July.

U.S. Navy nuclear submarines maintaining vigil off the coast of Iran indicate that the Pentagon’s military plans include not only control over navigation in the Persian Gulf but also strikes against Iranian targets, a former commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Admiral Eduard Baltin has told the Interfax news agency.

KUWAIT CITY, Jan. 14 (Xinhua) -- U.S. might launch a military strike on Iran before April 2007, Kuwait-based daily Arab Times released on Sunday said in a report. The report, written by Arab Times' Editor-in-chief Ahmed al-Jarallah citing a reliable source, said that the attack would be launched from the sea, while Patriot missiles would guard all Arab countries in the Gulf.

The Sunday Times has now revealed new evidence that Israel is currently planning to launch a nuclear attack against Iran. Aimed at destroying the embryonic Iranian nuclear industry, the Israeli missiles armed with nuclear warheads will be delivered via conventional jet fighters. The Sunday Times reported that Israeli jet pilots are already undergoing advanced training to fire the nuclear warheads at targets in Iran – in a tactical replay of their attack that destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1982.

There's a LOT Of different countries, with different people all citing sources saying an attack is coming.
Being political methods have failed, and Iran has NO intention of being pushed around or bullied.. I feel it is now closer than ever.

But the thing that really stood out for me was this statement from senators

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's warnings to Iran and Syria to not interfere in Iraq and the arrest of six Iranians in Iraq by U.S. troops raised eyebrows Thursday on Capitol Hill, where senators warned Bush against widening the nearly four-year-old war.

Only for the Bush ADMIN To reply with

Rice says president will do what's necessary to protect troops

Senators wouldnt be saying this unless they knew something.
And they wouldnt be able to release it to the public, as it would just put US forces at serious risk.

I for one am going to start preparing.

- Remove ALL debt.
Pay off every last dollar you can off that credit card, loan or what ever.
If your in debt when a major conflict breaks out, that expands to regions and ends up engulfing nations economies. your going to lose everything.

- Every shopping, buy $20 worth of canned food and keep it in boxes in the corner of your house.

- Get rid of the car, learn all aspects of your public transport, and buys some mountain bikes. Fuel is going to skyrocket to the point of sacrificing other nessecities just to get around. If you already bend to using public transport, or riding your bike. your going to be a lot better off than majority of public.

- IF your working without basic certification, but can easily gain it. DO IT.
IF A draft should ever happen, you have a much better chance of avoiding being cannon fodder if you have a basic MCP. you are now technical and worthy of computer based roles in the military.

Some people may be laughing, scoffing and ignoring some basic realities.

But war with IRAN, will not be like Iraq.
Iran will fight, Iran will bomb, Iran will kill a lot of Americans.
Israel will be attacked, Israel will lose alot of citizens, and Israel will use nuclear weapons.
China will take Taiwan, and Taiwain will defend, trade will be diminished.
North korea will take South Korea, as the US is defending with all its might Israel, Saudi and its new state 'Iraq'

Kid yourself not,

Sept11 opened pandora's box, and we were sucked in like the sheep we are into a position where mankind is truley facing its darkest days.








www.fpif.org...
zenhuber.blogspot.com...

Unfortunately I think your right. You can see the pieces going into place. I feel sorry for those poor (snip) in Tehran who are about to get their limbs blown off for the oil under their homes. I think you maybe slightly paranoid though, the United States has totally surrounded Iran, to the North Georgia and Azerbaijan, to the East Afganistan, to the South a sea stuffed with U.S and allied warships/submarines and to the West Iraq.

Hopefully the United States can use its 'precision warefare capabilities' to only blow off peoples limbs rather than kill them. It is a total disgrace upon humanity.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 21-1-2007 by mrwupy]

Well, when they get those TORM1 anti-aircraft / missle systems up and running that the Russians sold and delivered them, any attack on Iran from the air may see some casualties, birds being shot down, simply because up to now the U.S. or Israel have never fought against a country with a good anti-air system.

That could change if we blew the anti aircraft installations before entering. That would be incredibly difficult considering these things have wheels lol, and can evade you.

In 1990 Iraq had the 3rd largest army and one of the most advanced air-defense systems (sold and set-up by the Chinese).

It didn't to Iraq any good.

Ferretman, true enough, but the average Iraqi citizen was not as willing to fight for their homeland as they are now. They've had 4 years of occupation and are fighting for their lives, their country and their way of life, not the least of which values religion and family. That always makes people fight harder and be willing to give their lives in defense of their homeland. Those things plus excellent guerilla tactics are what made Vietnam so difficult to win.

Originally posted by ferretman2
In 1990 Iraq had the 3rd largest army and one of the most advanced air-defense systems (sold and set-up by the Chinese).

It didn't to Iraq any good.

Alot has happened in 16 years chap. Iran was no where near the capabilities they have now.

Ignoring the fact that the Iraqi military was not only seriously worn down after the war with Iran, but they made grave strategic errors. Had they not been encircled by Schwarzkopf flanking them through the desert, the fighting would have been much bloodier.

It is foolish to think that a war with Iran will be anything like the cakewalk that 2003 was. Most of the Iraqi Generals where bought off and abandoned their men, there was no will to fight and they were ludicrously hampered by 16 years of sanctions. Having 1,000,000 men is not very good if you have no food, amunition, fuel or spare parts. Might as well field an army of goats.

Iran, on the other hand, has a well-equipped, well trained, disciplined military (comparatively speaking). Look how Serbia fared in 1999. We barely touched their forces with Air power. That's because they had the noggin to outwit NATO planners. The casualtie figures claimed by NATO at the time were seriously exaggerated and later investigation found that barely 1000 Serb soldiers died in the bombing and 80% of their Armour and other land forces where intact, after several weeks of intense bombing,and fully operational. Hence why we turned our attention from the forces in Kosovo to Serbia's infrastructure.

Anyone who thinks war with Iran will be easy, or worse yet, a good idea, is IMO a bloody idiot.

[edit on 19/1/07 by stumason]

What you must remember is that between 1991 and 2003 that there were two huge no fly zones imposed over northern and southern Iraq. The Iraqi air defence systems were continually bombarded during this period, for example the 'removal' of the fibre optic cable that the Iraq government was attempting to install. Techniqually Iraq and America were at war between 1991 and 2003, but for some reason this does not appear to be the reported case.

Since everyone is so keen to give vent to their opinions...I have one too.

The U.S. won't directly attack Iran, Israel will and when Iran responds, the U.S. will wipe the floor with them! and it's about damn time too!

I don't understand where you guys come up with the attitude that Iran is such a military powerhouse?

They have a shallow water navy, an air force with limited strike capabilities as well as limited range (ME only), no way to move the war out of their own theater of operation, and a ground force that's only claim to fame is they manged to hunker down longer than the Iraqi's

How does this put them on par with the U.S. military or any other "real" modern military for that matter?

If they're so incapable of being a threat, then why is it "about damn time" they get "wiped" by the US?

On another note, how do you envisage such a stunning US victory when, taking Iraq and Afghanistan as an example, you have failed so spectaculary?

Air Power alone will not do much damage to an organised military (see Serbia 1999), which, despite protestations from some, they do have. They know full well what your capabilities are have seen how you fight a war.

I have no doubt that the US could "win", but only after a prolonged, sustained and brutal fight. And for what, exactly? What would be the purpose of thousands more US dead to attack an Iran which, by your own admission, is no threat?

Amazing,
No one has learnt a THING of Iraq.

Iraq could of been beaten by my great aunt bethel.
Yet, you are still losing troops DAILY, with very fatal explosions occuring MORE than the friggen electricty being on.

Iran, is A Sh1t load bigger,
With a sh1t load more anti american mentality
With a huge army in comparison
and with the knowledge of Iraq, they know they cant afford to let you roll in, waving white flags..

Yet you still believe it'll be a cakewalk.

I tell you, if it comes to be, no one will be able to blame the government for this one.
Because you all came to realise the reality in Iraq, yet you still stood by when he did the same to iran, singing the tune of your president.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by Agit8dChop]

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Theres no question about it.
We are in the countdown, and final stages to a military strike on Iran.
Its all but assured.

Well, thats one opinion...remember, nothing is "assured" except death and taxes.

I think that you have to have an understanding of politics and international diplomacy/relations to understand what the "proofs" you list actually are. What you have described, providing your sources are correct, is a quiet political leveraging of Iran. It it not necessarily a first strike force, though it could be used as one.

What you're missing is the big picture. I'm sure you've read the newswire reports about Ahmadinejad's political woes in Iran right now. Many Ministers have raised the question of impeachment, and even started collecting signatures. Students at the Amirkabir University have protested his policies. Granted, Ahmadinejad is little more than a figurehead, but because of the backlash, even the Assembly of Experts and the Ayatollah have begun distancing themselves from him.

So, the populace, the Religious Council and the supreme Leader of Iran are all turning their backs on their President. All of this is because Ahmadinejad's vitriol has brought potential sanctions and the ire of the largest military in the world.

That means that for the US, its time to turn up the heat and add to the pressure. So that is why we have such a large military presence there. It is a political show of military might. In a pinch, yeah, its a first strike force, but that is the secondary reason for its presence. Don't be packing MREs and rifles and heading to a cabin in the woods folks, this is nothing. If you're this skittish, you'd never have survived the 60s and 70s...

I hear what ya saying, and agree its the perfect time to boil the water Ahmajadine is sitting in.

But the Mullahs have control.
HE doesnt do anything , without them saying so.

If Ahmajadine goes, you might lose 'SOME' of the loud rhetoric.. but you still have the nuclear programme continuing, which is the core of the problem.

Israel dont want Ahmajadine out, they want Irans Offensive capability out.

Ahmajadine might have lost a large segment of his followers..
but Bush has only a %30-40 approval atm,
yet we seem to be going full steam ahead with everything he wants.
What im saying is, who ever is REALLY leading the country.. can ignore what the populace want.
Which is the case in American,why not Iran?

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I respectfully disagree. Ahmadinejad is individual, with his own ideas and free will.

Here's how it works- the Religious Council dictate direction. They meet periodically to make determinations. These determinations are then directed towards the Supreme Leader of Iran, the Ayatollah, who turns these dictates into policy. The Ayatollah then passes these policies on to the President, the Military, and the judiciary.

These departments, office of the President, armed forces, etc., all perform the implementation of these dictates with some measure of autonomy and freedom. Candidates for the heads of these departments are selected for their administrative competence as well as their devotion to both Islam and Iran, and are expected to perform according to the dictates set forth by the Religious Council, via the Ayatollah.

So, accounting for all of this, yes, Ahmadinejad is controlled tightly, but he is allowed some latitude, until reigned in by the Ayatollah, which is happening.

Therefore, we may postulate that there may be a trend of "de-escalation". Ahmadinejad will be blamed for the sanctions and military forces off their coast. He will be the scapegoat.


Now, to the point of Bush, that doesn't really enter into it. If, above him, there was some other leader and supervisory board, yeah, it would be the same. But in the mean time, he can continue to do quite a bit, including stepping up the pressure in Iran. Remember, this is quiet, the average American has no clue that we're essentially threatening the heck out of Iran.

Regarding Israel, yeah, they want war...but they don't want to participate. They want us to fight and take the pressure off of them again. A Weak Iraq and a defensive Iran & Syria means less people working against Israel's interests.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts


What you're missing is the big picture. I'm sure you've read the newswire reports about Ahmadinejad's political woes in Iran right now. Many Ministers have raised the question of impeachment, and even started collecting signatures. Students at the Amirkabir University have protested his policies. Granted, Ahmadinejad is little more than a figurehead, but because of the backlash, even the Assembly of Experts and the Ayatollah have begun distancing themselves from him.

So, the populace, the Religious Council and the supreme Leader of Iran are all turning their backs on their President. All of this is because Ahmadinejad's vitriol has brought potential sanctions and the ire of the largest military in the world.

That means that for the US, its time to turn up the heat and add to the pressure. So that is why we have such a large military presence there. It is a political show of military might. In a pinch, yeah, its a first strike force, but that is the secondary reason for its presence. Don't be packing MREs and rifles and heading to a cabin in the woods folks, this is nothing. If you're this skittish, you'd never have survived the 60s and 70s...

The thing is, is that those who want Ahmadinejad out in Iran and better relations with the west are not going to be helped by the US Navy building up in The Persian Gulf, even feigning a threat of war.

Why? Because the threat of war, feigned or not, will unite Iran in response.

Hate the president, love their country.

Any idea of Iranians wanting Ahmadinejad out will be set aside.

Those who still want Ahmadinejad out in this atmosphere of shadow boxing will be denounced as spies and colloborators.

Already, Al Jazeera English report Iran are carrying out their second military exercises in a month.

In all contemporary wargames testing of US v Iran and Israel v Iran, Iran comes off out of it fairly well in fact. They have decent air and anti-air systems and anti-armour systems capable to taking the tops off Merkavas and Abrahms. Their kit is not at all like Iraqs was (i.e. Rubbish)

Originally posted by Regensturm
The thing is, is that those who want Ahmadinejad out in Iran and better relations with the west are not going to be helped by the US Navy building up in The Persian Gulf, even feigning a threat of war.

Why? Because the threat of war, feigned or not, will unite Iran in response.

Hate the president, love their country.

Any idea of Iranians wanting Ahmadinejad out will be set aside.

Those who still want Ahmadinejad out in this atmosphere of shadow boxing will be denounced as spies and colloborators.

Already, Al Jazeera English report Iran are carrying out their second military exercises in a month.

I've had the luck of knowing a few Iranians, even having dinner w/ 2 last weekend, and I've seen that Iranians, and Persians in particular, are extremely proud people. They also have a long history of culture....and military prowess. Your assessment is correct, partially. They will unite if there is a war.

However, the question is, ''will Iran risk it?'' Look at Iraq- hundreds of thousands dead, infrastructure destroyed, total chaos. This is counter productive to the goals of the Religious Council, they don't want to be the martyrs. They will not change the destruction of their nation to satisfy some foreign power's notions of security.

To sum it up, Ahmadinejad's rhetoric has put them into a corner where its either succumb of fight. The US is stepping up the pressure, militarily. The Ayatollah is trying to diffuse some of the pressure by clamping down on Ahmadinejad.

To resolve the tense situation, a option needs to be put on the table where Iran is allowed to save face and not be disgraced or embarrassed.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

One source told the Times, “As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished.

3.The USA is ensuring the right man, is in charge of the naval assets, that will assist.

Fallon, who is in the Navy, is currently head of Pacific Command

the appointment is highly unusual

A conflict with Iran would be a naval and air operation. Fallon is a naval flight officer. He flew combat missions in Vietnam, commanded an A-6 Intruder squadron, a carrier air wing and an aircraft carrier. As a three-star, he commanded Second Fleet and Strike Force Atlantic. He presently heads U.S. Pacific Command. His resume also includes duty in numerous joint and Navy staff billets, including Deputy Director for Operations with Joint Task Force Southwest Asia in Riyahd, Saudi Arabia.

If anybody knows how to run a maritime and air operation against Iran, it's "Fox" Fallon.

KUWAIT CITY, Jan. 14 (Xinhua) -- U.S. might launch a military strike on Iran before April 2007, Kuwait-based daily Arab Times released on Sunday said in a report. The report, written by Arab Times' Editor-in-chief Ahmed al-Jarallah citing a reliable source, said that the attack would be launched from the sea, while Patriot missiles would guard all Arab countries in the Gulf.

www.fpif.org...
zenhuber.blogspot.com...

Urrrggh, now I am sick to my stomach, I posted this on the 16th, please keep in mind I have certain mental skills that are not common.

THE DRAGON
User ID: 163816
1/16/2007 2:03 PM
Re: US military strike on Iran seen by April ’07 Quote


I saw it today in a dream, some commander was matching what looked like file cards of airplane assests and matching them to target intel. Building the sortie list.

F15, A6, F18 even what looked like an F22. Even detailing what armorment for the sortie he was writing with what I thought was a crayon.

In a small office, looked cramped with a type of foldaway table. (maybe on a ship)

Another (lower class military person) comes into the office and says something. This commander says tell "some abbreviation like CENTQ but I could not understand it" that the airsupport planning logs are almost ready for the strike locations.

And then I popped out of the dream.

I think individual battel groups in the Med have been tasked with selected targets and right now they are assigning the assests to attack the targets.

www.godlikeproductions.com.../22/07&mpage=1


Please see the A6 it must have been a symbol trying to tell me who the commander was "Fox". And it being on a ship and preparing airstrikes and that last link I say a word CENTQ but could not understand its meaning, must have been CENTCOM....

zenhuber.blogspot.com...

EDIT: and for the record today is the first I heard about this Fallon person being an Admiral being re-assigned etc.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by robertfenix]

Originally posted by kickoutthejams
In all contemporary wargames testing of US v Iran and Israel v Iran, Iran comes off out of it fairly well in fact. They have decent air and anti-air systems and anti-armour systems capable to taking the tops off Merkavas and Abrahms. Their kit is not at all like Iraqs was (i.e. Rubbish)

Agreed.

Plus (re wargames effectiveness tests etc...) this is all BEFORE the Iranians just got their spanking new Russian Anti-Air system. Their anti-war was rather good before that so now it will be state of the art.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts


However, the question is, ''will Iran risk it?'' Look at Iraq- hundreds of thousands dead, infrastructure destroyed, total chaos. This is counter productive to the goals of the Religious Council, they don't want to be the martyrs. They will not change the destruction of their nation to satisfy some foreign power's notions of security.

The question is also, "will the US risk it." the Iranians, attacked would be united incensed. Iranians who don't even like the ayatollahs will be infuriated their country has been attacked, Iran, as we agree, would be united, and a proportion of Iranians will want revenge.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
To sum it up, Ahmadinejad's rhetoric has put them into a corner where its either succumb of fight. The US is stepping up the pressure, militarily. The Ayatollah is trying to diffuse some of the pressure by clamping down on Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad has the Ayatollah as his temper diffuser, but who is Bush's and his cohorts? I dare say that The Bush Administration's rantings and rhetoric have also put them into a corner where they either leave Iran alone, or wage another war.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
To resolve the tense situation, a option needs to be put on the table where Iran is allowed to save face and not be disgraced or embarrassed.

I agree. Iranians are a proud people, their land of historic civillisation that existed thousands of years before the USA was founded.

Iranians are incensed further when the US government demonises them and makes out they are not civillised.