US Poised For Attack On Iran!! Has The Final Count Down Begun?

Originally posted by ludaChris
I think everyone is taking these claims too seriously. Every single one of these threads is the same, and the responses are all similar. I'm absolutely positive that the US has a plan for attacking Iran, its called contingency, we even have one for invading Canada. Kind of a just-in-case type of thing. I'm sure Iran has a plan for attacking American interests in case of an attack on Iran, I'm also sure they have a plan for an offensive campaign against the US in Iraq. Same goes for every country with a military, you plan for anything. I'm just sick of these threads, it never happens. I'm not saying it cant, but out of all the threads on this subject, how many have been right? These threads are a big doughnut hole for 30 or so.

Ludacris,if you look at PNAC doctrine, everything is following step by step. Sorry but I think you are missing the boat on this one. The *real* diehard neo conseratives operate on the "greater chaos theory"

The "Greater chaos theory"states if things go horrific, shuffle the cards again to get a better outcome. No matter how grim things look.

You think this isn't serious and it's just a backup plan. No, it's the real plan because these people are impatient and have been waiting in the wings for 3 decades. This is their last chance probably this century to get to do what they want.

You fail to realize that these kooks in the basement who were ridiculed and mocked at by the paleo-conservatives are now in the war room. The war room is FILLED with them. That's important for everyone to remember

Michael Ledeen has a direct line to the whitehouse. Why do you think so many jumped off board on the neo con bandwagon? Because these guys are capable of creating destruction on a global scale just for hegemony experiment.


I'm sorry but shrugging this off, I think you need to ask (former Neo Con) Francis Fukayama what the neo conservatives are capable of. Or Better yet (marine/republican/middle east intelligence expert) Scott Ritter who has stepped up to bat to explain what the real plan for Iran is.

Scott Ritter pretty much was number 1 at the gates about Iraq and Iran and how this would play out. People laughed at him. He testified in 2001 to Congress he was concerned what the Bush Administration would do to Iraq. Now Ritter can be considered a Maverick. Ritter isn't a nut he earned his stripes and credibility across the board. And the fact that he is a marine republican alot of people are scared of him.

It's the same script/same production/almost the same players/ but on a different scheduling.








[edit on 18-2-2007 by MRGERBIK]

[edit on 18-2-2007 by MRGERBIK]

Originally posted by Awake and All Seeing
They haven't been wrong. Maybe ones predicting a date. But threads saying we are going to war with Iran are right. Theses thing don't start overnight. Not everyone understands that. America will attack Iran within the next two years, and every week now we are seeing the media propaganda escalate accordingly.

Get a clue brother.

Ummmm, yeah they have. They all say that the US will attack Iran on so and so time, now that the extra Carrier group is there. There have been quite a few rotations of these battle groups with no sighn of attacking Iran. Carriers provide air support for troops, conduct airstrikes on targets, and strategic defense of the straights entering the gulf. There is no proof to me, that the US is going to attack Iran, youre seeing what you want to see.

Everyone seems to blindly believe Iran is into nuclear energy just for peaceful purposes, but their tactics of stalling match that of NK before it announced it had the bomb or when it decided to pull out of the NPT in 1993. They are playing the waiting game, as the Koreans did, that part is pretty clear, that combined with their barring of 38 IAEA inspectors this year and the unveiling of a plan for 58k centerfuges for enrichment tell me their intentions are not peaceful at all. Does the US dare sit it out and be wrong, because I have a good idea where the blame will be placed if that does happen.

It's my understanding that neo-conservative circles in Washington have always considered Iran to be a greater threat to American interests in the region than Iraq. The concept was to terminate the Hussein regime, install a friendly client government supported by American military bases...then Iran would 'smell the coffee' and acquiese to US policy in the region. Well, it hasn't gone as hoped, in fact quite the contrary. The elimination of the Iraqi Strongman not only served the long term interests of Iran, but in terms of security, Israel also stands to benefit from the inevitable disintegration of the country formerly known as 'Iraq' into separate autonomous zones...but that's a whole other story.

Most think tank research I've studied on the subject agrees that we simply don't have the military manpower to invade a country the size of Iran, subdue it, and occupy it long enough to terminate and replace the existing regime. Given our current military commitments, this only makes sense.

It's also estimated that bombing and missile attacks on Iranian nuclear assets will only manage to stall the programs...meaning an open ended succession of attacks across years...a politically untenable proposition.

My hope is that any attack can be forestalled until the 08 elections. Perhaps then we may enjoy a leadership that's willing to take a hard look at the long term benefits, and affects of neo-con inspired hegemony. I'm not naive enough not to realize it's a tall order, and that the real powers are formidable, and remain hidden to the majority of Americans...but with a return to conventional diplomacy (sanity)....there may at least be a ray of hope. Hell, we even teach our children to "use their words" rather than hitting.

Those we want to kill: /yvo74d

Peace &
Good Fortune
OBE1

The American Enterprise Institute

Originally posted by ludaChris

Originally posted by Awake and All Seeing
They haven't been wrong. Maybe ones predicting a date. But threads saying we are going to war with Iran are right. Theses thing don't start overnight. Not everyone understands that. America will attack Iran within the next two years, and every week now we are seeing the media propaganda escalate accordingly.

Get a clue brother.

Ummmm, yeah they have. They all say that the US will attack Iran on so and so time, now that the extra Carrier group is there. There have been quite a few rotations of these battle groups with no sighn of attacking Iran. Carriers provide air support for troops, conduct airstrikes on targets, and strategic defense of the straights entering the gulf. There is no proof to me, that the US is going to attack Iran, youre seeing what you want to see.

Everyone seems to blindly believe Iran is into nuclear energy just for peaceful purposes, but their tactics of stalling match that of NK before it announced it had the bomb or when it decided to pull out of the NPT in 1993. They are playing the waiting game, as the Koreans did, that part is pretty clear, that combined with their barring of 38 IAEA inspectors this year and the unveiling of a plan for 58k centerfuges for enrichment tell me their intentions are not peaceful at all. Does the US dare sit it out and be wrong, because I have a good idea where the blame will be placed if that does happen.

Jesus almighty, Ludacris. Why would you put 4 carriers if you weren't provoking an attack? Do you really on god's green earth think you can stop Iran from having Nuclear technology? Do you think the Iranians didn't learn anything from the last attack? Oh my god, I just can't believe that we have so many people in this world who just don't get it.

Iran is *going* to have nuclear technology, bombing or no bombing. All you are doing is endorsing the destruction/breaking of our military piece by piece. We are no different than Roman Empire or Russia. We just think somehow we can overcome the odds just by American Pride. It's just so damn corny I don't even know where to start. Iran will have nuclear technology and we will have to live with that just like NK has it.


2 billion a week,Luda. It adds up afterawhile, I'm afraid. And the casino might come to collect when "WE" hit our limit. ALL Americans need to face that.










[edit on 18-2-2007 by MRGERBIK]

Originally posted by OBE1

Those we want to kill: /yvo74d

Peace &
Good Fortune
OBE1

OBE, excellent analysis!!

But what a thousands words can't say, clicking the link you have provided, says it all! The presentation was moving. A beautiful Iran with ordinary folk going about their daily chores and enjoying their weekends! How many of them will get killed during the impending war? How many thousands will perish? All for what?

The Middle East is a darn mess, thanks to the neo-con agenda of securing the world's energy resources by whatever means ( The world be damned!), for the furtherance of American corporate wealth. For the so called 'New World Order'!

Originally posted by MRGERBIK

Jesus almighty, Ludacris. Why would you put 4 carriers if you weren't provoking an attack? Do you really on god's green earth think you can stop Iran from having Nuclear technology? Do you think the Iranians didn't learn anything from the last attack? Oh my god, I just can't believe that we have so many people in this world who just don't get it.

Iran is *going* to have nuclear technology, bombing or no bombing. All you are doing is endorsing the destruction/breaking of our military piece by piece. We are no different than Roman Empire or Russia. We just think somehow we can overcome the odds just by American Pride. It's just so damn corny I don't even know where to start. Iran will have nuclear technology and we will have to live with that just like NK has it.

2 billion a week,Luda. It adds up afterawhile, I'm afraid. And the casino might come to collect when "WE" hit our limit. ALL Americans need to face that.

Kudos MRGERBIK...I absolutely agree...Iran's going nuclear...and it's only a matter of time...glad someone had the moxy to say it.

This has probably already been beat to death on other threads, but I'm kinda new here, and haven't read them all.

It's Iran's legal right, as signers of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to develop a civil nuclear power program which includes the enrichment of uranium. Many of the pro's studying this issue believe that a 'precision' bombing campaign will only serve to aggravate, and mobilize the Iranian effort...they'd immediately withdraw from the treaty, reconstitute their infrastructure, and move full speed ahead towards weapon-ization. Along with this, evidence suggests that any military action would have a powerful unifying effect within Iran, and the elements currently at odds with Ahmadinejad wouldn't stand in the way of a united Iran faced with US military action.

It's also of note, that to be effective, such an attack wouldn't be limited to physical nuclear facilities, but would in all probability include the destruction of university laboratories and technology centres that indirectly support the program...and the killing of as many of people with technical expertise as possible.


"There have been quite a few rotations of these battle groups with no sighn of attacking Iran." - ludaChris

The US Navy typically has one aircraft carrier battle group on station in or near the Persian Gulf. During periods of rotation there would be two. Today's set up is clearly something different.

And one up for you mikesingh

Peace &
Good Fortune
OBE1

The Federal Reserve System


[edit on 19-2-2007 by OBE1]

The US government knows full well that Iran is nowhere near to producing a nuclear weapon. It's ten years down the line.

A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.
Source

But then we had the WMD pretext to attack Iraq. Now it's the nukes which Washington says, Iran is quickly developing, which directly threatens America! And therefore the dire haste and necessity to take them out!

The bottom line is the agenda for control of the World's energy resources by the US of A not only in the Middle East, but also Asia, Africa and finally South America.

Control of the world's energy resources translates to control of the world's economy and establishment of a New World Order with the neo-cons ruling the roost!

Welcome to the new world!!

[edit on 19-2-2007 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by Rockpuck


Umm.. Yeah actually Israel decimated the entire nation within days, killed an unknown thousands of militant and thousands more civilians? ... Israeli air forces could annihilate anything Syria has before Syria could mobilize, let alone if America where to go in? .....

Israel didn't decimate Hez, they decimated Lebanon. I know all those arab countries must be the same to you. But Israel bombed areas where Hez had no stronghold. They took out the airport and turned thousands of internationals into refugees. AMERICANS included. They bombed UN outposts and relief efforts. Yeah, you're right, Israel did a great job ....
All that Israel did by bombing Lebanon was make HEZ more powerful. As for the thousands of militants? Where you getting your figures. Only a little over 1000 total died, and most of it was civilian.

Iraq has killed 3,000+ troops.. making it the LEAST bloodiest war America has ever engaged in... with 300,000,000 people in the nation and the worlds most powerful industry complex and most advanced army, even if we did loose alot of men we are not at full military power right now, hell in past wars America would loose 10k in a single battle. Thinking you can take America on is not good for your health. Though I don't want to see us go in, please think logically

Newsflash. we have well over 10,000 wounded to go with that 3,000+ dead.
The modern military is equipped with body armor that prevents fatalities in combat. Which wasn't a fact of the past.

But let me drop some more reality on you. These people are doing multiple tours in the most stressful environment in human history. We are going to have a lot of damaged people coming home...if they ever come home.
Oh, and the longer they stay, the more they are exposed to DU. Birth Defects, Malaise, Cancers, etc. Yep, American Military **** YEAH. And I am glad you enjoy all that spending on the military industrial complex. You realize how much richer of a people we would be if that were cut in half?
It's also a double edge sword, the more we depend on it, the more wars we have to start. How well off are our troops going to be when another war breaks out?

Maybe you'll get to find out. I hope they put you right on the front line, since you think this is so terrific.

Originally posted by malganis
but the anti-americans will all be moaning when it turns out Iran actually does have nukes and starts threatening people with them. Everyone will ask "why didn't America do anything about that in the first place!?"

no...they won't. The whole "world policman" role is a self appointed one by the US... The rest of the world DOES NOT see the US as a world policman, and DOES NOT, and NEVER HAS wanted them to be such...

so no, NOBODY will ask "why didn't America do anything about that in the first place?"

Just thought it should be made clear..... since it's an arguement I've heard far too many times, and always from Americans trying to justify a hostile invasion of sovereign nation.... and it's a fallacy that FAR too many Americans actually seem to believe..

Originally posted by Awake and All Seeing

Israel didn't decimate Hez, they decimated Lebanon.

Well put. lol! Just last month the opposition Likud party issued calls for PM Olmert's resignation, along with that of his Defence Minister; Amir Peretz. This, on the heels of the resignation of the head of the IDF, Lt Gen Dan Halutz, over "the handling of the conflict in Lebanon." It was cited by the Israeli parliament that the resignation of the chief of staff "confirms the failure of the Lebanon War"...a pretty definitive statement I'd say.

Not only didn't the IDF succeed in dealing a death blow to Hezbollah...they never completed the ostensible mission...the release of the two captured soldiers.

Seven months after the fact, Israel is still peeling egg of their faces...and they don't appear to be very happy about it.

As for the thousands of militants? Where you getting your figures. Only a little over 1000 total died, and most of it was civilian.

Many more were prepared to die.

Israel on the other hand, being extremely casualty averse...succeeded in avoiding the bait. Had they entered the Bekaa Valley in force...the body count on both sides would have climbed considerably in my opinion.

If the US decides to blunder it's way into Iran, I would expect to see preemptive action by Israel against Hezbollah rocket capabilities in southern Lebanon, either simultaneously...or just prior to the move.

Peace &
Good Fortune
OBE1

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by OBE1

Those we want to kill: /yvo74d

Peace &
Good Fortune
OBE1

OBE, excellent analysis!!

But what a thousands words can't say, clicking the link you have provided, says it all! The presentation was moving. A beautiful Iran with ordinary folk going about their daily chores and enjoying their weekends! How many of them will get killed during the impending war? How many thousands will perish? All for what?

The Middle East is a darn mess, thanks to the neo-con agenda of securing the world's energy resources by whatever means ( The world be damned!), for the furtherance of American corporate wealth. For the so called 'New World Order'!

I fail to see how people in Tehran will perish if the West knocks out nuclear facilities that aren't even in Tehran.

Who says there will be an invasion?

Yes the majority of the Iranian PEOPLE do not deserve to die. They are perfectly rational human beings with families and futures to live by. No-One wants war with Iran, no-one wants to see those women and children killed.

But if the Iranian government is supporting terror, threatening Israel, meddling in Iraq (by that I mean killing civilians to turn opinion against the war) and on their way to developing nukes. Then the West is within its rights to set them back by attacking millitary targets.

That is my main grudge with the war today. Nations and groups are resorting to threatening and killing civilians. No-one has the guts anymore to fight fairly, millitary on millitary. Its now just war by proxy.

But in reality I don't expect Syria to do anything if Iran is attacked other than protest at the UN and than shutter in fear that they are not attacked!

Think again, Bashar assad just went to iran to meet with ahmedinjan, to strengthen ties and say "together they will resist US plots."

do either of theese countries have close pacts with either china or russia

Yes, both. Syria has it's old ties to russia left over from the cold war, and iran has ties to china.

Rockpuck.

how many civilians you kill doesn't determine if you win the war.

The US killed if i recall 3 million vietnamese but ultimately still lost the war.

Just because israel killed thousands of civilians, doesn't mean they won.

--------------

So in summary of all this, i to will bet they won't attack iran.

Instead of beer though, can i have a 6 pack of chocolate milk?

There are those who, like me, are somewhat sceptic about the USA's apparent role as the world's policemen. I'm sure it's a role they do not want and, more often than not, it is a role that is foisted on them.

If they are the world's policemen, why did it take so long for them to become involved in Kosovo? If I remember correctly, it took a 6 months before they eventually got in to gear and headed for the Balkans, even though there were sufficient forces stationed in Europe.

That, to me at least, is the problem.

In another thread - Will the Europeans ever be powerful, several posters have suggested that America welcomes and relishes such a role. I suspect that America is sick and tired of having to tidy up other countries mess - and I for one don't blame them.

The current situation with Iran, is a prime example. Governments are shouting loud and long about Iran's supposed nuclear weapons programme and the United Nations, that bastion of World Order, is like a frustrated child - stamping it's feet when it does not get what it wants.

So this frustrated child turns to the one country that it knows will do it's bidding whether or not it fully understand the consequences of it doing so.

I think, hand on heart, that sometimes America does not mind being the nasty cop, as long as there is a good cop - usually the UK.

But, as is so often the case during whatever action has been decided in secret, the good cop/bad cop roles often blur and we are left with two bad cops.

I think it is high time that there is some type of international armed force
that each country contributes to or pays for and this force should be used to police the world.

Obviously I am not referring the present UN Peacekeeping forces because IMO, they are little more than a paper tiger.

Originally posted by MRGERBIK
Jesus almighty, Ludacris. Why would you put 4 carriers if you weren't provoking an attack? Do you really on god's green earth think you can stop Iran from having Nuclear technology? Do you think the Iranians didn't learn anything from the last attack? Oh my god, I just can't believe that we have so many people in this world who just don't get it.

Iran is *going* to have nuclear technology, bombing or no bombing. All you are doing is endorsing the destruction/breaking of our military piece by piece. We are no different than Roman Empire or Russia. We just think somehow we can overcome the odds just by American Pride. It's just so damn corny I don't even know where to start. Iran will have nuclear technology and we will have to live with that just like NK has it.


2 billion a week,Luda. It adds up afterawhile, I'm afraid. And the casino might come to collect when "WE" hit our limit. ALL Americans need to face that.

I have no problem with Iran having nuclear energy at all. But as they are a signatory of the NPT, they should, and I say should because you never know who will adhere to it. They havent put forth the required transparency into the program and thats what has people on edge. Im not as concerned with Iran having the weapons as I am to what Israels reaction will be, and we all know what would happen if Iran announced it had produced nuclear weapons. It would on serve to destabalize further and already unstable region. I worry that Israel will use their stockpile to eliminate their percieved threat from Iran. If Iran gets nukes the whole region will fall into conflict because of it. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.

Originally posted by fritz
There are those who, like me, are somewhat sceptic about the USA's apparent role as the world's policemen. I'm sure it's a role they do not want and, more often than not, it is a role that is foisted on them.

If they are the world's policemen, why did it take so long for them to become involved in Kosovo? If I remember correctly, it took a 6 months before they eventually got in to gear and headed for the Balkans, even though there were sufficient forces stationed in Europe.

That, to me at least, is the problem.

In another thread - Will the Europeans ever be powerful, several posters have suggested that America welcomes and relishes such a role. I suspect that America is sick and tired of having to tidy up other countries mess - and I for one don't blame them.

The current situation with Iran, is a prime example. Governments are shouting loud and long about Iran's supposed nuclear weapons programme and the United Nations, that bastion of World Order, is like a frustrated child - stamping it's feet when it does not get what it wants.

So this frustrated child turns to the one country that it knows will do it's bidding whether or not it fully understand the consequences of it doing so.

I think, hand on heart, that sometimes America does not mind being the nasty cop, as long as there is a good cop - usually the UK.

But, as is so often the case during whatever action has been decided in secret, the good cop/bad cop roles often blur and we are left with two bad cops.

I think it is high time that there is some type of international armed force
that each country contributes to or pays for and this force should be used to police the world.

Obviously I am not referring the present UN Peacekeeping forces because IMO, they are little more than a paper tiger.

Well, when you are the worlds strongest power, you have a certain responsiblity to take care of situations others cant or wont. Agree? Being a superpower doesnt mean you can do what you want, because there is a greater burden of responsiblity that comes with it. I will conceede that the US hasnt always used that responsiblity properly, no one would. But I think one must give someone in this position the benefit of the doubt because every decsion you make affects so many others, in good and bad ways, you cant have your cake and eat it too.

You make a good point LudaChris, that a superpower has responsibilities but isn't always going to be able to please everyone.

Ok a lot of people think that China will be a new superpower within this century or even this half of the century. Do you think that they will be involved in world issues as much as USA is? e.g. leading invasions in search of WMDs/terrorists, giving as much foreign aid, etc.

Originally posted by Peyres

I fail to see how people in Tehran will perish if the West knocks out nuclear facilities that aren't even in Tehran.

Hello Peyres...If you are referring to my segway to the video, 'Those we want to kill', I agree that I should have been more careful with my wording. Perhaps 'Those we would kill' would have been more appropriate. My apologies.

I'm not claiming that there will be an attack, and I sincerely hope there isn't. However if an attack did occur, then defense suppression would be a primary element. I'm not privy to the locations of fixed Iranian missile defence systems, but I am aware that the Russians began shipping the new Tor-M1 mobile systems to Tehran this past November. How many will be deployed close to population centers? I can't say with any certainty...but I am confident that we'll attempt to take them out...where ever they are...collateral damage or not.

An attack that would effectively set Iran's nuclear intentions back five years, would involve hundreds and hundreds of sorties across an estimated five to eight days...it's not just about the core nuclear facilities which are spread across the country, but radar facilities, munitions depots, command & control centers, and approximately 10 air bases. R&D and production facilities for Iran’s medium-range ballistic missile programme would also be priority targets, as well as the locations where the actual mobile missiles are deployed...and this is really a partial list of critical assets.

Targets specifically located in and around Tehran proper would include; the Tehran Research Reactor, the radioisotope production facility, a range of nuclear-related laboratories and the Kalaye Electric Company. I believe I already mentioned university laboratories and their related technology centres in a previous post.

Still, not everyone in Iran resides in the capitol...and I haven't even mentioned the possibility of radioactive material being lofted into the air...and the resulting contamination.

I would be surprised if wide scale collateral damage isn't inevitable. I remember Lebanon this past summer...and I still haven't forgotten Shock & Awe.

Peace &
Good Fortune
OBE1

Depleted Uranium

[edit on 19-2-2007 by OBE1]

Well, when you are the worlds strongest power, you have a certain responsiblity to take care of situations others cant or wont. Agree? Being a superpower doesnt mean you can do what you want, because there is a greater burden of responsiblity that comes with it. I will conceede that the US hasnt always used that responsiblity properly, no one would. But I think one must give someone in this position the benefit of the doubt because every decsion you make affects so many others, in good and bad ways, you cant have your cake and eat it too.

Accidently stumbling over yourself believing something, is acceptable.
But directly manipulating it, to achieve the same result isnt.


[edit on 20-2-2007 by Agit8dChop]

Ludachris you replied to my point with:

'Well, when you are the worlds strongest power, you have a certain responsiblity to take care of situations others cant or wont. Agree? Being a superpower doesnt mean you can do what you want, because there is a greater burden of responsiblity that comes with it. I will conceede that the US hasnt always used that responsiblity properly, no one would. But I think one must give someone in this position the benefit of the doubt because every decsion you make affects so many others, in good and bad ways, you cant have your cake and eat it too.'

I would agree with you that America has a certain responsibility and with that responsibility comes power - absolute power.

The problems is ludachris, absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is the problem with the Bush administration.

There is no way on God's earth, that you can give Bush or his cronies, the benefit of the doubt, as you put it.

Bush, Cheney and Haliburton have had their cake and are eating other people's as well!

One Step Closer!!

Last Updated: Monday, 19 February 2007, 23:26 GMT

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.
Diplomatic sources have told the BBC that senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran.
That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say.
Long range B2 stealth bombers would drop so-called "bunker-busting" bombs in an effort to penetrate the Natanz site, which is buried some 25m (27 yards) underground.


Natanz Nuclear Facility

Here...

The news that there are now two possible triggers for an attack is a concern to Iranians. What are these two 'triggers'?

1. Confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon.
2. A high-casualty attack on US forces in neighboring Iraq.


Are we finally on the brink??