Preparing the Battlefield and the Graves

[/dev/null]

2 very disturbing articles...

 

Preparing the Battlefield

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07...07fa_fact_hersh

 

Preparing the Graves

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=08...;show_article=1

[Booster4324]

2 very disturbing articles...

 

Preparing the Battlefield

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07...07fa_fact_hersh

 

Preparing the Graves

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=08...;show_article=1

 

We would be insane to attack Iran at this time. The upside is, no matter who is elected, we are unlikely to do so.

 

Now we just have to survive a few more months.

[swede316]

Do you think we will let them obtain nuclear weapons? Not a chance.

[/dev/null]

We would be insane to attack Iran at this time. The upside is, no matter who is elected, we are unlikely to do so.

 

Now we just have to survive a few more months.

 

The next few months are going to be the most dangerous but not because of GWB.

 

We won't attack Iran. Israel wants to attack Iran to take out their nuke sites but their window of opportunity is closing. My guess is sometime after the election (so as not to be seen trying to affect the US Election) and before the Inauguration (so the next Prez can claim a clean slate)

 

Iran has already said it will view any attack by Israel as an attack by the US. If Iran retaliated against the US, it doesn't matter if it's Bush, McCain, or Obama. The US would be forced to respond

[PastaJoe]

Do you think we will let them obtain nuclear weapons? Not a chance.

 

We let North Korea get them, they created enough material for 6-8 nuclear weapons before dismantling their plant. Was it worth going to war over? No.

 

It could be the October suprise to scare people into voting for McCain. But hopefully people will see through the politics of fear this time. Otherwise Iran could cut off the oil lanes through the Strait and we'll see $300 a barrel oil. Then the oil companies will scream about how we need to give them more domestic drill sites. Hmm, interesting how it all comes back to the oil companies.

[SD Jarhead]

What sickens me is that information like this (The Hersh article) leaks out and our media gives away our secrets. It's maddening that there are leakers out there distributing this schit. Covert Ops that sow instability are much preferable to outright war in my mind.

[Andrew in CA]

2 very disturbing articles...

 

Preparing the Battlefield

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07...07fa_fact_hersh

 

Preparing the Graves

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=08...;show_article=1

Hersh was on Democracy Now (http://www.democracynow.org/) today to discuss the article. He seems convinced war is going to come, either through this administration or McCain's.

[SD Jarhead]

Hersh was on Democracy Now (http://www.democracynow.org/) today to discuss the article. He seems convinced war is going to come, either through this administration or McCain's.

 

You don't say!

[PastaJoe]

What sickens me is that information like this (The Hersh article) leaks out and our media gives away our secrets. It's maddening that there are leakers out there distributing this schit. Covert Ops that sow instability are much preferable to outright war in my mind.

 

If the media can come upon the information, don't you think that other countries and groups who may be affected by the actions can arrive at similar conclusions? I want the media out there scrutinizing our government and informing us of what is being done without our approval or Congressional oversight.

[SD Jarhead]

If the media can come upon the information, don't you think that other countries and groups who may be affected by the actions can arrive at similar conclusions? I want the media out there scrutinizing our government and informing us of what is being done without our approval or Congressional oversight.

 

Did you even read the article? The full Congress wasn't briefed, but key players were. It was only in the first line.

 

So you want the media to scrutinize every Top Secret program we have in the country? Great idea.

[Tux of Borg]

We let North Korea get them, they created enough material for 6-8 nuclear weapons before dismantling their plant. Was it worth going to war over? No.

 

It could be the October suprise to scare people into voting for McCain. But hopefully people will see through the politics of fear this time. Otherwise Iran could cut off the oil lanes through the Strait and we'll see $300 a barrel oil. Then the oil companies will scream about how we need to give them more domestic drill sites. Hmm, interesting how it all comes back to the oil companies.

 

Iran already has the missile capability to hit Europe if they wanted too. Would you rather us wait till they have the capability of hitting the US with a nuke? Let's just pass this problem onto our children, like we have done with social security, national debt, etc...

 

We're paying the price now for our dependency on oil. It's going to be a few years, but another source of fuel will emerge from this mess. I think someone recently posted that the tata air car will be selling here in America in 2010.

[PastaJoe]

Did you even read the article? The full Congress wasn't briefed, but key players were. It was only in the first line.

 

So you want the media to scrutinize every Top Secret program we have in the country? Great idea.

 

Congressional leadership was briefed, but they weren't consulted to provide their input, and they can't discuss it publicly. So in the end the administration does what it wants even if it isn't what was agreed to with the Congress. It happened before when they overstepped their wiretapping authority. After it became public knowledge, Rockefeller said he knew about it beforehand but was legally bound not to discuss it even though he knew it was wrong. What a screwed up process.

 

I want the media to let us know when the president is violating agreements with Congress that the Congressional leadership is legally bound not to discuss publicly. If the president would stick to what he agreed to with the Congress, there would be no need to scrutinize the programs in public.

[PastaJoe]

Iran already has the missile capability to hit Europe if they wanted too. Would you rather us wait till they have the capability of hitting the US with a nuke? Let's just pass this problem onto our children, like we have done with social security, national debt, etc...

 

North Korea has demonstrated that they have missles that can reach Japan and possibly even Alaska, and they have demonstrated that they have nuclear weapons, yet we didn't attack them. We were fed the same bull about Iraq having the capability of flying a pilotless drone plane to the U.S., and that the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud. This administration has no credibility in my and most American's books. If Europe felt so threatened by Iranian missles, they would be attacking Iran. The fact that they don't call for attacks is telling.

[swede316]

Hmmm...How many North Koreans routinely blow them selves up as suicide bombers in South Korea? Zero. How many times has North Korea said that South Korea should be wiped off the face of the earth? Zero. You are comparing apples and oranges. The main difference between NK and Iran is that 1 million NK troops don't want to die, I don't know if the same can be said for the Iranian (Martyrdom and all).

 

Iranian Qods Force commando's are the special groups you hear about causing trouble in Iraq and yes killing American troops with EFP IEDs.

 

Isreal will attack Iran and we may be dragged into the fighting to keep the Straight of Hormuz open or retaliate if our forces in Afghanistan or Iraq are attacked. My prediction anyway.

 

The 320,000 graves will be for Iranian troops not ours.

[chicot]

Iranian Qods Force commando's are the special groups you hear about causing trouble in Iraq and yes killing American troops with EFP IEDs.

 

Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you hear.

 

The 320,000 graves will be for Iranian troops not ours.

 

Yeah, I'm sure a war with Iran would be a picnic and no graves at all would be needed for American troops

[swede316]

Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you hear.

Maybe you should listen to someone who knows.

 

Yeah, I'm sure a war with Iran would be a picnic and no graves at all would be needed for American troops

Did I say it would be? I don't think we will engage in a ground war. My take, and this is simply my opinion...Isreal will attack with a surgical air strike....Iran may or may not respond...If they do...They will attempt to close off the straights...We will then engage in an Air War to disable their SAMs and ASMs. Then the Navy will clean up the mines and Kilo class subs. Any attack on troops in Iraq or Afgahnistan will be met with similar air power. Remember they have the same Soviet junk armor that Iraq had. They won't risk a ground war but reply asymetrically.

[chicot]

Maybe you should listen to someone who knows.

 

And who would that be?

 

My take, and this is simply my opinion...Isreal will attack with a surgical air strike....Iran may or may not respond...If they do...They will attempt to close off the straights...We will then engage in an Air War to disable their SAMs and ASMs. Then the Navy will clean up the mines and Kilo class subs. Any attack on troops in Iraq or Afgahnistan will be met with similar air power. Remember they have the same Soviet junk armor that Iraq had. They won't risk a ground war but reply asymetrically.

 

In the event of an Israeli strike on Iran, there will almost certainly be a response from Hizbollah (which would in effect be the Iranian response). I doubt that a surgical strike by Israel would lead to Iran closing the straights as that would represent quite a considerable escalation on their part. I'm also uncertain as to how much an Israeli airstrike is likely to achieve as any nuclear facilities Iran may have are likely to be deep underground and highly dispersed (it's not as if an Israeli attack would exactly be a suprise).

[swede316]

And who would that be?

Besides me?

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359163,00.html

 

http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/...ates_iraq/4246/

 

http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2...1/26/42746.aspx

 

Just to name a few. A few others also.

 

 

I doubt that a surgical strike by Israel would lead to Iran closing the straights as that would represent quite a considerable escalation on their part.

They've already stated that's what would happen...An attack by Isreal would be considered a defacto attack by the USA. Granted it could be all talk. At the same time..You gotta be ready for it.

[chicot]

Besides me?

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359163,00.html

 

http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/...ates_iraq/4246/

 

http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2...1/26/42746.aspx

 

Just to name a few. A few others also.

 

 

They've already stated that's what would happen...An attack by Isreal would be considered a defacto attack by the USA. Granted it could be all talk. At the same time..You gotta be ready for it.

 

And no doubt the same esteemed sources were telling us what a massive threat Iraq was a few years ago. Call me sceptical but I'm not going to take all this for granted. Is there some Iranian involvement in Iraq? Undoubtedly, but at the same time, it wouldn't suprise me in the slightest if it's being exaggerated to soften up the US public for the next half-baked adventure.

[slothrop]

Jesus - this administration is incredible! This paragraph (if true, and Herch's article's are usually spot-on) shows how !@#$ up an invasion of Iran would be (people were saying the same thing about Iraq and were right):

 

Military and civilian leaders in the Pentagon share the White House’s concern about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but there is disagreement about whether a military strike is the right solution. Some Pentagon officials believe, as they have let Congress and the media know, that bombing Iran is not a viable response to the nuclear-proliferation issue, and that more diplomacy is necessary.

 

A Democratic senator told me that, late last year, in an off-the-record lunch meeting, Secretary of Defense Gates met with the Democratic caucus in the Senate. (Such meetings are held regularly.) Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a preëmptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, “We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.” Gates’s comments stunned the Democrats at the lunch, and another senator asked whether Gates was speaking for Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Gates’s answer, the senator told me, was “Let’s just say that I’m here speaking for myself.” (A spokesman for Gates confirmed that he discussed the consequences of a strike at the meeting, but would not address what he said, other than to dispute the senator’s characterization.)

 

So, the neo-con politicians want military action, but the actual military thinks it would be disasterous - why is impeachment a bad idea? Why isn't our public in the streets like in the Vietnam era? At least the Neo-Cons are smart enough to pretend this is not war time and did not institute a draft. So average americans can still sit at home, take their kids to Soccer games and watch bad television programs.

 

Even more:

 

he Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose chairman is Admiral Mike Mullen, were “pushing back very hard” against White House pressure to undertake a military strike against Iran, the person familiar with the Finding told me. Similarly, a Pentagon consultant who is involved in the war on terror said that “at least ten senior flag and general officers, including combatant commanders”—the four-star officers who direct military operations around the world—“have weighed in on that issue.”

 

The most outspoken of those officers is Admiral William Fallon, who until recently was the head of U.S. Central Command, and thus in charge of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In March, Fallon resigned under pressure, after giving a series of interviews stating his reservations about an armed attack on Iran. For example, late last year he told the Financial Times that the “real objective” of U.S. policy was to change the Iranians’ behavior, and that “attacking them as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being not the first choice.”

 

So George Bush, who nobody would insist is a smart man - eben those who like him - may overrule the pentagon and !@#$ up this country and global security for generations. Why? For the election? or worse, his "legacy?" This country is !@#$.

 

I can't even read the article in one sitting without feeling nauseas.