Iran attacks US 1/30/07

BaggedLancer

So I was watching the news on local channel 7 BRIEFLY when I got to work this morning in the cafeteria while I was getting a coffee. It was saying something about how Iran attacked the US today....but I couldn't catch all the details. They had some 3d diagrams and stuff but I literally only caught 20 seconds of it before I had to leave.

Anyone know anything about this? I can't find any news articles online about it.

Demiurge

From Matt Drudge:

NBC NEWS confirms a secret U.S. military report that says 'Iranian Agents' may be behind a deadly ambush in Karbala, Iraq that left five American soldiers dead. The report also claims the Iranian revolutionary guard is providing intelligence on U.S. and Iraqi military to Shiite extremists, in addition to sophisticated weaponry. Developing...

Link

I think it's a little too soon to call it an Iranian attack on the U.S.......Just based on the words 'may' and 'claim'. I love Matt Drudge for instant news quips, but half of the time his little developments are gone or turn out to be untrue. He's got a ton of sources that feed him info, but they're not all correct.

Would not doubt it one bit. The last thing Iran wants is a stable Iraq.

BaggedLancer

Thanks Demi. Should be an interesting thing to see unfold. However, I'm willing to bet that Bush has no plan of attacking Iran.

Demiurge

BaggedLancer wrote:

Thanks Demi. Should be an interesting thing to see unfold. However, I'm willing to bet that Bush has no plan of attacking Iran.

We have plans on attacking and defending every country on the planet, man. That's what some people are paid to do all day long.

BaggedLancer

Demiurge wrote:

We have plans on attacking and defending every country on the planet, man. That's what some people are paid to do all day long.

Worldwide domination eh?

reeltrouble1

The present thought in Government (many private companies as well) is to develop worst, best and probable case scenario's for all things based upon various developing trends. The rule of thumb is to develop scenario's thinking out 25 years. There is quite a bit of information on the net under "Futurism", you can check out the The Futurist at www.wfs.org for Trends, Forcasts and Ideas.

Suprisingly, (well maybe not, a quiet Agency going about its business) the US Coast Guard, is best prepared in this area, demonstrated during their actions during Katrina when they were eventually asked to "take over" the debacle.

I would bet my bippy there are scenarios for every country in the Middle East, Latin America, Africa and even Canada.

RT1

Deadof_knight

Turn those countries in glass I say and let the oil pool in the middle and we will clean that up .......... when you mess around you get messed with

Do the job and get it done !

Demiurge

BaggedLancer wrote:

Worldwide domination eh?

Reeltrouble has it right. It's just planning for worst case scenarios, and Canada is among them. Kind of like an insurance policy. You never want to have to use it, but you feel better knowing it's there.

markmarc

Of course we have plans for every country, but they are fairly basic and not fleshed out. We aren't going to go after Iran in a direct attack. Our military is spread too thin. Instead, we will attempt to further isolate Iran, whose leader, President Nutjob, is losing the support of his people due to serious inflation caused by sanctions.

We all have to realize that many of the roadside IED's currently used are manufactured in Iran. So they have been attacking us for some time in a roundabout fashion.

tommyboy

BaggedLancer wrote:

Worldwide domination eh?

This is a word I really don't understand anymore. In the end, we are all controlled by somebody. As long as they don't interfere with your beliefs and lifestyles(well, as long as this belief isn't killing innocent people for allah;) ), it shouldn't matter who "controls" you. So when someone says to me, "the US wants to control the world". I ask them " who would you rather have "control" you, a government that lets you set your own beliefs and your life, or a crazy dictator that slaughters people for sometimes no reason." I'm not saying the U.S wants the control the world but C'mon.

anyways, I'm sure nothing will happen here except for political talk.

cheddar

Domination is such a harsh word, but basically correct.

You either shape world events or they shape you as in Pearl Harbor. No country gets to stick its head in the sand anymore.

Demiurge

markmarc wrote:

Our military is spread too thin. Instead, we will attempt to further isolate Iran, whose leader, President Nutjob, is losing the support of his people due to serious inflation caused by sanctions.

That's really a myth.

We've got 2,685,713 members of all branches of the military, and 1,426,713 of those are active. Add to that a military with the highest expenditure in the world at $522 billion, and it also makes them the most advanced, requiring less troops to get more done. Our troops are highly mobile in all areas of the world.

That said, we're definitely not attacking Iran, but I'm certain that was part of the original plan and is only off the table because it's clear American citizens can't stomach it and wouldn't support it. There's a reason Iraq, Syria, Iran, and North Korea were all mentioned. Although NK is China's ****, so they're of no real concern to us. Unfortunately we're likely going to wait until it's too late when it comes to Iran because of cold feet at home.

If we were going to pull the revolution card in Iran we better do a lot more to get it going. Once that government is a clearly proven nuclear power, which they claim they are, that option is no longer on the table. Not without grave consequences and mass casualties in concentrated areas. I'd argue it's already gone.

BaggedLancer

Wow, I opened a can of worms in this thread

Guess I'll watch all the news next time lol

cheddar

Demiurge wrote:

If we were going to pull the revolution card in Iran we better do a lot more to get it going. Once that government is a clearly proven nuclear power, which they claim they are, that option is no longer on the table. Not without grave consequences and mass casualties in concentrated areas. I'd argue it's already gone.

Well, military coup worked pretty good in Pakistan. But I agree that once a country has the bomb, it's pretty risky to just topple the government. But I sure don't think we're safe if radical nutjobs in Iran just start producing the things.

Demiurge

cheddar wrote:

Well, military coup worked pretty good in Pakistan. But I agree that once a country has the bomb, it's pretty risky to just topple the government. But I sure don't think we're safe if radical nutjobs in Iran just start producing the things.

Which is more to the point we should have done something sooner. Can't afford that guy having nukes and staying in power, and we can't afford to be the straw breaker on a revolution in Iran with a nutjob Iranian dictator with nukes.

It's a bad situation.

reeltrouble1

What if we obliterate North Korea? Good? Bad?

I see Tri or Quad lateral governments obtaining domination as more likely than a single power.

If Iran only is able to finance its Nuke program through Oil, then the threat will be eliminated once breaking free of oil imports is accomplished. This should take about 15 years, until then how best to nuetralize Iran until this occurs. Along with the Nuke itself the goal of international Jihadist terror organizations is the radicalization among the Muslim populations in Europe and North America. All of this funded by Gulf PetroDollars.

Some smart guys are giving a 50/50 shot on our species surviving another 100 years, our youth must save us changing these odds in a more favorable direction.

RT1

Demiurge

There's no point to obliterating NK. They check on them is China. If NK does anything, China smashes NK.

PhantomOG

I agree about NK, but I also think we would have a much better chance at bringing about real change and helping people in NK than in the middle east. It seems to me if you took out Jong-il, you wouldn't see as much fighting as in Iraq.

reeltrouble1

Yes, NK gives China someone to war with and if we obliterate the people this benefit would be lost. However, if it is determined someone has to "go" as an example, then who that really matters would care if NK ceased to exist, China will appreciate the break, find someone else to pick on, they have a great need to improve their entire infrastructure as it takes a toll on resources when you have a billion people to think about.

There are benefits to keeping the shiek's at war with each other, just regionally, these lands have been a war with each for a very long time.

EDIT--GO BADGERS--GO BIG TEN, the greatest Conference ever formed!!!!

markmarc

DeMuirge:
Sorry, but ask the procurement officers. The situation is ugly. We don't have the equipment ready to support another invasion. Plus, we are way behind on fixing what has been damaged in Iraq. We may have boots, but not the immediate capability of supporting them. Then, of course, is the problem of the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of instant jihadists that are created by invasion. Plus, geographically speaking, Iran is four times the size of Iraq. Not to mention the track record of the current administration on directing a large war is rather abysmal.

But, we both agree it isn't going to happen. If Iran gets out of hand, they'll lose their airforce in cruise missile volley. A second volley will take out much of their army bases close to Iraq's border. At that point, we'll pull out of Baghdad, mass troops on the border and see what happens next.

I'd much rather let Iranian President Nutjob, talk himself out of office and deal with more rational minds. Of course, how Isreal deals with what is going on, is another deck of cards.

SLOCOOKN

The only way Iraq will ever be fixed would be the ability of the U.S. to "fix" Iran.
Dictators like Sadam, Castro, Hitler and Stalin can rule countries for decades.
Any in-action but the U.S. will continue to embolden and strengthen Iran.

The ability to live in peace is impossible when a person of capability, desire and hate wishes to impose hurt on innocent people!

With the corruption of the U.N. and the lack of support from Russia, China and France we are hope less to stablize the region. More innocent people will continue to loose there lives to radicals. The incompleteness of our involvement should only serve as a reminder that there are other countries who would like to harm us in a non-direct manner.

I am sure that China and Russia both are enjoying watching us spend billions on this war each year while they sit back and black market supply monies and weapons.

I don't belive we should just quit this war. This war will not quit us or Iraqis! I saw the thread yesterday about the little girl that her whole family was killed by Iranians, Sierans (insurgents) and she survived a gunshot wound to the head. The people we are fiting are the worst of the worst.

hearingimpared

reeltrouble1 wrote:

I would bet my bippy there are scenarios for every country in the Middle East, Latin America, Africa and even Canada.

RT1

Wow Ted you still have a "BIPPY" LOL!!!

Roy Munson

I lost my "bippy".:(

reeltrouble1

hearingimpared wrote:

Wow Ted you still have a "BIPPY" LOL!!!

Of course I do, I am a packrat of the highest order.

Dig daddio

RT1

Demiurge

markmarc wrote:

DeMuirge:
Sorry, but ask the procurement officers. The situation is ugly. We don't have the equipment ready to support another invasion. Plus, we are way behind on fixing what has been damaged in Iraq. We may have boots, but not the immediate capability of supporting them. Then, of course, is the problem of the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of instant jihadists that are created by invasion. Plus, geographically speaking, Iran is four times the size of Iraq. Not to mention the track record of the current administration on directing a large war is rather abysmal.

It's a nice scare tactic used so young and ignorant voters are scammed into believing there's going to be a draft, but quite frankly there's nobody who seriously believes that's going to happen. People are volunteering to be in the military even during war time. Not because they're undereducated dumb asses who can't do anything else, but because they want to serve their country in the most noble way a person can.

The whole point of having a $522 billion military expenditure is so that it doesn't take 10,000 American armed forces to deal with 10,000 foreign enemies, but I digress...

I don't know what will eventually happen in Iraq any better than you do. What I do know is that we did complete the mission we set out to complete. I still believe it was right that we went. That's simply because I like to deal with problems when they're still small rather than pretending they don't exist.

The failure on behalf of the Bush Administration is not having the right plan devised for post major-ops (which were executed briliantly, and all credit goes to the military) between them and their generals. He's admitted to that failure, so I don't know why there's a need to beleaguer the point. The reason Bush isn't going into Iran is because the MSM has rendered it unpopular and Americans have zero resolve.

BaggedLancer

WTF there was an attempted terrorist attack in boston today? its all over the news 5 packages, all large and similiar looking were left on our bridges and highly populated areas.

audiobliss

Yeah. Appearantly about 10AM today the bomb squad destroyed what was essentially a bomb without the explosives that a motorist spotted sitting by a support beam for a bridge and reported, and then those 5 similar-looking boxes were found later. Those 5 boxes were a hoax, someone's sick joke.

BaggedLancer

I hope the people that did that sick joke die by stoning.

markmarc

DeMuirge:
We'll just have to agree to disagree, as we see two very different sides. I will say that our troops have done outstanding based upon what they were asked to do with the limits placed on them.

SLOCOOKN

Demiurge:
I don't know what will eventually happen in Iraq any better than you do. What I do know is that we did complete the mission we set out to complete. I still believe it was right that we went. That's simply because I like to deal with problems when they're still small rather than pretending they don't exist.

Slocookn:

The other situations that exist that are keeping this war unpopular with AMERICANS are the political parties of BOTH sides and the fact that this is not the America of 40 years ago.

Most political candidates bowing to pressure from one sided, piss poor fact sharing about the war from most media outlets. I would not call it war coverage due to the lack of the real war environment that exists over there.

I have several friends and family members over in Iraq and Afghanistan. What we are seeing in the media is 1/10 th of what is really happening.

The ammount of political pandering is due to the break up of "traditional" family values. The more we fracture from this the harder it will be to UNITE in the face of danger. Also, take into fact the large amount of ILLEGAL immigrants that have the ACLU and other special intrest groups full attention and both parties trying not to offend the sensibilities of these groups. AMERICA gets lost in the tranlation.

BaggedLancer

Next up on the plate to deal with: The French.

Canada and France.

Iran can wait their turn.