Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.
REVEALED: US Plans For Iran Attack Not "Surgical", Would "Unleash War"
news.yahoo.com — U.S. contingency planning for military action against Iran's nuclear program goes beyond limited strikes and would effectively unleash a war against the country, a former U.S. intelligence analyst said on Friday.
AdmiralAdama- 828 diggs
- digg it
- Ascendant, on 10/12/2007, -3/+97Has anyone else noticed this? Militarily attacking other countries tends to "unleash war" a very high percentage of the time it is done.
I have talked to Iranians and they tend to say that although most of them hate Ahmaninejad and the nutty clerics that run their country, they are very reluctant to join a revolution, because they look at Afghanistan under the Taliban, Lebanon under Hezbollah and Iraq in the midst of a civil war, and think "Well, it could be a *lot* worse..."
Even though Iran is the one country run by an Islamic dictatorship that would like and could handle a free, secular democracy, one would be damned foolish to think that they want America to invade, start a new war with them, and "liberate" them a la Iraq. That would be (another) worst-case scenario...- RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -6/+57It's a contingency plan. In the 1990s, Clinton had the Air Force train for a contingency plan that involved the dropping of several nukes on North Korea. Needless to say, the plan was never put into action. This is what the military does. It makes plans in advance so they don't have to struggle as hard o catch up to events in the case of an unplanned national security situation. It always creates a stir whenever these plans get leaked to the press. But in reality it means next to nothing. Nothing you didn't know already, at any rate.
"contingency |kənˈtinjənsē| noun ( pl. -cies) a future event or circumstance that is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty : a detailed contract that attempts to provide for all possible contingencies. • a provision for such an events or circumstance : a contingency reserve. • an incidental expense : allow an extra fifteen percent in the budget for contingencies. • the absence of certainty in events : the island's public affairs can be invaded by contingency." - gxcdesign, on 10/12/2007, -22/+11Iran is a true enemy though, we all know it and they make it well known
- pwill, on 10/12/2007, -24/+9America, ***** YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother ***** day yeah,
America, ***** YEAH!
Freedom is the only way yeah,
Terrorist, your game is through, 'cause now you have to answer to:
America, ***** YEAH! - nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Agreed RadiantBeing:
"I've seen some of the planning . . ."
If this guy is openly talking about what he has "seen" in an interview, he knows next to nothing. - kumicho, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7radientbeing, contingency it may be, the US is run by a president who doesn't understand the conditions for the use of a contingency... that's demonstrated by the actions he's taken in the past. the invasion of iraq was supposedly a contingency, and yet it was soon revealed that he had intended to invade iraq all along. i say again, this is something to be aware of because the person who decides about the use of the contingency doesn't understand the difference between his ideals and the reality of the world. how can you trust a person who lives in fantasy to know when the time is right to use a contingency
and speaking of which, are americans going to stand by while our president invades another country? there comes a time when we have to take responsibility for the country in which we live. - dustyshadow, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21if you think these plans are just being written now, you are an idiot. pretty sure they were in place before we even went into iraq.
- otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -17/+24Err...
The problem, Radiant, is that the Bush administration has expressed their willingness to engage militarily with Iran. They have the plans, the resources, the idiocy, and the PNAC.
If Bush invades Iran, he ought to be impeached. - Pile, on 10/12/2007, -23/+29
Bush needed to be impeached years ago. Our government has failed us.
There's virtually nothing critical you can say of Iran that you can't say about Saudi Arabia... and there's more evidence linking the Saudis to terrorism than Iran or Iraq, so when will the American people wake up and stop Bush's mad tirade? Is he going to have to kill 80,000+ Americans like the presidents did during Vietnam before people wake up? - BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14otheruser, indeed, it's not just the president - it's his whole administration, it the political campaign designed to extend the country's foreign influence. One man does not make all of this country's decisions, but we tend to point a finger, cause we're used to associate ideology with individuals. Give Afghanistan Osama - and now the country's got a face. An villan. An enemy. Iraq had Saddam. Korea's got Kim Jong.
All we need for an invasion of Iran is to give it a face - some crazy man that supposedly represents every single man woman and child living there.
Nuclear threat? Get one of them long range payload delivery systems, put a hat on that, some Mr. Potato Head nose and ears and you've got yourself a country with a face that everybody can be taught to hate.
Please understand that neither country is run by an individual. Orders are issued by agencies, reviewed by agencies, followed by groups.
I say that the problem with America is beyond one man's actions. It's the prevalence of our ideology of supremacy. Other countries have their problems too, but...
... ahh. What's the point. We all know where this is going. Not like it's the first time in human history... or 2nd... - kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Radiant CLinton was a democrat they tend to think twice before going to war while republicans or neocons tend to not htink at all, and are very very aggressive. So watch out. WE are going to Iran next.
@Pile
Yes he has to kill atleast 100,000 americans before we wake it. We have to be awaken by dramactic *****. - All4not, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4It is a contingency plan. We have a plan to go to war with every country. Not because we want to, but just in case. We have a plan to invade Canada, that's what the military does is have strategic plan, so they don't have come up with one instantly when things dramatically change. We will not be starting another war unless we are attacked first. Bush has less than 2 years left on his term, we will be lucky if we are out of Iraq by then.
- SkippySkip, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Thank you.
I would hope the government has contingency plans for a lot of possible scenarios. I would also hope that plans such as these will never need to be put into action. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think everyone forgot that Kim Jong Il has already shown his nuke-penis and Bush did absolutely nothing about it.
Want to bet the same thing will happen with Iran?
If the US attacks a nuclear-capable Iran, you can say goodbye to Israel. That only leaves Bush with the choice of attacking right now, and the US isn't with him on that. Rightfully so, I think. Why attack Iran at all? "Terrorism"? Sorry, but that was Saudi Arabia. The same Saudi Arabia that the EU just eagerly sold Eurofighters to.
In any case, the world is getting more and more dangerous by the day. WW3 may be started by a freak accident, just as WW1 was. People need to back down, because the world is getting into that type of powderkeg situation again. - aratika, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Maybe because it was really, really small and everyone giggled.
Or because there is rampant famine in Korea and the country is imploding.
Or because China will jerk his chain and save the rest of the world the trouble, except if they did - they'd have to deal with the emaciated, paranoid and brainwashed North Korean population.
The despot doesn't deserve a response.
- RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -6/+57It's a contingency plan. In the 1990s, Clinton had the Air Force train for a contingency plan that involved the dropping of several nukes on North Korea. Needless to say, the plan was never put into action. This is what the military does. It makes plans in advance so they don't have to struggle as hard o catch up to events in the case of an unplanned national security situation. It always creates a stir whenever these plans get leaked to the press. But in reality it means next to nothing. Nothing you didn't know already, at any rate.
- DannoJyD, on 10/12/2007, -22/+9And Iran's sending in people to attack coalition forces in Iraq, publicly threatening to attack America via their Hezbollah forces already inside of America as well as with WMD, and refusing to negotiate with other countries concerning their Nuclear Missile Program is what? Sending love and kisses?
Even without knowing what information we got from the Iranians captured a week ago I believe that the President could easily show cause to hit Iran right now if he wanted to.
BTW, in the article we first hear about how dangerous it would be to attack Iran then within a few more paragraphs they talk about how Iran is "very weak". OK, so which is it?- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Show cause? Hit?
Question: Which branch of government has the power to make war?
Anyone in our government who provides the wrong answer should be put in a reeducation camp until they figure it out.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Show cause? Hit?
- sicc, on 10/12/2007, -27/+20I think Bush F'd up big time in Iraq. He used all of his so called "political capitol" in Iraq which was a TOTAL AND COMPLE waste. Because now, real threats like Iran are going to be hard to tackle simple because Bush has used up all his credibility. But seriously, something MUST be done with Iran, even most of the "far leftists" can agree on that. We just have to do something before it's too late. I think Bush should let the next president do it though, if possible.
- dtd00d, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Good call; who doesn't?
- JamesConnolly, on 10/12/2007, -13/+20No. Nothing needs to be done about Iran. What the *****???
Who says you have the obligation to do anything about anything? Be Harmless not Helpful. Because every attempt at being helpful has caused widespread misery and death. Just stay the ***** out of it.
That's a stupid assertion that even "far leftists" say something has to be done. How about focus on your mass of poor, hungry, and uninsured? - kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5James are dugg down because digg.com is a site ran by libertarian digg users now, and its sad thing. Libertarians don't care for poor, and starving, or uninsured. Thats why they made a two tiered health care system that screws me over at all given times. IF osmeone gets sick I go god dammit!!! we can't afford this *****. I had to go with shingles for 8 months because no one would take my insurance.
- coviecarbine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@ kuzotz
I'm a libertarian and I find that offensive. Do I care for the poor, yes. Do I think that massive government spending and sprawling government agencies full of corruption and wasteful spending of tax dollars is helpful, No. Imagine how many more jobs could be created if you had to pay 50% of the taxes your paying right now. If your a normal capitalist, you would want more *****. Boom, a job has been created.
- AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9An extremely dangerous situation. Both powers feel compelled to win. The weaker the Iranian Government feels, the more likely it is to strike out. An attack would "unleash war" -- that is the Iranian deterrent. Is that deterrent enough to say our hand?
- venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5What we need to do is protest and logically present the reasons FOR attacking Iran to the White House. We need to gather the finest liberal minds to intelligently conclude that there is a methodical and just reason for a massive ground and air assault against Iran.
Upon seeing cross-legged, beardy scratching liberals come up with a plan, bush will balk at the idea and 100s of 1000s of lives will have been saved.- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Other than the nutty Israelis want Iran bombed... why?
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -12/+41The whole point of going to war with Iran would be to dump an even worse mess than just Iraq into the lap of the next president - whom is pretty much guaranteed to be a democrat.
So no, if Bush goes to war against Iran it wont be surgical, as the whole point of the exercise is to get in to an even worse mess than Iraq, thereby forcing the next president to institute a draft, thereby becoming throroughly hated by the entire US population, thereby paving the way for a republican president in 2012.- JamesConnolly, on 10/12/2007, -12/+22Exactly. These ***** are war criminals and need to be arrested before they cause the deaths of countless more.
It amazes me. They still are hunting former nazis who allegedly had minor roles, etc - which is fine, good. But they completely ignore the ***** causing all the problems now. Misplaced priorities, which is all too convenient.
***** - xofc, on 10/12/2007, -14/+11Thank you for the brilliant political strategy, Mr. Rove. You really have no idea of what's going on, do you? Do you really think that *any* US president would start the ugliest war imaginable for the express purpose of ***** over his successor? Your cynicism has come full circle back to naivete.
- kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9xofc actually I think that's what bush is planning to do because his successor is going to be a democrat.
In the end its all politics man. No one gives a ***** about us. WE are just tools for them to contorl. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6xofc: I take it you've missed that the main point of the _IRAQ_ war was to have Bush win the 2004 election. And it did exactly that, although it didn't end in six months and pay for itself with oil and reconstruction contracts as expected.
- 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@junkyarddawg
Let's not forget the extended gravy train that it created for Halliburton and other beneficiaries of political favors. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Also don't forget that it was supposed to take every remaining counterweight to Israel out of play. Google up "A Clean Break." There it is, in the words of the Iraq war planners themselves.
And if you are looking for a link between Iraq and 9/11, just look for "dancing Israelis." That will clarify why we can't seem to find Osama and what 19 Saudi dilettantes have to do with this war.
- JamesConnolly, on 10/12/2007, -12/+22Exactly. These ***** are war criminals and need to be arrested before they cause the deaths of countless more.
- drjekelmrhyde, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Wait we are not finished with the ***** in Iraq and Afghanstan
America is Blaster I wont say what country is Master but you can guess - scififan9009, on 10/12/2007, -19/+32"The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -Mahatma Ghandi.
"U.S. Soldiers Caught on Video Abusing Dog in Iraq"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OpDgZOsteM
/greatness- RamanujanRedux, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Ah yes, I always love judging the country based on its lowest. These soldiers were trained to fight wars, not occupy territories. They're bored and tired. What they're doing to that dog is sad, but it's endemic of this whole *****-up war that Bush and Rummy got them into.
What does this have to do with Iran? - DigitalOmnivore, on 10/12/2007, -20/+1Ghandi was a ***** and you are too.
The dog was like that, they were just laughing because the dog was hopping around. - RamanujanRedux, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Actually, Gandhi ***** his wife plenty of times before he was twenty, and slept with women all his life to test his control of his sexual libido. In other words, he had plenty more action than you've ever had.
- ckedge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That was a pretty short clip. The video wasn't anywhere near as bad as I thought it might be. They weren't being horribly mean. They weren't laughing at the dogs pain or suffering, they were laughing at the way the dog walked. Calous for sure, but hey, it's a war zone. I'm guessing the dog had been hit by a car - who knows how long ago, who knows by who. It has been repeatedly reported that Iraqi's don't like dogs at all - there are tons of photos out there of US Soldiers befriending stray dogs - http://images.google.com/images?q=iraq%20dog. I'd guess that they stopped because they thought it was so wierd to see a dog walking on two legs like that - and they're clearly discussing putting the poor guy down at the end.
- RamanujanRedux, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Ah yes, I always love judging the country based on its lowest. These soldiers were trained to fight wars, not occupy territories. They're bored and tired. What they're doing to that dog is sad, but it's endemic of this whole *****-up war that Bush and Rummy got them into.
- amightywind, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Sounds good. Lets do it!
- EricCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -18/+23***** you Bush
- Epocha, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0I haven't got any evidence to back this up but I believe that now that this plan has been brought to light Bush will take it off the table, nobody believes his rhetoric anymore, Iran will most probably begin preparing for an invasion and America's allies will most likely refuse to get involved, even Britain. Even if it was only meant as a contingency plan, it will now be redudant in my opinion.
- frenesi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0The amount of baby ***** here incredulizes the brain. Turns off the reason and make the rest of the world depressed. When the ***** is he leavin?
Shouldn't we have impeached his flabby ass already?
Such a waste of our kids resources...stop already.- DannoJyD, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2@frenesi:
1) Bush could kick your ass as he stays in shape.
2) 'Kids' are not a resource. They are the future of mankind.
3) Girls/women are NOT property.
- DannoJyD, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2@frenesi:
- jsdratm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Its a contingency plan and, therefore, not a surprise since it is part of normal military planning. It will only be valid news if it is actually put into action. Buried as lame.
- frenesi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Is that what your dad said?
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3...and what would the reporting say if there was no plan and something happened?
- xofc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Sure, there are contingency plans to go to war with Iran. The US also had contingency plans to go to war with Britain and invade Canada between WWI and WWII. I shouldn't be surprised if we still have something like that on file at the Pentagon. What's your point? In the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, one of the persistent complaints has been about the lack of planning and forethought. Do you really want the military to be making it up as they go along if Iran put a nuclear warhead on one of their long range cruise missiles and launches it from a freighter or Kilo sitting off the coast of New York or LA?
references:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcanadawar.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/x-55.htm - sovereign3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6This is not surprising because it has been in the works for some years now. Bush has admitted himself that his goal is to "transform the Middle East." He is taking a huge gamble because he is a lame duck President under a congress that is failing to reign in him. The additional troops that are being sent to Iraq under the pretense of helping to quell Baghdad could quite possibly find themselves in Iran. Not only are we sending the additional forces in this so-called "surge," but we also have sent additional aircraft carriers in the region. We haven't had so many Naval forces in the Persian Gulf since before the start of the Iraq war March 2003. We have been provoking Iran for several years; almost as long as we've been in Iraq. We have raided their consulates and seized their diplomats, we have continually sent Special Forces into Iran to engage in special operations (though neither the US or Iran would admit this), and we certainly have many different plans for an Iranian invasion including this so-called plan. We are already being prepped for an engagement with Iran.
War with Iran is almost inevitable at the current conditions. If we don't engage Iran ourselves, Israel will most certainly do so. I fear that Bush believes that he will transform the Middle East even at the cost of complete chaos in the region. If that is his goal, he is well on to that path. - TheToecutter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Buried as sensationalist. The US military has contingencies for everything, doesn't mean they will ever use them.
Bush and his cronies can't even handle the rabble in the streets of Iraq. You really think that Congress and the US people would sit idle if Bush actually tried to invade Iran? The Iranians would have nothing to worry about, because the revolution would be here.- RojoKayako, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2>
Yes, they Liberals will sit back and watch because there is nothing they can do about it. Americans will support the President and the Troops.
Deal with it. - argh44z, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ RojoKayako
LOL. What is Bush's approval rating again? How many people support the Iraq War? Are you conservatives still delusional about our power? Our military can't even handle Iraq. The US military + unilateral war = defeat once again. If we do anything military wise in Iran, we need support of other countries. Good luck getting that with George Walker in power.
- RojoKayako, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2>
- wethackrey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This story is about one idiot trying to get some press. The US (and all other first world countries) have military contingency plans for scores of possible scenarios. As a citizen of the United States, I EXPECT the US military to have thought through every possible contingency. Frankly, if more of this had been done in advance regarding Iraq, the administration may not have gotten it so wrong. Regarding this particular story, if this Wayne White character had any real knowledge of actual military planning, he'd be facing serious jail time for disclosing it.
OF COURSE there's a contingency plan in place for a "not surgical" attack on Iran. There are probably a dozen contingency plans regarding Iran. Hell, someone in some think tank somewhere probably has a contingency plan for invading Canada in response to Ahmadinejad being signed to play for the Edmonton Oilers. That doesn't mean it will ever become policy. Though I hear he has a hell of a slap shot. - RojoKayako, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3>>> "We're not talking about just surgical strikes against an array of targets inside Iran. We're talking about clearing a path to the targets" by taking out much of the Iranian Air Force, Kilo submarines, anti-ship missiles that could target commerce or U.S. warships in the Gulf, and maybe even Iran's ballistic missile capability, White said.
Good, I hope we hammer the $hit out of them: completely destroy thier capability to export combat with major weapon systems. And, if this "Destabalizes" the mideast for several years as White contends - then that is good, too: the mideast needs some change.
Bombs Away. - Protean1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Another US carrier group set sail for the Gulf on Dec 11th, on-station late March
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2454092.063888889.html
- from various online sources...google if you want to check my info -
Now on station in the Persian Gulf, “Expeditionary Strike Group 5” includes more than 2,000 marines from the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit. Equipped with landing craft and 38 helicopters, the marines are not going to bolster U.S. forces inside Iraq. Instead, they are prepared to “rapidly deploy” on orders received from either of two-men comprising the National Command Authority—the President, or the Secretary of Defense.
The Expeditionary Strike Group’s flagship, the marine assault vessel USS Boxer is accompanied by the massive dock landing vessel, USS Dubuque, the troop ship USS Comstock, battle cruiser USS Bunker Hill, guided-missile destroyers USS Benford and USS Howard, and HMCS Ottawa. Though ostensibly joining its American ally to prosecute the “War on Terror,” prior to steaming for Iran the Canadian frigate took part in Strike Group 5’s anti-submarine drills off Hawaii aimed at countering Iran’s diesel-electric submarines.
Leading this attack armada is the nuclear carrier USS Enterprise escorted by the destroyer USS McFaul, the frigate USS Nicholas, the battle cruiser USS Leyte Gulf, the attack submarine USS Alexandria, and the fast combat support ship USNS Supply.
A second powerful Strike Group comprises the similarly escorted nuclear aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower. One of these naval strike groups is steaming in the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea; the second is bottled up in the Persian Gulf.
-------------------------------------
There are reports that the Israeli Air Force attempted a 3-jet suicide run at Iranian Nuclear facilities in early January, and were turned back by US air assets to prevent a premature war from breaking out before US forces are positioned.
Regional command has been recently turned over to extremely capable Air Force and Navy brass...the US has its top men now in control of military assets in that area.
Both the US and Israel have been making lots of verbal threats against Iran, and Iran has been talking a steady stream right back at them. And now that Syria has made a back-room deal with Israel, it's off Israel's threat-map to some degree and they can concentrate on their major threat, Iran.
And that 'Troop Surge' everyone is arguing about, they're going to be arriving in the theatre in late March, early April. I'd guess for things to begin around then. Troops in Baghdad to help cushion insurgent blowback from Iran activity. - AhmedB, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5If the US fights Iran it will be much much worse than Iraq. Iran is much bigger, much more packed with weapons, filled with hater Iranians that *might* hate their administration, but their pride and dignity will not let them 'let the US liberate them just like the US has been liberating Iraq for the past few years'. Trust me it will be no where close to Iraq's mess....
- RojoKayako, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@Ahmed,
Who says we are going to liberate Iranians?
Nope...we're going to bomb them. We can destroy thier military and infrastructure at will and with impunity and with it, thier capacity to export war. It's that easy. - marinist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Right. It's rather arrogant for us to assume we can "fix" anything in the M.East, despite how much we may dislike their policies.
And the idea that bombing Iran will lead to demilitarization is simply outrageous.
They still remember our connections to the Shah and SAVAK, and they distrust us for good reason. - kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5LEts jsut leave the Persians alone(that's their ethnicity, and iranian is their nationality.)
- RojoKayako, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@Ahmed,
- BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Wow...fascinating...someone made the shocking revelation the Pentagon does contingency planning and simulation.
- blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Before the occupation in Iraq I did believe there was some planning being done before wars. Now, I am actually really suprised if anything is not random.
- anagai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3We are fighting a war with no boundaries and of thousands of combatants spread around the world. Bush would have to start alot of wars or piss off alot of foreign leaders to fight his war. Give the palestinians there welfare state and end this. Be prepared to support these backward people for years to come. Lets contain all these people in one area. Give all the resources they need to support themselves. Dont give them any reason for a jihad. When they do cause problems we are fully justified to kill the trouble makers. Iran has got to be fing insane to use a nuke. They will not, so leave them alone.
- dreamlayers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This isn't about a surgical strike, but it isn't about all-out war. The plan seems to be about clearing a path for the strike on nuclear facilities and making sure that Iran can't retaliate in a way which would disrupt oil shipments or hurt US allies in the region. It doesn't seem to involve any occupation or a ground war. It seems like a pretty good plan for attacking Iran's nuclear capability. I STRONGLY disagree with attacking Iran though.
I was wondering whether to bury this story as inaccurate based on the above. After reading comments and realizing that these sorts of plans get made all the time I buried it. - marcus_r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What's with the "BREAKING" and "REVEALED" tags in headlines lately? Let your story get dugg on it's own merit, but then again, this one has none...
- anagai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1BTW this guy quit in 2005. Dont think he knows ***** about current US plans. I highly do not think thats the current plan with the situation we are in now in iraq. Unless bush wants to commit political suicide again.
- AhmedB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Striking a bee hive and not expecting to get stung!..someone needs to think for a couple of minutes before he/she OKs this plan.
- RojoKayako, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1So...what are they going to do to us? And...if they try anything, we'll bomb them back to the stone age, and, unlike Iraq, we won't rebuild a damn thing - just let them waste in thier own rubble.
Time for Iran to quit actig like a bunch of Jihad Monkeys.
- RojoKayako, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1So...what are they going to do to us? And...if they try anything, we'll bomb them back to the stone age, and, unlike Iraq, we won't rebuild a damn thing - just let them waste in thier own rubble.
- DarrenR114, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We will stay out of Iran just like we stayed out of Cambodia and Laos in the 60s and 70s.
- Jimbo19, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Iraq was invaded with kid gloves. Do you people have any idea what Iraq would have looked like if we had truely wanted to trash the place?
And no please stop repeating your meme's, Iran will be struck/attacked not invaded. No occupation, no aid money, no embeds.
You all need to rread some history, Iraq is not a war. We have barley over 3k fatalites in 4 years and you all call that a big huge war?
I fear you may actually see a true war in the near future because of many people in the wests iniability to fight a small intervention.- RojoKayako, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2I agree 100% - the Jihad Monkeys have never seen real war - a type of war we haven't fought since the 40's.
I hope we unleash real war against Iran. - marinist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Kid gloves"--if that means we didn't bomb Baghdad, Dresden-style. Yeah.
That said, I can't say Iraq was invaded using our "thinking cap". At this point, it's hard to suggest our invasion stabilized Iraq.
One could say the civil war was inevitable, but we're going to get credit for the situation there.
I'm sure we'll receive similar thanks by "striking" Iran. - kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3you guys are both idiots. War has changed, and its more unconventional than it is conventional. WE may never see the huge battle fields again because its pretty ***** dumb to do that now. Why do that when you can send troops behind enemy lines, and have them in teams of 8 curgically destroying a country's infrastructure..
- RojoKayako, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@Kuzotz,
Easier just to send Bombers and Cruise Missles - forget the surgical bit. There are more effective and safer ways to do it with airpower. I mean, if you want to remove a cancer from a pig, a chaisaw is much faster and easier than a scalpel (and who really cares about the pig?). - lacronicus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2there wont be another real war until we start a war with another major power, if we ever do. airplanes only fight airplanes. ships fight ships. subs fight subs. tanks fight tanks. and bombs blow up buildings. seems to me like only the bombs would do anything in the middle east. lo and behold, thats what were doing. they have never seen real war because they have found an advantage. might i remind you that in the american revolution, we did the same thing. often we fought from the woods and used guerilla tactics, unlike the formal war of the day. why? cause wed have lost otherwise. same here. war is evolving. two hundred years ago, we would have faced eachother across a field. a hundred years ago, wed have never though of sending in a spec ops team to assasinate another countrys leader. all that has changed. war is no longer respectable. no longer a mere game. the old ideas of war have gone the way of the sword and bow; into history. now, a single man can literally take on an army. give him a machine gun and a bunker, and hell be set. let us not forget that trying to make this a "real war" has gotten us into this mess.we tried to be formal, and it has been our loss. can you imagine trying to get them to sign a treaty? they dont even have a leader. then try to get them to adhere to it. they answer to a higher cause, one that no man can change. should we make this a true real war? where anything goes? wed be no better than them. we went in first to get their nukes. but we are the only country to have ever used one. then we went to take out a dictator and spread democracy. hussein kept his country together by the means he saw necessary, and we cant. it is very likely that the only way we could manage to kep control is to do the same thing. and spread democracy? sounds kinda like communist russia. how long is it till china decides to "stop the spread of democracy." we did it. why cant they? get over the "real war" bit. theyre beating us, and you think they should submit to our method of warfare, jsut so well have the advantage? ha thats funneh.
- RojoKayako, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2I agree 100% - the Jihad Monkeys have never seen real war - a type of war we haven't fought since the 40's.
- tripple-breve, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1And while we're attacking Iran and stretching our troops to the breaking point, China will attack our mainland.
- marinist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4--and force us all to work in their shoe factories, yet somehow still buy their products.
- buckrogers1965, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1China doesn't have to attack us to destroy us. They hold trillions of US dollars. All they have to do is dump the US dollar onto the open market and we plummet down into the worst depression we have ever seen.
And they don't really care that they are shipping us crappy toys at 100 for three cents each, all that manufacturing capability can be turned into weapons production in a few weeks time. Think of it as us having paid to build and maintain their armament plants until they were needed. - marinist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@buckrogers1965
Yes, but it might not be in China's best interests to dump our currency--yet. We are one of their best customers.
China's real trick will be to continue their expansion as market growth tapers off--particularly in an economic downturn.
"that manufacturing capability can be turned into weapons production in a few weeks time."
Really, as in: "Now witness the power of this fully armed and operational battle Cuisinart"
- marinist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4--and force us all to work in their shoe factories, yet somehow still buy their products.
- ccrook, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1We also have plans to invade Canada and Mexico, I'm sure.
I'm going to bet he saw a) dated plans since he's a former official and b) the "all-out-war" plans, not nuke deterring strikes. - davbmn68, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3It's educational to read the Naive comments on this site. These comments only reaffirm the preexisting notion that a good portion of political Diggers are nothing more than conspiracy theorists and/or Democratic hacks. A President, Dem. or Rep. has a responsibility to defend this nation against enemies. Now you may try and argue that Iran poses no threat to us, but that is a false argument. If Iran is truly doing what they claim to be doing, the U.S. (the President) has a responsibility to respond. The leader of Iran has promised to attack a sovereign nation, that is an ally of ours and build nuclear weapons, in violation of many treaties and resolutions. This power in the hands of such a leader is and should be unacceptable to us for many reasons, not the least of which, is the blackmailing of the U.S. through our oil interests in the region and threatening other countries with nuclear attack and forcing them to capitulate.
To bring this all into black and white, Iran could force the price of oil well beyond what our economy could handle. Giving them the power to force us into recession or depression. So when everyone is bitching about price gouging think about the practicality of your political "theories" and how in the real world they may play out much differently than they did in your head.- RojoKayako, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Yada, Yada, Yada....and Afghanistan was supposed to be the graveyard of the Superpowers, huh? But we smashed them in 2 months.
Wwe can smash Iran, too. Fast, brutal, effective. - azAZ09, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That's funny, I see more naïveté expressed by those who claim to be speaking from the republican end of the political spectrum rather than the "Democratic hacks" as you call them. It was naive to think that we would be welcomed as liberators. It was naive to think the cost of the war could offset by oil revenues from Iraq. It was naive to position inexperienced republican hacks in key positions of power within the provisional government. It was naive to think you can get credible intelligence from torture. It is naive to try to break down a scenario into oversimplified binary oppositions: Black vs. White, Good vs. Evil, Us vs. Them, Victory vs. Defeat.
At least you're admitting that on some level the war is about oil--not spreading democracy or wmd's. So , under your understanding of it what is the exchange rate between human blood and gasoline?
- RojoKayako, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Yada, Yada, Yada....and Afghanistan was supposed to be the graveyard of the Superpowers, huh? But we smashed them in 2 months.
- formerCIAagent, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3why are degenerate americans trying to start ww3? its high time the human race, particularily americans, if indeed one can classify americans as human, recognize that bombing countries does not achieve anything other than death and suffering. fat american pigs must be stopped.
- DannoJyD, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Which country is bragging about shooting off nukes? It sure isn't america.
- JamesConnolly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What country has used nuculear weapons against a civilian population?
Since then, what other country has used them?
Now...who should we be afraid of having them?
And to those few who are justifying the specific war-crime I mentioned above...***** you. It wasn't necessary. It didn't save more lives. Blah blah blah.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4I say full speed ahead.
Hit 'em, and hit 'em HARD. - formerCIAagent, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2americans enjoy torturing and killing as many people as possible. american food is injected with steroids and growth hormones which turn americans into violent psychopath monsters that lust over blood, destruction and depravity. notice how in america violence is much higher than the rest of the civilized world. this is a direct result of these steroids that angry hateful americans consume on a daily basis.
- DannoJyD, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Oh my yes! I, your average American do so love to torture someone the first thing in the morning. /major sarc
Moron!
- DannoJyD, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Oh my yes! I, your average American do so love to torture someone the first thing in the morning. /major sarc
- formerCIAagent, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0you have no right to address me american scum. i am your superior. now get to walmart and spend money on crap imported from china like a good consumerized slave.
- zephc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Once again, these jackasses underestimate a (potential) enemy. "We'll have no problem saving the princess and winning the game" Yeah, sure, whatever. I swear this administration has war ADD - can't focus on one target before moving on to another.
- cweber40, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Why can't we do it now? Oh thats right! A team of liberals want to protects Iran and their evolving nuclear programs. Very smart to be compassionate for someone who wants your country and its allies dead. Not noble, it is dumb. If you don't think this is WWIII then look again. I support a Club Med on the nuclear fallout of the entire middle east. toodles.
- mk1gti, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1You're all wrong. In fact the U.S. will eventually be invaded by cute little bunnies who will overwhelm 'muricans with fluffy kindness to the point that 'muricans will have no choice except to be nice to one another and those beyond their borders or face the destruction that occurs when bitter hearts shrivel and implode. You heard it here first. This comes from the top, so get ready for the invasion and steel yourself to resist the cute, furry kindness. If You Can. My recommendation? Just surrender, I think you'll find life easier all the way around if you just learn to get along with one another than run around threatening others with 'Do it my way or I'll kill you.' If a dog behaved the way some of the people on this thread do they would be put down as a dog infested with rabies. Which is, I'm sure, the way that much of the world sees the U.S. these days and justifiably so. Surrender to the bunnies. It's in your best interest.
- CheapDigWannbe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.nimajus.com/CartoonLQ.jpg
- Paul1489, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Hmmm, let's see here.....
1. Iran is our biggest enemy right now.
a. They are funding a lot of the terror in Iraq and Afghanistan
i. Iran and Afghanistan are places the US is trying to rebuild and have put a ton of tax dollars into
2. Iran and China have been forming an alliance over the years and that alliance is strengthening as China energy needs grow.
3. China is growing quickly and not necessarily in a good way
a. Essentially a military controlled business environment
b. Lax control over environmental regulations and intellectual capital
c. Terrible working conditions and tons of poverty
4. America is China's main competitor for energy
5. Logically, Iran could easily become China's hit man subsidiary and even easier, monopolize the Energy supply (Refer to 3)
6. Refer to (4)
7. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and China are all close
8. If the US occupies all three Middle East powers China would be less likely to get silly and make any further proactive steps against the US
I'm not justifying anything because I can only judge this book by it's cover BUT how could one not see this coming? All emotions and past operational failures aside, how does the current strategy not make sense? Although being in the Middle East sucks and the situation in general blows it's probably better than waiting around for an unavoidable clash with China. Preventative maintenance? I don't know but it looks like it doesn't it? Not that radical Isalm doesn't suck but pile China on top of that and who knows what would happen. Just thinking out loud. - MaximusIGN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For any normal President it'd be a contingency plan. For Bush I'd be surprised if he hasn't already signed off on the attack. As he's put it, "He's a WAR president" and there aren't enough wars for him to start while in office.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Better to have a President on top of contigency plans than one oblivious to the threat with his head buried in the sand. I won't name any names but I think you can figure it out.
- streak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@pabster, you're clearly referring to the first 8 months of GW's presidency.
- streak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When all Bush has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
- frenesi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@DannoJyG
Took me a while but I realized the reason why this digg stuff is too much for most..I said our kid's resources. Gw is flabby if he runs and struts for an eon. He couldn't kick anyones ass he is a moron. I am a girl and i just know i ain't your property - andrewmmc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Pay attention to the fact that Iran offered concessions to the US in 2003, and were rejected because Cheney dictated the US would only enter 'negotiations' once Iran had fulfilled all US wishes. Since when do you enter negotiations with anyone saying to the other party that we'll only talk once you've committed to giving us what we want? Cheney and Bush are causing massive geopolitical problems with their school ground, teenager attitudes.
- thewatchman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"offered concessions" is code for "lying to get America off our backs"
- frenesi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's like they think they have all the Rare pokemon cards - And it's not even for us that they speak. It is I believe a mutated form of human that finds them so
interesting. I have always taught my children not to deal with their type in business. So I don't have to worry about them voting for the "schmucks" - frenesi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0jerks anyway-Sorry
- Mworthin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1HELLO!
Bush, Cheyney and the bunch are a group of whacked out, certifiable, bozos with a powerful tendency toward distorting the truth and diminishing long-standing civil liberties. Afghanistan and Iraq are not enough to satiate their pathological sadism and grandiosity, now they want to bomb Iran too. All the while, Ben Laden eludes capture.
Seventeen years of intensive psychotherapy might help, but the prognosis is very poor. .
Curious that there are nutballs out there that still support him after the continuous debacles of the last six years. - frenesi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Maybe mr bush and his cabinet can get some malpractice bucks , the diagnosis itself was lacking..Didn't anyone check their HEARTS!
Maybe Ms. bush the elder has a spare room for my family we feel ill and it's got to better than what we have now, right? -
Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is 