What is Digg?123 Comments
- 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." - 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. - 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.
- inactive, 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 - 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.
- inactive, 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. - 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.
- 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... - 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.
***** - 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. - 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. - 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? - 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.
- 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? - kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5LEts jsut leave the Persians alone(that's their ethnicity, and iranian is their nationality.)
- 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. - 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 - EricCiccone, on 10/12/2007, -18/+23***** you Bush
- 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.
- 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?
- 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. - marinist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4--and force us all to work in their shoe factories, yet somehow still buy their products.
- 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.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3My point exactly!
- 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.
- 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. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3...and what would the reporting say if there was no plan and something happened?
- 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. - 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. - 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.
- 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....
- 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. - 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. - Mworthin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Oh yeah, I wonder if you with all that psychotic bravado has ever spent a day in the armed forces with bullets flying and bombs bursting. I don't think so buttbrain!
- 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...
- BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Wow...fascinating...someone made the shocking revelation the Pentagon does contingency planning and simulation.
- 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.
- 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. - 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..
- 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.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Other than the nutty Israelis want Iran bombed... why?
- 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. - streak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@pabster, you're clearly referring to the first 8 months of GW's presidency.
- 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. - Vincep1974, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I do know that Persia will live for another day.. until one day they join the armies of Gog and launch war against Israel; whereas the God of the Universe will then destroy them.
I'm happy knowing that one way or another the evil Shiite Theocracy of Iran will be destroyed. - 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" - 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.
- 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. -
Show 51 - 100 of 117 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is