U.S. Chief-of-Staff tells CNN U.S. preparing for attack on Iran

Originally posted by xacto
I would not advise a full front war. That's all I have to say and will be one of my last warnings.

Are you previed to information regarding engagement with Iran that isn't available to the general public or is this just your intuition?

Originally posted by flexy123
reply to post by ThePublicEnemyNo1

 

No we ain't either..but please compare. We could have blown ourselves up multiple times already and did not. We have nuclear weapons for 70! years now. With all due respect, i don't trust "our" governments a lot...but FOR SURE not those "back in the stone age" governments in the middle-east which are 1000x worse.

I can certainly comprehend your emotions and understand what you're saying...completely. But hence WAR! Really! Bombs? Really? Come now, this has to stop at some point. This is mass insanity on a level we as "ordinary" folks just don't grasp at the handles.

I respect your views, but I'm sorry, this is Bull####! Just my $0.02 anyway. Don't ever allow yourself to be blindsided, not saying you are and you're entitled to your opinion and I respect that. But please, Dig Deeper into the abyss of madness......and do not stop until you can dig no more!

ETA:
Sure we could blow ourselves to smitherings....but why would we do this? This is not what the good ole' US of A wants, they just want complete dominion overall. B.S. I ain't paying for more of this #### I think you and I are on similar pages...but the war factor...I can just crush it....this is ridiculous. I want to exist in a free state just like you, but not at the cost of "BY ALL MEANS NECESSARY"...that's insanity IMHO! For that matter, why don't we all just join the fabulous Nation of Islam and their teachings and take up arms for all?

Naw...I "ain't cool wit dat" It just stinks is all I'm saying.

Since when do generals have the say in publicly declared war or the possibility thereof?

I've been reading stories out of Iran from nothing but generals, but not from the Iranian government.

Last I checked, our generals here in the good ole US don't have the power to declare war either.

This is only MSM bulls#%^&, preparing us all for war with them.

Get ready for the false flag! It's coming

Peace!

Guz

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
You seem in a bit of a fantasy here - Iran is much larger than Iraq or Afghanistan, with a much larger population, and a fanatical religious bas that it can rely on and borders with the Caucasus and central asian states

I wouldn't be thinking that what worked in its neighbours will work there - the terrain is rugged, there are multiple resupply routes, the whole population will be hostile and probably willing to fight and die as martyrs - there's little religious schism there, and there isn't a nice road up the river to the capital.......

It matters little, It doesn't matter the size of a target. After a few weeks or months of bombing their population wouldn't matter much. Smart bombs, JDATS, thermo, What point would there be if they are killed by the air force?

The Terrain is rugged yes, The U.S has fought in many battles were rugged terrain had to be dealt with. Multiple resupply routes, mean nothing if they are constantly bombed.

reply to post by Vitchilo


We are no closer to war with Iran then we were 10 years ago....this is what an Army does train and plan for war with who ever. Yes I am sure there has been more extensive planning in regards to Iran recently than in the past but there has been a plan in place for many years now....just as there is a plan on the shelf for war with North Korea...China...Russia and whoever else we would face in a battle.

Mr. Obama will not start a war before the election unless provoked into it by Iran attacking Israel or Iraq....even then I am most confident that it would not be a ground campaign and be very limited in scale. The President would lose his base if he were to actually start a war with anyone and face being voted out as many in the Democratic party are opposed to war period for whatever reason.

You can bet there has always been a plan in regards to Iran as to every other country in the region for a long time so this does not indicate war is any closer and certainly not before the election unless something big happens...and even then this President is very unlikely to start anything big. The spokesman is always going to say we are ready to go because we are...anywhere anytime...just how an army functions period.

Originally posted by aarys
edition.cnn.com...

Behind the scenes Dempsey is quietly leading the ongoing military planning for an attack against Iran's nuclear weapons in the event the president gives the order to do so.

Also there seems to be a lot of military build up in Kuwait. Troops from Iraq. I Hope this does not happen. But nothing surprises me anymore this year.

Well this explains why we seen a whole brigade or more of new or refurbished U.S. Army Tanks, Bradley's, APC's, Strikers, Heavy Artillery and other equipment brought to the port in L.A. in August and September. With our troops piling into Kuwait it looks like they wont be getting a break with Obama so desperate to start another war.

Originally posted by NuclearPaul

Originally posted by Vitchilo
... a military draft is very possible...

Not this day and age.

Most people are too aware who causes the wars and why.

If someone does a lottery and says "you can go fight for the bankers" they are going to get shot.

Don't be ignorant a war with Iran will start a 3rd world war.. when the U.S. government can tell its citizens that all resources need to be diverted to defend the country congress will enact a draft easily.

Iran declared war on the United Staes already. In 1979, right? Nothing.

I feel there are two real possibilities, with one being more probable than the other - but as always, I could be entirely wrong.

Possibility 1) Our policy is to deal with each state actor on an individual basis, in some cases even allowing them to acquire some form of nuclear weapons capability provided we have reasonable (and credible) intelligence or assurances that they are not developing delivery systems that would threaten we or our allies, and that they are not insane enough to ever use them. This seems to be the case with North Korea. We know they've tested two very small yield weapons (one of which may have failed entirely) and we continue to pursue diplomacy in an effort to limit their nuclear capability. This may be our approach to Iran as well. This seems probable at this time, but not guaranteed. I suspect we calculate that they most likely simply want a nuclear deterrence against future first strikes by other nations, in which case we may be able to learn to live with a nuclear armed Iran eventually. A lot of people may not like it, but in the long term it may be the best option in terms of ME stability.

But, because there is probably still some degree of uncertainty over whether Iran might use this capability as a means to conduct belligerent influence over other states in the region, we might actually be living with option number two...

Possibility 2) Our policy is that, because of the threat of a nuclear arms race in a region we deem rife with terrorist threats, no non-allied nation in the ME region will ever be permitted to develop a nuclear weapons capability of any kind, full stop. If this is the case, which I find less credible than #1 but could be wrong, then it dramatically changes the climate and the potential outcome of this situation. If this is the case, it means that we have calculated that any nation obtaining a nuclear weapon in the ME region would probably inevitably result in a domino effect of nuclear arms races and, eventually, the sale to or theft by a terrorist organization of a functional and deliverable nuclear weapon.

If #2 is the reality we're living in, then an armed conflict with Iran might be inevitable. It might also be the real reason for the invasion of Iraq. If #2 is the reality we're living in, then we may have calculated that even the faintest possibility of a nuclear weapon being acquired by a ME state actor is too great a long term threat to the United States to be permissible, if not from those state actors, then from terrorist organizations within their borders (with or without their consent.)

Personally, I think #1 is more probable at this time. I hope I'm right. I'm not one to lean toward fear or sensationalism, so I'd prefer to think cooler heads will prevail. But as seen in the case of Iraq, this is not always the case. All I can say is I hope I'm right. A war with Iran would carry a huge cost in human lives.

Why almost nobody thinks about the danger of Iran having nuclear weapons?

Let's face it: US is a bully. They use their military power for dirty purposes. Vietnam, Kuweit, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Irak, they weren't threats for US security and well being, but nevertheless they used that power to make a statement: we, US, make the rules. Did they make enemies because of that? You can bet. Are people sick and tired of the American "superiority"? Of course they are. Are there countries who would do anything to smash US to ground? Increasingly.

And now we have one real threat to face: a hateful, nuclear Iran, who never made a secret of how much they hate US and Israel, in particular, and western lifestyle in general. NOW you want to stand back and let them be?

They have the right to protect themselves, I agree with that. But is someone out there that can guarantee this is all they'll do the moment they have "the power"? What if they'll want to make a statement also? Are you ready to let them have that right, with the price of your own country and life?

This is the worst moment for US to go "soft and rightful"; not after decades of raiding the neighborhood, stealing, killing and destroying other people's property. On contrary, I think that now more than ever, US and Israel should watch their back very carefully. There are consequences of being a bully. A nuclear Iran is the last thing they need right now. This is not your Sunday football game, to lay back and watch how "the best player win". And the time to do something about it is running out.

However, I'm totally against invading, sending more troops to die there, occupying yet another country. Just blow away their nuclear plants, and come back home. End of the story.
It's the right thing to do? No, but it's smarter than doing nothing. People should understand that this is not about doing the right thing, too late for that; it's about self-preservation. Plain and simple. You want to be alive this time next year, or ten years for now? Then you better make sure that your back is covered from all sides. There are big dogs out there backing up a nuclear Iran. Why? I'd rather not wait to see why.

I see this attitude a lot, especially amongst people from US: do nothing because it's only fear mongering. "They won't do this to us". Well, they are doing it to us big time, over and over again, everything that you never believed it will happen : they are taking your freedoms, your rights, your health, your money, your pride. And people still do nothing. "it's only fear mongering, it's not that bad after all". Whatever. All we have left is our lives. Want to stand aside and watch yourselves loosing that too? Suit yourselves. Too bad that there will be no one around to say afterward :"i've told you so".


To the user who posted above me:
Very true and clear explained. However, the possibility no.1 doesn't seem reliable to me; just look how Iran reacts at the international sanctions and threats. They are so resolute, like a tiger who felt the smell of blood. I wouldn't trust their word, no matter what.

reply to post by Vitchilo

Negative.. if this was the real deal it would be all over MSM. I have been skimming through all MSM websites and there's NOTHING about going to war with Iran. I prefer alternative to MSM anyday.. but it IS alternative media which means they report just about anything.

I felt the pictures of the respective Presidents said "You take a poke at me and you're gonna pay!" with Obama response being "uh... is he serious, here!?"

But... I added a few of my own just for kicks

I was born in 1977 and since I was born America has allways been at war somewhere. I even learned in high school that war was good for the economy. is it really a surprise during re-election year that we want to vamp up the blood? our government has never preached about religion it only preaches about money.

I do not agree with money but try to agree instead with my heart and because of that im at odd ends with this world.

reply to post by DJMSN


I am a novice here and I do not know how to cut out certain portions of your post but I feel compelled to ask about your comments of BO. Surely he WOULDN'T upset his base...hasn't he already by not honoring his entire campaign of hope and change? Seems we did get change but not what we hoped for. What were his promises for day 1 - Quantanimo ring a bell for starters. War would be a way for him to "flex" his leadership; or to finally show he has some by propping up to remove Assad which Iran would join because they are each others oldest allies.

It seems the proof is in the pudding, proven with Libya and other issues to indepth which would go off OP. But he is unlike any other president and stripping away what we know America to be. Not the change we hoped for and we especially shouldn't sacrifice more of our troops for others when we continue being stuck with the bill and continue to go broke in the process. Look at Iraq - Russia and China have the rebuilding contracts of the oil refineries......WHAT???!!! Why don't we...because we owe China so we shall just have to take the change with no hope. The only way out of our financial ruin is war, sadly. Remember the great depression and how the US came out ahead because of ww2 and he was just recently channeling Teddy a couple of weeks ago to display once again his profound talents of being a great speaker.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
I'm not saying Iran's government is good, but what you are accusing the Iranian government of, the US government has done is a thousand times worst and that's not hyperbole.

edit on 21-12-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)

Yeah, actually it is hyperbole.

Originally posted by WhiteHat

I see this attitude a lot, especially amongst people from US: do nothing because it's only fear mongering. "They won't do this to us". Well, they are doing it to us big time, over and over again, everything that you never believed it will happen : they are taking your freedoms, your rights, your health, your money, your pride. And people still do nothing. "it's only fear mongering, it's not that bad after all". Whatever. All we have left is our lives. Want to stand aside and watch yourselves loosing that too? Suit yourselves. Too bad that there will be no one around to say afterward :"i've told you so".

edit on 21-12-2011 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)

Hmmm...well, you've certainly stated a mouthful now haven't you? You even made it all sound so simplistic and convenient. Well, one thing is for sure, there are the American Citizens who would rather take a diplomatic stance (wether it works at first or not) and then those with enough guns to take out an entire urban city who asks questions later (the majority) in addition to our military as I'm sure you already know about considering you named the USA as "Bullies". Those latter mentioned are the ones you need to watch out for. Believe you me unfortunately, the latter outweigh the aforementioned individuals.

And who are you referring to when you say

"they are doing it to US big time over and over again"? Followed by "they are taking your freedoms, your rights, your health, your money, your pride"?

Where are you from? Certainly not the US, you come across as some pompous, most opinionated foreigner and ridiculous to put it plainly IMHO.

Sonny, ain't nobody (let alone Iran) took none of that from "US"...so who, what and where are you preaching from? Be mad all you want...the majority ain't answering your foreign relations questions right now! We just don't want to engage in anymore free willy style murders...but the US populace as a whole always stands together. Don't let some on the ATS forum fool you

Let me ask you this....what does rushing to judgement accomplish? What has it accomplished for the US? Examples to ponder "War in Iraq". Oh, by the way...please don't pilfer the American Soldiers that went in with good intentions, as this will only cause more stress to your obvious "We're/I'm First" War dilema. "I told you so"...are you serious? It's a shame that you've managed to trick yourself into thinking we're a bunch of saps. It's actually rather funny, because I think you know better...you just need a rebuttal, that's all.

I think you have the "USA" mixed up with some other Nation...I think you need to read some serious American History...I also think you just probably need a break. Whatever your problem is...you personally need help

When you answer these questions in sincerity, I'll be back to ask you more.

ETA:
Being "Soft" has nothing to do with taking the lives of others, responding to or causing war. No matter how you attempt to glorify "war & death"....that word doesn't fit into your description nor is it properly used or well defined. Try harder!

SOFT

I'm not sure what the timeline was for getting the troops home from Kuwait, but I'd be monitoring their movement, or lack of, as a guide to whether there are secretive plans afoot...

If they start shipping back over the next couple of weeks, I'd say RELAX...but if delayed, my hackles would start to rise.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


The Great Depression was actually worldwide. Here is an interesting article discussing the rise of both communism and Nazism as responses to the depression.

www.digitalhistory.uh.edu...

I think they will attack Syria in some way first to measure reaction from Russia and China. Looking at the current world situation the answer is the same we are on the brink, close to the edge or at the tipping point. The signs are there.

Originally posted by DarknessMatters
If you stop and think, the US even has "attack plan's" for invading Canada, that tidbit came out during the Dubya Administration. So, yeah, the US has "battle plans" for almost every nation outside our borders.

Are you sure you are not mixing up the NAU which leaders of all three countries have agreed to?