Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Big anti-Iran media campaign in September?

T

TAE

http://tinyurl.com/U75TAE
R.I.P.
They [the source's institution] have "instructions" (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects.
Click to expand...
Post Labor Day Product Rollout: War with Iran!
 
Bush seem to be gearing up or an off with Iran. They know they haven't got enough support for a full on war so they seem to be trying to provoke Iran into an escalting conflict - a conflict that becomes a fati-compli for the next administration.

They level and amount of swivle eyed hysteria from neo-con commetators has definitely increased in recent weeks.

The only way a war with Iran is in the US interst is if they intened to smash the country to bits with air power - thereby reducing its ability to wield influence in the gulf (also killing many thousands of people and condemming millions more to starvation, disease and abject poverty).
 
Do not believe the hype. Bush is not trying to iniate a conflict right before he leaves office. The Republicans would be devestated. However, should Israel engage Iran, I imagine he would drum up significant support, as long as America is not caught iniating it.
 
Right-o. Our primary objective was to push Hez back 15 klicks. We pushed them back to Alawi instead. The kill ratio was 100:1 with us being the 1 so I imagine we did not do too bad now.
 
rachamim18 said:
Right-o. Our primary objective was to push Hez back 15 klicks. We pushed them back to Alawi instead. The kill ratio was 100:1 with us being the 1 so I imagine we did not do too bad now.
Click to expand...

and the 100 being mostly civillians
 
From The Daily Kos.

have a friend who is an LSO on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of Hormuz. (LSO: Landing Signal Officer- she directs carrier aircraft while landing) She told me we are going to attack Iran. She said that all the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished. That means that all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth.

I asked her why she is telling me this.

Her answer was really amazing.
Click to expand...

I have seen more than one senior commander disappear and then three weeks later we find out that he has been replaced. That’s really weird. It’s also really weird because everyone who has disappeared has questioned whether or not we should be staging a massive attack on Iran."
Click to expand...

..

Keep in mind that most of the people I serve with are happy to be a part of the global war on terror. It’s just that the touch points are what we see since we are the ones out here who are supposedly implementing this grand strategy. But when you liason with administration officials who don’t know that Iranians don’t speak Arabic and have no idea what Iranians live like, then you start having second thoughts about whether these Administration officials are even competent."
Click to expand...

..
"I don’t think it’s limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning every damn Tomahawk we have in inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden, like thousands of targets. I believe that no American will know when it happens until after it happens. And whatever the consequences, whatever the consequences, they will have to be lived with.

..

She left by telling me that she believes the attack is a done deal. "It’s only a matter of time before their orders come and they will be sent to station and told to go to Red Alert. She said they were already practicing traps, FARP and FAST." (Trapping is the act of catching the tension wires when landing on the carrier, FARP is Fleet Air Combat Maneuvering Readiness Program- practice dogfighting- and FAST is Fleet Air Superiority Training).
Click to expand...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/1/183018/1527

Whether or not the order is finally given, it seems preparations continue apace.
 
TAE:Beirut being bombed." Nope, that was due to the basic strategy of compromising and/or neutralisiung national infrastructure so that it could not be used against us.

"To get soldiers back." Nope. We did launch an operation shortly after that Hezbollah attack but it was unsuccessful and ended less than 5 hours after commencement. The war was of a different rationale. We had ignored the 4.5 months of daily 122 mm shelling but when our border was crossed and citizens murdered, we had no choice but to neutralise the threat.

"Was govt.lying?" No, the Guardian was. Actually, our govt. was commenting there before the war had even begun. It was commenting on the op I just mentioned.

Deareg: Nope, militants. Of course, since militants almost always wear street attire you might find it difficult to ascertain the nuance but we do not.

Newharper: Sorry, but that article is nonsense. The last thing Bush and co. want is to open another theater just before the Republicans struggle through an election.
 
what happens if the US attack iran?

rachamim18 said:
Newharper: Sorry, but that article is nonsense. The last thing Bush and co. want is to open another theater just before the Republicans struggle through an election.
Click to expand...

and you are in a better position to judge this, being smacked out of your tiny mind in the philippines, why exactly?

anyway

the question i wanted to ask is what do people think the consequences of an attack on iran would be ?

surely the price of oil would rocket and iran would find a way of hitting back at US or it friends ......
would the saudis support it?
could the saudis support it given the royal familys already low standing ?

any thoughts or links welcome , ta :)
 
disownedspirit said:
the question i wanted to ask is what do people think the consequences of an attack on iran would be ?
Click to expand...
it would be a fiasco just like Iraq except 10 times worse.
 
rachamim18 said:
Right-o. Our primary objective was to push Hez back 15 klicks. We pushed them back to Alawi instead. The kill ratio was 100:1 with us being the 1 so I imagine we did not do too bad now.
Click to expand...

You're not supposed to use the US system of body counts where every corpse is listed as a potential enemy combatant. Even so, assessing fulfillment of strategic aims by the means you have is meaningless; the body count means nothing and the territorial impingement is non-permanent.

In other words, you're trying to gild a turd.
 
rachamim18 said:
The war was of a different rationale. We had ignored the 4.5 months of daily 122 mm shelling but when our border was crossed and citizens murdered, we had no choice but to neutralise the threat.
Click to expand...

In the year preceding the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, there seems to have been only one rocket attack (3 small Qassam rockets, I think, in late December 2005) on Northern Israel (no casualties, only slight structural damage to one house), which the Israelis blamed on a Palestinian group in Lebanon, not Hizbollah. So the only justification for the invasion was the taking prisoner of 2 Israeli soldiers and the killing of 8 others, which the Lebanese maintain had crossed into Lebanon anyway. And, from the start, these prisoners were offered in exchange for Lebanese prisoners.
 
Disowned: Why do you find it neccessary to attack people personally? Is not your position based in facts? I happen to know this not because i lived in that nation for many years, but because it is pure common sense. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is highly devisive and Democrats are running on a withdrawal platofrm. For the Republican president to open another door before even geting one fot he opther 2 closed is non-sensical. So utterly simple really.


The Saudis are praying for a Western attack on Iran because they count on the West winning and they have a Shia insurrection of their own bogging them down. Iran has been meddling with the monarchy since 79.

Panda: " A turd..." Except that since we pulled out not a single Hezbolli attack has plagvued us so I would wager, that despite your snide attitude, we have accomplished our Objective.

Coccinelle: First, Qassams come from Gaza, not Lebanon. Missiles from Lebanon are 122 mm or larger, Grads aka Katyushas. Second, even HRW has fully reprted the 4.5 month barrage and noone in their right mind will accuse HRW of being pro-Israel.

the war began in July 06, count back 4.5 months and review the data.
 
rachamim18 said:
Right-o. Our primary objective was to push Hez back 15 klicks. We pushed them back to Alawi instead. The kill ratio was 100:1 with us being the 1 so I imagine we did not do too bad now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and 99 to 97 being Lebanese civs.
 
newharper said:
From The Daily Kos.





..



..

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/1/183018/1527

Whether or not the order is finally given, it seems preparations continue apace.
Click to expand...

And interesting demolishion of that article

Something there is among certain elements of the left that gets weak kneed at the notion of Bu$hitler’s legions of myrmidons finally coming to their senses and Flipping On The Man. It serves to explain how the New Republic fell for the Scott Thomas Beauchamp diaries, and perhaps explains the tone of breathless, schoolyard tattletaling in this dKos diary entry. Whoever the diarist’s correspondent is, s/he clearly knows a bit of the inside lingo but still manages to get details glaringly wrong in a way that coincidentally serves to reinforce the Kossacks’ prejudices, garnering over a thousand comments when I first looked in this morning.

It’s not that there’s any one thing wrong in the post, which purports to tell the inside story of an upcoming US naval attack on Iran, but rather the accumulation of many, many little things that aren’t quite right:
Click to expand...

Link here http://www.neptunuslex.com/ scroll down to Hoisting the Flag.
 
rachamim18 said:
Do not believe the hype. Bush is not trying to iniate a conflict right before he leaves office. The Republicans would be devestated. However, should Israel engage Iran, I imagine he would drum up significant support, as long as America is not caught iniating it.
Click to expand...

No, but he's creating the conditions in which a war with Iran could happen. The next one will get saddled with that burden.
 
Call me naive, but I cannot imagine any US Prez kicking off with Iran in the forseebale future

It would be electoral suicide.

Even with our jaundiced view of the Bush admin/ Neo cons/ blah blah blah / - Its not going to happen Im sure

Even the DPRK has been taken off the list of Axis Of Evil - by negotiation and diplomacy - a lesson ?
 
zoltan69 said:
Call me naive, but I cannot imagine any US Prez kicking off with Iran in the forseebale future

It would be electoral suicide.
Click to expand...

Would also mean sky-rocketing oil prices, etc...
 
Originally Posted by rachamim18
Right-o. Our primary objective was to push Hez back 15 klicks. We pushed them back to Alawi instead. The kill ratio was 100:1 with us being the 1 so I imagine we did not do too bad now.
Click to expand...

"A year ago Sharon appointed a new Chief of Staff. Two candidates competed for the job. A ground forces commander who served as C.O. of the North - and a former airforce commander. Everyone expected the ground forces commander to get the job.

Sharon chose the airforce commander.

Never before did a commander of the air force serve as Chief of IDF. This guy (Dan Halutz) is an arrogant character who considers himself a military genius. He concluded from the US victory over Miloshevitz - achieved by "smart bombs" fired from aircraft at a distance, that all future wars will be won by this technique. So he ignored the infantry.

Olmert (unlike Sharon and Rabin) has no military experience. He told Halutz - destroy all Hizballah rocket launchers, and hit their living quarters in Beirut. After 24 hours bombing - when the IDF airforce destroyed some long range missile launchers, Halutz tells Olmert: "The war is over, we've won".

Next day - and for another 32 days - a regular rain of 150 rockets falls daily on the north of Israel paralyzing the entire region. Where do they come from? .. from caves that have been fitted out as bunkers, hidden by the vegetation, rocks, hills.

Halutzx keeps bombing Beirut but the Hizballah short range rocket launchers are close to the Israeli border, sometimes 200 yards away, so the rockets keep falling. Halutz has no idea what to do. He asks the C.O. of the north who says - we must enter with infantry and armor. But both have been neglected for a year owing to the belief that future wars will be won by airforce alone. So when they finally enter Lebanon the logistics are a disaster. No food for soldiiers. No ammunition for tanks. etc.

The tanks lack defence against modern anti-tank missiles because of budget cuts and get hit like sitting ducks. Halutz order the CO of the north: "Conquer Bint-Jebayel !"

The CO replies (all leaked to the press...) "Please define 'Conquer' Bin-Jebayel has 5000 houses, do you want me to enter every house and kill the inhabitants? ". No reply from Halutz.

Instead Halutz sends his deputy, a ground force commander to the north 'to oversee'.

The new guy accepts the view of the guy he has to oversee...

Hisballah is not an army but an underground, like the Haganah, Stern gang or the Irgun. The old timers laugh their head off wishing the RAF were sent to bomb T-A to get them. Peres said to the press : "you can't chase a teenager wearing plimsolls, with an F-16".

But that's exactly what Halutz tried to do.

No wonder Israel got a bloody nose. Now thousands of reservists who served in Lebanon demonstrate non-stop in Jerusalem opposite Olmert's offices with signs saying "Olmert-Peretz-Halutz go home immediately" Most Israelis agree.
Click to expand...
source
 
Nino: "creating conditions for war." Well, I guess that is fair enough but I am not so sure it would make sense. Look, if Israel attafcks I am sure Bush would be quite happy and might even add his 2 cents to it but in lieu of that i just do not see it. He knows anything he sets up will dissipate the minute he moves out of the Whitehouse. Not even his party wants to touch that pile with a ten foot pole.

Smokedout: Actually, at its height, only less than a hundred soldiers protested and it was not outside his office but in the Rose Garden which is a traffic barrier opposite the K'nesset building. Know what they were sore about? They were pissed because they did not get to kill enough Hezbolli or AMAL. Most Reservists outside of my battalion abd Golani Brigade sat on their haunches or in biouvaced houses in empty Shia villages after Armour outpaced them.

Some were inlucky enough to take hits in those houses and saw mates die. It was frustrating even for Active Duty, like the Paratroopers who coptered into Beka'a and had just jump0ed down only to have Olmert's man immediately pressure their CO back to the border.

The military wanted a clean and precise op with predominantly air ops and that is impossible in a heavily nmon-combatant area.

As for the article, it is written by a moron. War101 is to neutralise Infrastructure. Every IDF Command Sgt. knows this within 2 weks of entering Command School. It is utterly basic. Beirut was not targetted because of our inability to stroke at launchers, all you have to do is go to Youtube to see how many we did take out, despite them being ensconced in civilain apt. buildings. Beirut of course is home to Hezbollah HQ and is home to paramount Shikh Nasrallah. It is also where the nation's main port and airport are, as well as its communications and media array. All those elements of infrastructure had to be taken down.

As I said, thousands never marched, maybe in Peace for Galilee but not this time.

Disowned: CIA man? Because he says so? Sure...No wonder you believe your positon. Cute. Scroll up and see how others agree.
 
The Ayn Rand Institute may be one step short of the Lyndon Larouche nutjobs in the right-of-sensible league - but they're getting in early with the media campaign.

The following was sent to letters editors last week. It's not on www. aynrand. org

Ayn Rand Institute said:
Sent: 28 August 2007 22:40
To: [email protected]
Subject: Not Attacking Iran Would Be Catastrophic

www. aynrand. org

Dear Editor:

French president Nicolas Sarkozy said that attacking Iran over its refusal to abandon its nuclear program would be "catastrophic."

Quite to the contrary, an attack on Iran that destroyed its nuclear program and regime is long overdue. The purpose of such a strike would be to end the mounting threat from Iran, which has been waging war on the West for decades, and is now seeking even more powerful weapons. Retaliating against Iran doesn't mean embarking on an Iraq-like crusade to bring the vote to Iranians; instead, it means using military force to make the regime non-threatening--for the sake of defending American lives.

Diplomatic attempts to persuade Iran to give up its quest for nuclear bombs have been going on for years, and produced no results other than to buy time for Iran's nuclear program and confer on that hostile and tyrannical regime unearned legitimacy as a peace-seeking nation. Iran's leaders are committed to a global Jihad against Western civilization; no negotiations are possible with those who seek its destruction. The West's only moral choice is to defend itself from this deadly threat.

Given Iran's murderous goals and its feverish pursuit of the weapons to achieve them, not attacking Iran would be immoral, and truly catastrophic.

David Holcberg
Ayn Rand Institute
Irvine, CA
2121 Alton Parkway #250
949-433-6867


Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

If you plan to use this letter, please let us know. Thank you.

ARI's letters to the editor are solicitations sent to addresses obtained from commercially available databases and from Web sites that have an apparent interest in publication material.

You are subscribed as [email protected]. If you prefer not to receive letters to the editor, visit our Web site to change your email preferences.

The Ayn Rand Institute, 2121 Alton Pkwy, Ste 250, Irvine, CA 92606
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dom Traynor
Bong Bong's time is up. Anti corruption hearings and protests in the Phillipines.
Replies
0
Views
202
Dom Traynor
Dom Traynor
Jeff Robinson
RIP Assata Shakur (July 16, 1947 – September 25, 2025)
Replies
8
Views
384
Nigel
Nigel
breadandcircuse
Media Watch
2 3
Replies
61
Views
1K
breadandcircuse
breadandcircuse
breadandcircuse
Should the upcoming sporting events in the US be moved to another country?
2
Replies
48
Views
1K
isvicthere?
isvicthere?
editor
  • Poll Poll
Merging Hamas/Israel conflict and West Bank Front threads?
Replies
23
Views
706
freshapple
F
Back
Top Bottom