Iran?

[Kathianne]

I find this unlikely, but I read Stratfor and sure enough the movements are there:

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/05/fleet-positions-itself-for-war.html


Wednesday, May 7, 2008
The Fleet Positions Itself For War

We believe the only successful exit strategy from Iraq travels a road through Iran. In general we subscribe to a theory put forth by Stratfor that events will build up towards the brink of war before a peaceful resolution is possible. We don't necessarily believe that is how it has to be, rather we believe that is how our current leadership believes it has to be. Part of that strategy includes the buildup of rhetoric, the shuffling of resources, and the preparation in Iraq for a military action against Iran. We observe these events taking place. Much thanks to Yankee Sailor for his collections regarding the developing time line.
...

[Sertes]

I find this unlikely, but I read Stratfor and sure enough the movements are there:

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/05/fleet-positions-itself-for-war.html

Now they only need an excuse to attack Iran, it's not like they could push again 935 lies like they did with Iraq. They need something considerable happening within this summer that they can blame on Iran, else the next administration could even consider the possiblity to settle international affairs with diplomacy (oh! scary thought!!)

[mundame]

I find this unlikely, but I read Stratfor and sure enough the movements are there:
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Wednesday, May 7, 2008
The Fleet Positions Itself For War

We believe the only successful exit strategy from Iraq travels a road through Iran. In general we subscribe to a theory put forth by Stratfor that events will build up towards the brink of war before a peaceful resolution is possible. We don't necessarily believe that is how it has to be, rather we believe that is how our current leadership believes it has to be. Part of that strategy includes the buildup of rhetoric, the shuffling of resources, and the preparation in Iraq for a military action against Iran. We observe these events taking place. Much thanks to Yankee Sailor for his collections regarding the developing time line.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Huh! I subscribe to Stratfor too, Kathianne, but I haven't been reading it lately. Your thread encourages me to start up again. I agree with the piece you quoted, it does look like that is going on.

[Gaffer]

Taking out sadrs militia will be the first step. Then and increase in troop deployment to iraq that is not reported in the media. We already have three carrier groups in the region and two assault groups. Look for French and British groups going in too. They each have one there now that I am aware of. Another point to watch is afgan. Increases in troops there will signal something too.

The four British civilians kidnapped in iraq a while ago are being held in iran. That may be the stimulus needed.

Taking down iran will be a major blow to every terror organization in the world. They supply most of the funding, material and training to all the organizations. The US and it's allies are just looking for an excuse. I'm confident iran will provide it in the near future.

[Dilloduck]

Taking out sadrs militia will be the first step. Then and increase in troop deployment to iraq that is not reported in the media. We already have three carrier groups in the region and two assault groups. Look for French and British groups going in too. They each have one there now that I am aware of. Another point to watch is afgan. Increases in troops there will signal something too.

The four British civilians kidnapped in iraq a while ago are being held in iran. That may be the stimulus needed.

Taking down iran will be a major blow to every terror organization in the world. They supply most of the funding, material and training to all the organizations. The US and it's allies are just looking for an excuse. I'm confident iran will provide it in the near future.

I don't see it as an excuse. It has to be sold as a justifiable attack . Good luck to whoever has to try to sell this one.

[mundame]

Taking out sadrs militia will be the first step. Then and increase in troop deployment to iraq that is not reported in the media. We already have three carrier groups in the region and two assault groups. Look for French and British groups going in too. They each have one there now that I am aware of. Another point to watch is afgan. Increases in troops there will signal something too.

Good points; I'll watch for those.

You realize, Gaffer, that if we DID take Iran, it would be one long battlefield straight across: which would free us up from making nice to Pakistan so we can supply our Afghanistan troops from the sea through Pakistan. Right now they've got our hands tied because Afghanistan is landlocked. If we could supply from the Persian Gulf, that might be better logistics and at least make a Paki war possible.


The four British civilians kidnapped in iraq a while ago are being held in iran. That may be the stimulus needed.

No, surely it has to be an AMERICAN issue. We can't make war for four citizens of some other power.


Taking down iran will be a major blow to every terror organization in the world. They supply most of the funding, material and training to all the organizations. The US and it's allies are just looking for an excuse. I'm confident iran will provide it in the near future.

This Hezbollah civil war in Lebanon starting up again this week is one issue. It is true Iran is causing trouble a lot of places. And we owe them a war; many of us have not forgotten the hostage crisis of 1979.

I have always viewed that as a sort of lost war.

A sharp lesson that we DO support nuclear non-proliferation would be the biggest reason for war, IMO.

However, our military is broken. I know the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said we could do it with only Navy and Air Force, but.......with the recent bad record, I'd say do NOT let Bush get his hands on another war, he's sure to lose it because he's no good at war.

Iran will have to wait for another administration. If McCain gets in, they are in big hairy trouble.

[Gaffer]

I don't think we will be doing anything with pakistan any time soon. But if war comes with iran, then NATO is going to have to shoulder a much bigger burden in afgan then they are doing now.

It's true the Navy and Air Force can shoulder the biggest part of the iran war, but there's going to have to be an invasion of the country as well. I'm sure there will be some hardcore fighting to be done, But from what I have been reading about the general population of iran it won't be anything like what happened in iraq. We will have to occupy it and maintain order and there will be a lot of revenge killings take place there.

The key thing is to prevent the communists from taking over, and there are a lot of them. They were the ones that took down the shah. carter was trying to sell out iran to the russians, but it backfired on all of them.

The general population hates the mullahs and their religious police. Murders and executions take place daily throughout iran.

There won't be a long battle line like the iraq iran war where both sides slug it out. We don't fight that way. What the air power doesn't take out air assaults and fast moving armor will. Static defenses are a thing of the past.

hezbollah is starting to increase their violence levels again, so something is in the works. That is a totally iranian run organization now. I'll be watching my regular sites to see what they discover. A few have inside sources and they often report things the media doesn't.

And I still believe if we go into iran we will find bin laden. Along with a bunch of other high ranking AQ.

In case anyone didn't get the memo, the muslim brotherhood, the sunni grand daddy of all terrorist organizations, has recognized shites as true muslims and declared they can be worked with in combating the great satan, that's us. So they are free to coordinate attacks and supply each other.

[mundame]

I don't think we will be doing anything with pakistan any time soon. But if war comes with iran, then NATO is going to have to shoulder a much bigger burden in afgan then they are doing now.

They don't care, so they won't. We see that now.


It's true the Navy and Air Force can shoulder the biggest part of the iran war, but there's going to have to be an invasion of the country as well.

It's all definitely going to have to wait till a new administration, then --------- or a serious anti-U.S. incident. Men will volunteer if they attack us, of course.



We don't fight that way. What the air power doesn't take out air assaults and fast moving armor will. Static defenses are a thing of the past.

Static defenses are most assuredly what is going on in Iraq --- entrenchments, fortifications, and occasional forays. So static defenses don't work, but we still do them. If we do that in Iran, we'll lose there, too.


hezbollah is starting to increase their violence levels again, so something is in the works. That is a totally iranian run organization now. I'll be watching my regular sites to see what they discover. A few have inside sources and they often report things the media doesn't.

I'm inclined to agree with you. Keep us posted.


And I still believe if we go into iran we will find bin laden. Along with a bunch of other high ranking AQ.

One does wonder. It would make a lot of sense.

[Gaffer]

Static defenses are most assuredly what is going on in Iraq --- entrenchments, fortifications, and occasional forays. So static defenses don't work, but we still do them. If we do that in Iran, we'll lose there, too.

That is what was going on before the surge. Other strategies are also being used, but we are no longer using the static defense. We go out to them. We let the iraqis take the static defense while we move on to the next area.

The iranians are in static defense positions and are expecting to to fight another trench war. The military is always ready to fight the last war doesn't just apply to our military.

How things go in iran is really going to depend on the iranian population.

[mundame]

That is what was going on before the surge. Other strategies are also being used, but we are no longer using the static defense. We go out to them. We let the iraqis take the static defense while we move on to the next area.



I can't agree at all. We are in fortified positions in the heavily shelled Green Zone, the airport, and various encampments in various areas. As we have this entire war, soldiers foray out from these encampments in troop carriers and get blown up remotely by IEDs, over and over and over again without ever meeting the enemy.

Personally, it doesn't seem to me like a good way to win a war, just drive around getting blown up.

Same with Afghanistan. That's why the NATO "forces," ha-ha, aren't fighting. They don't especially see the point of driving around getting blown up, and to some extent, I can't blame them. The Afghans beat Alexander the Great ----------------------- and everyone since. Now they're beating us, that's all. Same old, same old.

If we play out the same, tired, Vietnam quagmire strategies in Iran, we'll just get defeated again.

So I say, let's not. Either stay entirely out (preferred), or do something entirely different. The only real reason to fight Iran is Colin Powell's point: that it has to be in defense of major, serious U.S. interests.

Not just some idiot president's search for a legacy.

[Gaffer]

To explain the surge, it was to bring in additional troops to help in taking and securing areas that we didn't have the man power to do before. It was also to bring the iraqis on board to do their own taking and securing areas. It involved dealing with the local warlords and having them police their neighborhoods. Using all these efforts the US troops moved in, cleared out the AQ cells and established order. They turned the policing and secutiiy over to the iraqis and moved on to the next area following AQ. You can't defeat an enemy by sitting in one place and waiting for him to come to you. It has been very successful.

Now they are concentrating on the other enemy, the mahdi army. They are doing the same to them as they did to the sunni AQ. It's harder to do because so many sadrists are embedded in the iraqi police and military.

As for driving around and getting blown up, that is not what is going on. You have to understand how a combat patrol works. They are going out looking for things. Signs of the enemy or the enemy themselves. They are looking to make contact so they can bring more force to bare. They aren't just randomly driving around. There is very calculated methods employed here designed to flush out the enemy. This sometimes means casualties for our side. The patrols go out to keep the area around the static defense as clear as possible from attackers with indirect fire weapons.

While static positions are necessary they are augmented by the mobile units and constant patrols. We stay always in an offensive mode this way. The iraqi army, the police and the sons of iraq are all playing a part in this too. Except for sadr city they are doing the brunt of the fighting now.

The green zone is being attacked by special groups, which consist of iranians and mahdi army types with training and equipment from iran. Their purpose is to demoralize the US and iraqis. And to get people like you to believe everything is chaos because the green zone isn't safe. These special groups are being targeted and a number of them have been captured along with documents and weapons, all pointing at iran. It's the evidence the iraqi delegates took to iran a few days ago. Our excuse for taking on iran might come from the iraqis.

[mundame]

Using all these efforts the US troops moved in, cleared out the AQ cells and established order.

No. There are constant suicide bombers and assassinations in the Sunni areas now. The situation is steadily deteriorating right now.



The green zone is being attacked by special groups, which consist of iranians and mahdi army types with training and equipment from iran. Their purpose is to demoralize the US and iraqis. And to get people like you to believe everything is chaos because the green zone isn't safe.

You say Iran, but our forces are right now bombing Sadr City, in Baghdad, retaliating for the Green Zone shelling. That's where the mortar fire comes from, not Iran.

Is Iran arming and training insurgents? Well, gee, did supplies and troops come through Laos and Cambodia? Yes, of course. And yes, I'm sure Iran is wading in this war up to its armpits.

But the point of interest to me is that we are losing. The joint chiefs in the Pentagon never supported this Surge nonsense, and they were right. They knew it couldn't win (fighting age male Iraqis outnumber our forces 100 to 1) and it isn't winning and it can't win.

When you say sentences like "US troops moved in, cleared out the AQ cells and established order," but there IS no order, I find that sort of denial of plain data coming in daily very frustrating. It does matter that deaths of us and them are constantly going up now: that means order has NOT been established and it's getting WORSE, not better. Wishing it wasn't so won't change that.

[Gaffer]

No. There are constant suicide bombers and assassinations in the Sunni areas now. The situation is steadily deteriorating right now.

If you only follow what the msm has to report on iraq you will only see doom and gloom. ead what Michael Yon has to say or Black five, Badgers forward, acute politics, iraq the model.


You say Iran, but our forces are right now bombing Sadr City, in Baghdad, retaliating for the Green Zone shelling. That's where the mortar fire comes from, not Iran.

The mortar fire orginated from sadr city. The mortars and mortar tubes originated in iran. As did the rockets, the rocket rails and the training, also IED's. And to top it off many of the operators of these weapons are iranian.


But the point of interest to me is that we are losing. The joint chiefs in the Pentagon never supported this Surge nonsense, and they were right. They knew it couldn't win (fighting age male Iraqis outnumber our forces 100 to 1) and it isn't winning and it can't win.

Could you please point out where the joint chiefs stated that they didn't support the surge. The only people saying it can't work and we can't win are the libs. For their own political purposes.

iraq has a population of 25 million. We have 150,000 troops there. Guess what, we are seriously out numbered. The majority of iraqi's are either on our side or tolerant of us. Our enemies are AQ who are mostly foreigners and the mahdi militia, who are iranian controlled.

Our forces are not being routed or running scared. There is going to be upsurges in fighting, and there will be attacks on our troops. But they are slowly succeeding. There is no more sunni insurgency. They have come over to our side. We won their hearts and minds so to speak. Part 2 is under way, the destruction of the mahdi army.


When you say sentences like "US troops moved in, cleared out the AQ cells and established order," but there IS no order, I find that sort of denial of plain data coming in daily very frustrating. It does matter that deaths of us and them are constantly going up now: that means order has NOT been established and it's getting WORSE, not better. Wishing it wasn't so won't change that.

Like I said, read something besides the bias msm and the leftist blogs. It's not chaos over there. The sunni's turned on AQ and have driven them out. AQ is trying to get revenge by killing innocent people. Even the iraqi sunni's think they are thugs and barbarians. We are not losing large amounts of troops over there. But once in a while the enemy gets lucky and gets one or two. But not as often as you seem to think.

Fighting will escalate either because the enemy is desperate and we are pushing them hard or for political reasons to effect things here like the election. All under the care orchestration of ahmalittlehitler in iran.

[mundame]

The mortar fire orginated from sadr city. The mortars and mortar tubes originated in iran. As did the rockets, the rocket rails and the training, also IED's. And to top it off many of the operators of these weapons are iranian.


I don't think the way to win a problem war is to widen it.

That was tried in Vietnam, widening the war to Cambodia and Laos, and it did not work.

[Gaffer]

Here's some reading about what's going on in iraq right now.

http://www.floppingaces.net/

Tell me again how we are losing.

[Gaffer]

Another bit of information concerning the equipment being sent into iraq from iran.

the second article is good reading too, concerning arabs having nukes.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/