"Three-Day Blitz" plan for Iran

[gipper]

This type of discussion is degenerating here much because of Perspective's arrival. While I always hold back (or almost always) from a full embrace of Crane's mindset, it is clear to me that the "perspective" he offers is extremely beneficial, heuristic, if slightly off the big payday. These views MUST be taken seriously. Rampant corporatism is about in this land, though perhaps not in the cartoonish hues that Crane paints it. Honor is certainly not dead among our military, though "perspective," of necessity, may be. Specifically addressing Iran, I have been trying to tease out discussion on what would be worse: an immediate cataclysm or the long, wearing and dangerous slog of a new Cold War. That is how the issue is shaping up. Regarding Iran, stripped of cowboys and corporatists, we (the US) have three fundamental interests, in my view: 1) aiding in the protection of Israel; 2) assuring a continued flow of affordable Gulf oil for as long as we need it; and 3) stanching any atrerial gush of terrorism originating there. As to the third, keeping a relatively peaceful stance between sunnis and Shiites, perhaps on the verge of a violent schism, more exaggerated than heretofore, which could roil the region, upset our just-listed interests and lead, perhaps, to a general world belligerency. In analyzing such problems, I heed Crane's viewpoint just about every time, as a helpful "perspective," but reject out-of-hand the mindless cro-magnon blather of the one who proclaims his "Perspective."

[BT]

As well intentioned as that sounds, I'm liking the voluntary component to it, providing the military with individuals who are compelled to serve their country because it's a duty & honor to them, regardless of how low some people think they hang.  The alternative is likely how Sowell describes it, an infusion of folks who have not just no desire, but no discipline, and a current litigation mentality that permeates our society

The lack of desire, discipline and positive mindset would be gone by the third day of bootcamp.

Not at the behest of the drill sergeant, no the pressure comes from your peers.

Adapt.

And the draftees should drawn from the pool via lottery. Male and female alike. '

[Xavier_Onassis]

I suggest that the draft, along with the constant wars that this country feels obliged to get itself into, does not make men out of boys. That is what we have the boy scouts for. I am an Eagle Scout, as well as a Silver Badge Explorer.

If you give fools like Cheney and Rummy a big army, they are sure to deliver a big and endless war. But in adition to this, the draft is a major factor that explains why we have so many homicidal maniacs in the US, and so many gun crimes.


Macho idiots are a lot more dangerous when you teach them how to shoot a gun. I suggest that macho idiots are not needed in any country.

[BT]

But in adition to this, the draft is a major factor that explains why we have so many homicidal maniacs in the US, and so many gun crimes.

I think you made that up.

[sirs]

I'm going to have to disagree with Sowell on this. I think it would be good for the military and it would be good for the citizens.

As well intentioned as that sounds, I'm liking the voluntary component to it, providing the military with individuals who are compelled to serve their country because it's a duty & honor to them, regardless of how low some people think they hang.  The alternative is likely how Sowell describes it, an infusion of folks who have not just no desire, but no discipline, and a current litigation mentality that permeates our society

Duty and honor?  LMAO  In my opinion, getting your ass blown off for Halliburton imperialism is singularly without honor.

Well, considering the folks enlisted, did so to defend this country, how and where it's CnC indicates they need to, and considering the re-enlistement #'s KEEP getting their goals reached, tends to tell me that that their actions speak volumes louder than your OPINIONATED words, Crane

[Michael Tee]

I assume the article at the top of this thread is what used to be called "sabre-rattling" and it's kind of pathetic in a way - - that the U.S. government's credibility has fallen so low that it has to resort to "leaked" plans, easily denied if need be (and even denied here in this forum) but intended somehow to cow the Iranian government.  That the "threats" of a "three-day" and "massive" air strike, issuing from a government which in four years and an expenditure of half a trillion bucks cannot subdue a nation of 23 million people in a land-AND-air campaign, are going to impress a nation of 70 million people is somehow ludicrous.  As if all U.S. bases in Iraq weren't already targeted by Iranian missiles and probably ground forces as well!  LMFAO.

But, OTOH, there is certainly enough hubris in the Bush administration that the attack is always a possibility.  They are certainly stupid enough and/or crazy enough to be capable of trying.  As no fan of either the Iranian or American military, I don't see that a massive amount of bloodletting on both sides will work out to any huge tragedy for the human race.  The Iranian regime has been getting away with torture and murder for decades now, the Bush administration equally so, albeit in a shorter time frame, and with the added war crime to pay for of planning and waging a war of unjustified aggression.  As your Glorious Leader has said, "Bring it on!"  This should be fun to watch, in the unlikely event that it's NOT some sophomoric empty threat.

[Plane]

I assume the article at the top of this thread is what used to be called "sabre-rattling" and it's kind of pathetic in a way - - that the U.S. government's credibility has fallen so low that it has to resort to "leaked" plans, easily denied if need be (and even denied here in this forum) but intended somehow to cow the Iranian government.  That the "threats" of a "three-day" and "massive" air strike, issuing from a government which in four years and an expenditure of half a trillion bucks cannot subdue a nation of 23 million people in a land-AND-air campaign, are going to impress a nation of 70 million people is somehow ludicrous.  As if all U.S. bases in Iraq weren't already targeted by Iranian missiles and probably ground forces as well!  LMFAO.

But, OTOH, there is certainly enough hubris in the Bush administration that the attack is always a possibility.  They are certainly stupid enough and/or crazy enough to be capable of trying.  As no fan of either the Iranian or American military, I don't see that a massive amount of bloodletting on both sides will work out to any huge tragedy for the human race.  The Iranian regime has been getting away with torture and murder for decades now, the Bush administration equally so, albeit in a shorter time frame, and with the added war crime to pay for of planning and waging a war of unjustified aggression.  As your Glorious Leader has said, "Bring it on!"  This should be fun to watch, in the unlikely event that it's NOT some sophomoric empty threat.

So who do you think "leaked" this plan?

Assumeing that is that it is real in the first place , a large assumption.

Who is supposed to be benefiting?

[Michael Tee]

<<So who do you thin "leaked" this plan?>>

Could be anybody or nobody, but the likeliest assumption is that it's a leak, and that someone in the Bush admin close to the top would have leaked it through somebody a little lower down.

<<Assumeing that is that it is real in the first place , a large assumption.>>

It could be very well real as a "contingency plan."

<<Who is supposed to be benefiting?>>

Theoretically, the U.S. if they're really concerned about Iranian nukes.  The hope would be that Iran would be more anxious to avoid fucking with the U.S. knowing they're ready to go to war, and consent to more stringent restrictions and inspections.  Of course, if the U.S. doesn't really give a shit about Iran's nuclear program and just wants an excuse to get the oil, there are more subtle benefits to leaking the plan:
1.  They can say the leak was a deliberate signal to Iran but by ignoring it, Iran left them no alternative but invasion or bombing;
2.  Simply to prepare the American people (in conjunction with other "leaked" indications of war) that war is in the cards, just so it won't come as a big surprise, so  people get into a "wartime mode" of thinking, become more malleable.

[BT]

Theoretically, the U.S. if they're really concerned about Iranian nukes.  The hope would be that Iran would be more anxious to avoid fucking with the U.S. knowing they're ready to go to war, and consent to more stringent restrictions and inspections.  Of course, if the U.S. doesn't really give a shit about Iran's nuclear program and just wants an excuse to get the oil, there are more subtle benefits to leaking the plan:
1.  They can say the leak was a deliberate signal to Iran but by ignoring it, Iran left them no alternative but invasion or bombing;
2.  Simply to prepare the American people (in conjunction with other "leaked" indications of war) that war is in the cards, just so it won't come as a big surprise, so  people get into a "wartime mode" of thinking, become more malleable.

Then again, it could be that other forces are at play.

Remarks taken (possibly out of context) from some low echelon spokesman, from a low echelon Nixon Center are used to portray the Bush Administration as hell bent on aggressive war against Iran. And that might be used as a rallying cry for the anti-warriors.

My best guess is it is a perfectly legitimate contingency plan, leaked and spun by various people to various ends.

 

[Mr_Perceptive]

Yellow Crane: "Only a fool these days could believe he has a duty to die for corporatism and its craven imperialism.

To serve 'proudly' in America's military today is merely to hang a tag on oneself which exclaims:  "I am vain  and clueless."  People of real character would shudder at the thought of actually murdering innocent Iraqi's in order to cap their oil reserves."

You die for your Nation, regardless who is in charge. You serve, and perhaps die, not because Bill Clinton or George W. Bush is in charge, but because it is your duty as defined when you signed up, willingly or not.

You die, if need be, because you are thus honor-bound to do so. Hopefully, this is not necessary but if it is, then there it is. You dishonor the deceased and disabled servicemen and women. I spit on you, Yellow Crane, with a yellow back.

You serve because it is not only a responsibility but an Honor to do so. You welcome the opportunity to serve. I put in over twenty years doing so and would make the same decision again. I, and many others, including some in this Forum, helped saved your cowardly yellow back and would do so again. I was and am Proud to do my part. What part do you play, O Armchair Quarterback? O oozer of slime..

Sounds like yet another pansy draft-dodger to me. Only REAL men and women need apply here.

[Michael Tee]

<<Then again, it could be that other forces are at play.

<<Remarks taken (possibly out of context) from some low echelon spokesman, from a low echelon Nixon Center are used to portray the Bush Administration as hell bent on aggressive war against Iran. And that might be used as a rallying cry for the anti-warriors.>>

Bottom line at this point is it could be anything.  I went with what I thought was likeliest, given the history of this administration, the number of people with the ability to leak (or fabricate!) and the percentage of those people likely to be conservative, pro-administraton and/or pro-war versus the percentage likely to be liberal, anti-administration and/or anti-war.

[Michael Tee]

<<You die for your Nation, regardless who is in charge. You serve, and perhaps die, not because Bill Clinton or George W. Bush is in charge, but because it is your duty as defined when you signed up, willingly or not.>>

Are you saying that (as a soldier) you would obey any order from your duly elected Commander in Chief or his lawful delegates?  Or that up until now, no orders have been given that you know of that you would refuse to obey for reasons of conscience?

[Mr_Perceptive]

Or it could be that the Administraiton is simply trying to "corral" the Iranians, e.g. slow their efforts down. That could be the reason for the leaks.

It is not clear to me this is effective, but, as you have noticed, diplomacy is NOT my forte, O Man of Canada.

BTW, I've been to your country several times, in Labrador, the Westenr provinces and Greenland and took a train ride from Vancouver east a few years ago with the wife. Can't remember where it ended in the east. Nice people. Train ran on time, unlike many down here.

Beautiful country. Ended up purchasing a small cabin in the West for hunting purposes. I go hunting up there couple times a year with some buddies of mine and a couple RCMP.

[Mr_Perceptive]

<<You die for your Nation, regardless who is in charge. You serve, and perhaps die, not because Bill Clinton or George W. Bush is in charge, but because it is your duty as defined when you signed up, willingly or not.>>

Are you saying that (as a soldier) you would obey any order from your duly elected Commander in Chief or his lawful delegates?  Or that up until now, no orders have been given that you know of that you would refuse to obey for reasons of conscience?

Of course. Stupid question. The only exception being the killing of innocents. Never had to make that distinction, fortunately.

I take protection of innocents as one of the traits a Man simply must maintain. Not only protection but old-fashioned chivalry. Been married for over thirty years now. Never once that I can think of, did my wife have to open her own car door or any other door for that matter if I was around. Whatever she said regarding the Home is Gospel, regardless whether I agreed or not, same with the kids. Three of them are in the Corps, one is a U.S. Representative. The girl is a Deputy something-or-other Secretary of State. Proud of all of 'em!

Never took any guff form 'em, either. They rarely offered any. Won't take it from anyone. Stood by my bride during cancer surgery and five births, one I delivered myself in the back of the minivan. Damn breech, too!

I treated all noncombatant women and children the same way. With RESPECT.

[Michael Tee]

What did you think of the bombing of Falluja and the use of white phosphorus in populated civilian areas?