BF2S Forums US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

Commie Killer wrote:

Ridir wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

We have plans for EVERY nation on Earth, for almost every possibility.

This is what we pay Colonels for.  They sit in the Pentagon and think up every single possible thing that can come up.  They devise a plan, send it around for peer review and it gets filed away.  They watch CNN and BBC and see something else come up, start making new plans.

When they're not commanding a regiment(most common job for a Colonel).

Did I say all? Did I say the ones not posted in the Pentagon? hmmm... I don't think so.  Trust me I know what most do, but when you get a handful of them at West Point, Naval Academy, and Air Force Academy, along with the Pentagon you've got enough to draw up these plans.

It helps to think outside the box.

CameronPoe wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

GATOR591957 wrote:

Plans for the invasion of Iraq were 13 years in the making by the finest military analysts in the country.  Look what they did with that.  Rumsfeld scrapped it for his plan.

Iraq was a military victory in terms of combat operations.

Yeah victory has continued into its third year so I believe.

Well we did whip their military in record time, I.E. Victory, but the insurgency is a horse of a different color

Varegg wrote:

So we can divide up the Iraq conflict into two halves, the victory and the .... ??  ... that other thing we`re not so good at ....

Are you not able to perceive the difference between combat operations and an occupation? It is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Iraq was a military victory in terms of combat operations.

Yeah victory has continued into its third year so I believe.

Now it becomes evident that my previous description of the "internet liberals" here is 100% correct.

Kmarion wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Iraq was a military victory in terms of combat operations. We utterly decimated what was left of the Republican Guard. It is the occupation that has failed. A conflict with Iran won't involve an occupying force. We'll go in, destroy what we want to, and then leave. Iran will do nothing. If they do try something, it's game over for them. Measuring the US's ability to wage war based on a failed occupation is foolish.

Sadly there are a number of people who do not understand this. Iraq was a military victory (In record time). The problem is the military should never be put in a position of nation building. The soldiers did their job masterfully, but we can't blame them for a policy that was unable to realize the unwillingness for Iraqi's to accept change or anticipate their desire to kill each other based on different takes on Islam.

Well forgive me if I don't accept your definition of victory! The Republican Guard walked wholesale into your arms waving white flags, they hardly bothered to fight - that was not the war, the US is now fighting the war and it looks like they're losing, with one last throw of the dice left in them... The victory you talk of is meaningless. It's a case of 'so fucking what?'. What good did it do you? Fuck all. Few hearts, few minds, no cessation of violence in Iraq. Military action is undertaken for political aims - if you don't meet the political aims then your campaign failed.

Semantics, meh.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-02-20 16:03:42)

Bubbalo wrote:

Making attack plans is different to planning an attack.

It's not though. 

If the police raided someone's house and found bomb making equipment, target locations and a note that says "bomb Parliament if they they piss me off" then they would, to all intents and purposes, be planning an attack.  Especially if the preconditions are pretty much a certainty, and one of them is even permitted under international law and is being conducted with the backing of a veto-weilding UN member.  It's a further example of the US merely paying lipservice to the UN, in the belief that they have outgrown the need for it.  They don't value the wishes of the other veto-weilding members any more.  That's the trouble with absolute power....



Incidentally, it's interesting that they leak information implying that the highest levels of government in Iran are supplying "material support", weapons, agents and tactics which are killing US troops, then a week or so later leak information saying that they plan to attack if Iran is proved directly responsible for the attacks on American troops.  But deny both.  It seems like media manipulation with the subtlety of a sledgehammer to me. 



And as has been mentioned earlier, it certainly does keep options open; all it takes is a minute shift in wording to include an attack not just if the government of Iran is directly responsible, but if the government in Iran fails to stop "material support" and weaponry from crossing the border.   An simple flex in interpretation of the phrase "directly responsible" and Bush should have squeezed enough justification from the ambigious semantics of the recent leaked info to attack without seeking UN approval first.

UON wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Making attack plans is different to planning an attack.

It's not though. 

If the police raided someone's house and found bomb making equipment, target locations and a note that says "bomb Parliament if they they piss me off" then they would, to all intents and purposes, be planning an attack.  Especially if the preconditions are pretty much a certainty, and one of them is even permitted under international law and is being conducted with the backing of a veto-weilding UN member.  It's a further example of the US merely paying lipservice to the UN, in the belief that they have outgrown the need for it.  They don't value the wishes of the other veto-weilding members any more.  That's the trouble with absolute power....



Incidentally, it's interesting that they leak information implying that the highest levels of government in Iran are supplying "material support", weapons, agents and tactics which are killing US troops, then a week or so later leak information saying that they plan to attack if Iran is proved directly responsible for the attacks on American troops.  But deny both.  It seems like media manipulation with the subtlety of a sledgehammer to me. 



And as has been mentioned earlier, it certainly does keep options open; all it takes is a minute shift in wording to include an attack not just if the government of Iran is directly responsible, but if the government in Iran fails to stop "material support" and weaponry from crossing the border.   An simple flex in interpretation of the phrase "directly responsible" and Bush should have squeezed enough justification from the ambigious semantics of the recent leaked info to attack without seeking UN approval first.

We almost certainly have plans to invade every country in the world (every major one at least) and I'm sure most nations do also. I'm sure Iran even has plans on war with Israel and the United States. Besides, it's not like these plans were just drafted yesterday; ever since Iran turned crazy we've probably had attack plans that have only been updated as the years go by. There is no secret ulterior motive to this; it's simply a valuable contingency plan.

usmarine2007 wrote:

Erm..... We had plans for invading Russia and never did.

It is the Pentagon's job to be prepared for all scenarios. By UON's reasoning any military exercise would be considered an act of war.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-20 17:03:46)

UON wrote:

UGADawgs wrote:

We almost certainly have plans to invade every country in the world (every major one at least) and I'm sure most nations do also. I'm sure Iran even has plans on war with Israel and the United States. Besides, it's not like these plans were just drafted yesterday; ever since Iran turned crazy we've probably had attack plans that have only been updated as the years go by. There is no secret ulterior motive to this; it's simply a valuable contingency plan.

No, a contingency plan is something which could happen, but which isn't anticipated.  Iran is building nuclear weapons within UN law and with the backing of Russia.  It's a pretty much a certainty now.  So it's technically it's not a contingency plan, it's a action plan.  It's an ultimatum.

Kmarion wrote:

It is the Pentagon's job to be prepared for all scenarios. By UON's reasoning any military exercise would be considered an act of war.

Or not.  A defensive plan is not the same as an offensive plan.  I have nothing against defensive planning.

If there were Iranian documents leaked which specifically states that they plan to launch large scale rocket attacks on Camp Victory should America still be in Iraq in 3 months time, then that wouldn't be considered an attack plan?

It's called a counter offensive. As far as we know we have no idea under what circumstances such a plan would go into place (Say Iran attacks Israel).

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-20 17:20:47)

CameronPoe wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Yeah victory has continued into its third year so I believe.

Now it becomes evident that my previous description of the "internet liberals" here is 100% correct.

Kmarion wrote:

Sadly there are a number of people who do not understand this. Iraq was a military victory (In record time). The problem is the military should never be put in a position of nation building. The soldiers did their job masterfully, but we can't blame them for a policy that was unable to realize the unwillingness for Iraqi's to accept change or anticipate their desire to kill each other based on different takes on Islam.

Well forgive me if I don't accept your definition of victory! The Republican Guard walked wholesale into your arms waving white flags, they hardly bothered to fight - that was not the war, the US is now fighting the war and it looks like they're losing, with one last throw of the dice left in them... The victory you talk of is meaningless. It's a case of 'so fucking what?'. What good did it do you? Fuck all. Few hearts, few minds, no cessation of violence in Iraq. Military action is undertaken for political aims - if you don't meet the political aims then your campaign failed.

Semantics, meh.

I was debating the effectiveness of the Military. Do you think the Iraqi's would have walked out waiving white flags to the Kuwaitis? They surrendered for a reason, they did not stand a chance. Wasn't the stated political aim to ensure there were no WMD's? Mission accomplished..lol.

Based on intelligence filtered by Bush.

I of course was speaking in terms of technicalities since Cam decided to go down that road. Are there failures in Iraq? You better believe it. The most obvious being the lack of an overwhelming presence at the beginning of the occupation. For more on the fundamentals of occupation I have stated them here . http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 7#p1192567

Bubbalo wrote:

Based on intelligence filtered by Bush.

Filter this please http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page275.asp

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-20 17:45:22)

usmarine2007 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Based on intelligence filtered by Bush.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
   
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

As ATG has proven in another thread, Berger is a lying sack of shit.