# More reasons to prep quickly and well



## Hip_Shot_Hanna (Apr 2, 2005)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9437

"{If the United States attacks Iran either this summer or this fall, the American people had better be prepared for a shock that may perhaps be even greater to the national psyche (and economy) than 9/11. First of all, there will be significant U.S. casualties in the initial invasion. American jets will be shot down and the American pilots who are not killed will be taken prisoner - including female pilots. Iranian Yakhonts 26, Sunburn 22 and Exocet missiles will seek out and strike U.S. naval battle groups bottled up in the narrow waters of the Persian Gulf with very deadly results. American sailors will be killed and U.S. ships will be badly damaged and perhaps sunk. We may even witness the first attack on an American Aircraft carrier since World War I "Just after the first waves of U.S. bombers cross into Iranian airspace, the Iranian Navy, using shore based missiles and small, fast attack craft sinks several oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz, sealing off the Persian Gulf and all its oil from the rest of the world. They then mine the area, making it difficult and even deadly for American minesweepers to clear the straits. Whatever is left of the Iranian Navy and Air Force harasses our Navy as it attempts minesweeping operations. More U.S casualties"
David DeBatto is a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent, Iraqi war veteran 


A couple of super tankers sunk in the straits of Hormuz will kill the oil flow from the ME , then the only thing to do is to hunker down and wait .


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2008)

It seems to be an opinion piece saying "what if". Let's hope it won't come to pass.


----------



## Gary in ohio (May 11, 2002)

Hip_Shot_Hanna said:


> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9437
> 
> "{If the United States attacks Iran either this summer or this fall, the American people had better be prepared for a shock that may perhaps be even greater to the national psyche (and economy) than 9/11. First of all, there will be significant U.S. casualties in the initial invasion. American jets will be shot down and the American pilots who are not killed will be taken prisoner - including female pilots. Iranian Yakhonts 26, Sunburn 22 and Exocet missiles will seek out and strike U.S. naval battle groups bottled up in the narrow waters of the Persian Gulf with very deadly results.
> David DeBatto is a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent, Iraqi war veteran


What better way to increase sales on your new book than to make such bold and wild claims. Why is Iran any different than Iraq? significant casualties, what number is significant? People against the war would lead you believe that the war in iraq has depleted an entire generation of men. Jets will be shot down, possibly. Prisoners possibly, females, possible why should they get special treatment. missiles sure they have them. the big balance will be Israel.


----------



## Farmerwilly2 (Oct 14, 2006)

I wouldn't place much credence in an "Intellgence Agent" telling us how the last aircraft carriers were attacked in WWI. First I don't believe that aircraft carriers existed during WWI, secondly it misses the entire battle of Midway. What a goof.


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2008)

Farmerwilly2 said:


> First I don't believe that aircraft carriers existed during WWI,


I had to look that up.

A pic of an aircraft carrier in WWI:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Wakamiya.jpg

A brief history:
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/cv-hist1.html

A book of aircraft carrier history, each chapter is a separate PDF download:
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/car-toc.htm


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Gary in ohio said:


> Why is Iran any different than Iraq? significant casualties, what number is significant? People against the war would lead you believe that the war in iraq has depleted an entire generation of men. Jets will be shot down, possibly. Prisoners possibly, females, possible why should they get special treatment. missiles sure they have them. the big balance will be Israel.


Israel likes for us to fight their battles for us. For every dollar they spend on defense, they spend two on lobbying in Washington.

If you really don't believe Iran is going to be any different than Iraq, then prepare to be educated. The statistics come from the CIA World Factbook. Feel free to check them yourself. 

Iraq had at its height 28 million citizens. Iran has over 65 million. Iran has a servicable navy while Iraq did not. Iran has ALLIES while Iraq did not. Iran also has a very viable air force flying state of the art airplanes from Russia and China. Iraq had only 15 year old planes they'd hidden out in the desert after our first war, and their pilots had been under no-fly restrictions for most of their careers, limiting their operations to only basic maneuvers. Iranian pilots fly every day on training missions.

In addition, Iran has over 20 million men of military age (and another 19 million women should they decide to enlist as well) and a thriving economy which has devoted 2.5% of its GDP to military matters, while Iraq had been under sanctions for over 10 years. Iraq had, at its peak, only 7 million men of military service age. We'll be facing three times that number in Iran, armed with state of the art weaponry and training consistent with that of American forces.

Add to that the fact that our forces are attritioned out and stretched thin from holding both Afghanistan AND Iraq and our credibility in the world at large is so low we'll be going it alone. You think Israel is going to send troops to help? It'll never happen. They don't get involved in wars outside of Israel. Ever.

The era of American military supremacy is over. We can't even retool our factories like we did in WWII. Those factories are now overseas. 

Fighting a war with Iran would be a war we cannot win. We still haven't "won" in Afghanistan or Iraq after years and years of trying to hold that territory. All those pretty laser-guided munitions and tactical superiority claims aren't going to add up to much.


----------



## hillsidedigger (Sep 19, 2006)

The B-2 and F-22 could reach their targets in Iran without being noticed and be very surgical or so they claim. Things would just starting blowing-up. I suppose the Iranians could be deduce why things just starting blowing-up.

I really do not think such an attack will happen.

Israel might pre-emptively attack Iran, I do not know. Although Israel does not have the extent of American stealth capability.


----------



## sgl42 (Jan 20, 2004)

in addition to Ernie's points... Geography

Iran has a long coastline that runs along the very narrow Gulf, where something like 40% of the world's oil flows thru via tankers. We'd have to control that entire coastline to prevent attacks on tankers.

--sgl


----------



## radiofish (Mar 30, 2007)

I also question the source. "The last time an aircraft carrier was sank, was in WWI???" What about WWII, and the U.S. aircraft carrier losses at the Battle of Midway??

In addition Iraq and Iran fought a war for over 9 years in the 1980's. That was using chemical weapons and conventional weapons, with a large loss of life. Both sides gave as good as they got, ending the conflict in a draw.

Myself I have no love for Iran, due to what happened in November 1979. That was when the extremist islamic revolutarionaries took over the US Embassy in Tehran , holding the diplomatic occupants and US Marine Corps embassy guards hostage for 444 days. I was active duty in the Marines then, and I thought that we were going to war with Iran at the time.... Remember the disaster at "Desert One" when a C-130 and a helicopter crashed, abortiing the rescue mission??? Then on inaugration day for President Reagan on January 20, 1981, the hostages were released by Iran. Maybe they thought that "The Gipper" would let loose the entire militay assets on Tehran, and Iran!!!!

Besides - I have been prepped for quite some time, for many different scenarios.


----------



## cheapskate (May 9, 2006)

Hippie Drivel.

Iran would be no problem, if the decision was made and executed to go in, go over, kill the bad guys and blow their stuff up.

The problem is that it seems we no longer go in to expeditiously complete an operation and achieve the goal of winning.

To many weiners and whiners in high places to allow that to happen.

If Ahmedinijihad wants a nuclear program, Israel or US should give them one, right out of the bombay doors of a nice black bomber.

All the same, and for whatever reason, bulk up the pantries. That part is always good advice.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

my guess is we would have to budget our war machine much more carefully. The edges are getting worn as it is.

IF and I do mean IF we felt a genuine concern and we couldn't fight a gentlemans battle we would simply light up the entire region like a glow stick and have the worlds largest sheet of glass.

The good ole US of A does as she pleases and NEVER backs down from a peeing match, right or wrong, sane or insane. Same goes for Israel.

The end.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

cheapskate said:


> Hippie Drivel.
> 
> Iran would be no problem, if the decision was made and executed to go in, go over, kill the bad guys and blow their stuff up.
> 
> ...


An analysis of the facts and statistics compiled by the CIA is "hippie drivel"?

Last thing we need is more armchair generals sitting in front of the boob tube and rattling their sabers while our sons go off to die. This foolish American "we are invincible" nonsense is costing a lot of lives.

If we're going to execute a war then we need to do it well, and I haven't seen anything since 1990 that suggests we're still capable of doing so.

I hope our government is taking advice from someone who can actually spell the Iranian president's name.


----------



## RoseGarden (Jun 5, 2005)

This is going to make some folks mad, but I just have to ask...does anyone _actually read_ news sites other than the questionable sites? 'If America attacks Iran'? Excuse me, but the U.S. is not the country who has recently done extensive 'maneuvers' with massive numbers of fighter jets and etc. Israel is the country who has done this. It is Israel who is specuated about in regard to attacking Iran sometime between the US election and inaguration, not America. 

Has anyone actually researched this issue? Reading threads like this, I wonder. It is frightening to think so many people just react in knee-jerk fashion before they can be troubled to 'google it' and find out what is going on firsthand.

I suggest the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz as Israeli news websites. IF anyone can be bothered to take a few minutes to ACTUALLY read them.

Oh, I forget, it's more fun to work onself into a dither over reports from sites that are questionable, at best.

Israel is a soverign country who has the right to defend themselves against a lunatic who has called very publicly and repeatedly over the past year or so for the total annhialation of Israel and Jews worldwide. 

I really think that people need to read REAL news sites instead of just jumping in with both feet on these kinds of issues. Educate yourselves first.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

ROSE

I have never seen you get so defrosted, LOL


have some chocolate on me 


reason, educated opinions and logic....how unAmerican.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

They said all that bad stuff about Iraq also. Suppose to have the 3rd largest army in the world and was expecting mass casulaties on our side. But we was just too awesome for thier army. 

I think the same would happen in Iran, however, I do believe the Russians will move into Iran and take up for them.


----------



## Shinsan (Jul 11, 2006)

Farmerwilly2 said:


> I wouldn't place much credence in an "Intellgence Agent" telling us how the last aircraft carriers were attacked in WWI. First I don't believe that aircraft carriers existed during WWI, secondly it misses the entire battle of Midway. What a goof.


Anybody taking a few minutes to check the original the article would have noted that the OP's transcription contained a typographical error: The article actually said WWII.


----------



## Chuck-prime (Jul 24, 2007)

ladycat said:


> It seems to be an opinion piece saying "what if". Let's hope it won't come to pass.



Biblically, I don't t think this is the case.

Ezekiel says that Persia meets up at Megiddo, with the rest. Babylon does not.

I don't anticipate a big blowout with Iran. I do anticipate a big blowout between Syria and Israel.

Thereafter, Iran will meet her destiny at Megiddo.



Having said this, it will obviously become much more difficult for trucks to transport food and fuel in the US.


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> I do anticipate a big blowout between Syria and Israel.


Damascus is to be totally destroyed. There is no record of Damascus ever being destroyed in the past means that this particular prophesy has yet to occur.

As I understand it, Iran, Russia, and other ME countries will attack Israel but lose. At some point, the EU will attack Iran (probably over oil) and win. Can't remember the particular Bible verses that show this but I'm sure someone here knows where they can be found.



,


----------



## stranger (Feb 24, 2008)

Hip_Shot_Hanna said:


> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9437
> 
> "{If the United States attacks Iran either this summer or this fall, the American people had better be prepared for a shock that may perhaps be even greater to the national psyche (and economy) than 9/11. First of all, there will be significant U.S. casualties in the initial invasion. American jets will be shot down and the American pilots who are not killed will be taken prisoner - including female pilots. Iranian Yakhonts 26, Sunburn 22 and Exocet missiles will seek out and strike U.S. naval battle groups bottled up in the narrow waters of the Persian Gulf with very deadly results. American sailors will be killed and U.S. ships will be badly damaged and perhaps sunk. We may even witness the first attack on an American Aircraft carrier since World War I "Just after the first waves of U.S. bombers cross into Iranian airspace, the Iranian Navy, using shore based missiles and small, fast attack craft sinks several oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz, sealing off the Persian Gulf and all its oil from the rest of the world. They then mine the area, making it difficult and even deadly for American minesweepers to clear the straits. Whatever is left of the Iranian Navy and Air Force harasses our Navy as it attempts minesweeping operations. More U.S casualties"
> David DeBatto is a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent, Iraqi war veteran
> ...


 Maybe we should just drop the big bomb over there and turn Iran into a glass parking lot. could save a lot of time and lives.
Everyone runs their mouths to and about America, but they should read a little history first, when we got our s--- stuf together in WW2, everyone was waving white flags in three and a half yrs without the B2 and other stuff we have today.
this David DeBatto dosen't have much faith in America does he?
what was his roll as a U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent, A cook or latrene orderly?


----------



## stranger (Feb 24, 2008)

hillsidedigger said:


> The B-2 and F-22 could reach their targets in Iran without being noticed and be very surgical or so they claim. Things would just starting blowing-up. I suppose the Iranians could be deduce why things just starting blowing-up.
> 
> I really do not think such an attack will happen.
> 
> Israel might pre-emptively attack Iran, I do not know. Although Israel does not have the extent of American stealth capability.


 I think if we were to go to war with Iran, their radical leaders would be taken out in the first wave of B-2s.


----------



## Hip_Shot_Hanna (Apr 2, 2005)

RoseGarden said:


> This is going to make some folks mad, but I just have to ask...does anyone _actually read_ news sites other than the questionable sites? 'If America attacks Iran'? Excuse me, but the U.S. is not the country who has recently done extensive 'maneuvers' with massive numbers of fighter jets and etc. Israel is the country who has done this. It is Israel who is specuated about in regard to attacking Iran sometime between the US election and inaguration, not America.
> 
> Has anyone actually researched this issue? Reading threads like this, I wonder. It is frightening to think so many people just react in knee-jerk fashion before they can be troubled to 'google it' and find out what is going on firsthand.
> 
> ...


 Yup Plenty of news sites stating that GWB , Condi ET AL saying all options are on the table where Iran is concerned .
Yup the USA aint done extensive manouvers , we just got 3 aircraft carrier battle groups in the Gulf 
Yup western news has reported that Iran wishes to destroy Isreal , the US media should get some new translators , , Every other western news source translated what was said diffrently . with no mention of Wiping out Israel , ( why should the truith kill off a good news story )
Yup Israel is a soveriegn nation and has a right to DEFEND itself , Attacking Iran is just that ATTACK ... OFFENSE , not DEFENCE . 
Do not forget a oil tanker is a very vulnerable machine , for all the high tech weapons a Terrorist in a Kayack loaded with explosives could destroy one and close the Gulf to Civil shiping .


----------



## WisJim (Jan 14, 2004)

Farmerwilly2 said:


> I wouldn't place much credence in an "Intellgence Agent" telling us how the last aircraft carriers were attacked in WWI. First I don't believe that aircraft carriers existed during WWI, secondly it misses the entire battle of Midway. What a goof.



The original article on the linked website did say "World War II", not WWI.


----------



## Hip_Shot_Hanna (Apr 2, 2005)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farmerwilly2 
I wouldn't place much credence in an "Intellgence Agent" telling us how the last aircraft carriers were attacked in WWI. First I don't believe that aircraft carriers existed during WWI, secondly it misses the entire battle of Midway. What a goof. 


'The original article on the linked website did say "World War II", not WWI. '

THen again perhaps he was one of the "inteligence officers " that said Sadam had WMD's


----------



## cheapskate (May 9, 2006)

[QUOTE

I hope our government is taking advice from someone who can actually spell the Iranian president's name.[/QUOTE]

If you are taking a shot at my ability to spell, don't. 

If you are not able to read or understand the way I wrote his name deliberately..........


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

I would be more concerned that given the saber-rattling there might be someone fool enough to launch a nuclear strike or set off some kind of nuclear device in a major population center. After that, I would say the timeline to the end of what we knew as our world would become quite short.

Something I note is that we have the capabilities of launching quite a few bomber missions from afar and can sustain it virtually indefinitely 24 hours a day with our stealth technology. Our submarines can launch strikes in a moment's notice. If we really are hard for war, then we launch our nuclear arsenal.

However, I doubt the planet would handle a World War III without major destruction taken by all sides and by even the noncombatants.

Iran can do its worst, but in the end it still has to figure out a way to carry on commerce. Blocking the strait would be as much a detriment to them as to the rest of the world.

I don't look forward to the next decade with relish. I think we will begin facing more and more fanatical leaders as we begin to find more and more resouces being scarce.


----------



## LostnEurope (Feb 26, 2007)

Even though this article has a current dateline, it reads almost word for word similiar from an article that was circulating about a year ago..I just can't find the article.... It does have several good revelant points and makes you think...Most of the sheeple don't even have a clue....LnE


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

Ah Rose, our Vice President has been in favor of a strike for some now -- and is still in favor of it since our stealth bombers and cruise missiles has a much greater capability than Israeli military. This directly from CBS news:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/24/eveningnews/main4206201.shtml

And this from Democracy Now: http://www.democracynow.org/2007/7/16/as_cheney_pushes_bush_to_attack


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> Every other western news source translated what was said diffrently . with no mention of Wiping out Israel , ( why should the truith kill off a good news story )


I went to Snopes but couldn't find anything that verifies your statement. Anyone want to show that Iran did not make statements about destroying Israel?



.


----------



## WanderingOak (Jul 12, 2004)

uyk7 said:


> I went to Snopes but couldn't find anything that verifies your statement. Anyone want to show that Iran did not make statements about destroying Israel?


I was able to find something [ame="http://current.com/items/88992924_media_misquotes_threat_from_iran_s_president"]here[/ame].

Personally, I don't think there are going to be any US attacks on Iran. Bush is starting to think about what kind of legacy he is going to leave behind, so I don't see him starting another war.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

No, but if things go bad, he could declare martial law and cancel the elections.


----------



## RichieC (Aug 29, 2007)

Karen said:


> No, but if things go bad, he could declare martial law and cancel the elections.


Where did you get this?


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

We better all hope there is not an attack on iran either by us or Israel...

Oil is predicted to be 400.00 pb if Iran is attacked ( no matter who does the attacking)...as well as massive shortages.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2008)

Karen said:


> No, but if things go bad, he could declare martial law and cancel the elections.


 We've heard this for the last three elections at least.

.....Alan.


----------



## YuccaFlatsRanch (May 3, 2004)

"The era of American military supremacy is over. We can't even retool our factories like we did in WWII. Those factories are now overseas.

Fighting a war with Iran would be a war we cannot win. We still haven't "won" in Afghanistan or Iraq after years and years of trying to hold that territory. All those pretty laser-guided munitions and tactical superiority claims aren't going to add up to much."



I sure am glad you are not a General nor an Admiral. Personally I doubt you have any credible idea of what you are talking about.

IF we were going to attack Iran, you can be assured that all of Irans Navy and Submarines will be destroyed within the first minutes of the war. I have no doubt that our fast attack boats already know what their targets are and where they are at all times. Iran will never know what hit them. Ships are more than capable of fending off attacks from exocet, etc missiles. This is not the 80's with the Brits off the Falkan Islands.

The best thing that Iran could do would be to launch a missile with chemical or biological warheads and after they do, the Isrealies retaliate with Nukes. There are enough young people in Iran who don't want anything to do with the Government that after one city disappears they take over the government by force. The Russians and the Chinese will stand back and do absolutely nothing to Isreal.

However, we should be ready for internal attacks by terrorists - almost guaranteed to get that from Hamas, etc.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

is it just me or is it getting HOT in here?

I thought I was the doo doo disturber, did I miss a memo today?


----------



## fmsc68 (Jun 21, 2008)

Let's all say a great big prayer that this doesn't happen! Too much, too many at stake and remember Iran has a hidden agenda collectively and individually as well as a great difference in mind sets about everything, especially war!...I prefer peace, but that comes with a large price and even a larger commitment, but it can begin with each of us. On the other hand I do agree that we need to be prepared, because we sure weren't for 9/11. Wars are for the rich, our money makers and big money $$$ isn't affected...like the working class, they($'s) just get richer. Let's take a poll, how many politician's sons or daughters are enlisted and deployed in Iraq or elsewhere at this moment? If wars, oil prices, groceries, cost of living - daily/monthly affected all our powers that be - like it does each of us (cost/prices) would drop very quickly. Oh yes, let's not forget Social Security checks also! It doesn't affect them at all and in reality I don't think they are very concerned for any of us. It appears to me to be if you vote/support my ideas then I'll vote/support your's (and it doesn't matter how stupid the idea/bill is or the consequences to whom. Each elected official would tell you these are the choices you made. To many poor wasn't a choice. Before it is all over I'm afraid it will become a lifestyle....


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

YuccaFlatsRanch said:


> I sure am glad you are not a General nor an Admiral. Personally I doubt you have any credible idea of what you are talking about.
> 
> IF we were going to attack Iran, you can be assured that all of Irans Navy and Submarines will be destroyed within the first minutes of the war. I have no doubt that our fast attack boats already know what their targets are and where they are at all times. Iran will never know what hit them. Ships are more than capable of fending off attacks from exocet, etc missiles. This is not the 80's with the Brits off the Falkan Islands.
> 
> ...


I don't know what I'm talking about? I guess the Pentagon doesn't either then.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact

Your last paragraph reminds me of the famous Bush administration statement .... "We will be greated as liberators."

Let the blood be on your hands then.


----------



## Gary in ohio (May 11, 2002)

Ernie said:


> Fighting a war with Iran would be a war we cannot win. We still haven't "won" in Afghanistan or Iraq after years and years of trying to hold that territory. All those pretty laser-guided munitions and tactical superiority claims aren't going to add up to much.


We haven't had a warn in Afghanistan or Iraq, Were playing police men. We need to get out of this we have to be nice in the war mentality and stop letting TV crews drive what is done and not done. If you put a factory next to a day care center then the day care center might have bombs dropped on it. No I dont want to see a bunch of kids dead from a dropped bomb but thats war. Were making war nice and neat and suitable for 1 minute news shows. War should be horrific and something no one wants but if the enemy wants to fight they should be killed, not policed and put in jail.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly (Aug 13, 2004)

Too bad we couldn't have learned a lesson in war history. Afghanistan has never been defeated by an invading force.
Just ask Russia..lol


----------



## Gary in ohio (May 11, 2002)

Ernie said:


> Israel likes for us to fight their battles for us. For every dollar they spend on defense, they spend two on lobbying in Washington.
> 
> If you really don't believe Iran is going to be any different than Iraq, then prepare to be educated. The statistics come from the CIA World Factbook. Feel free to check them yourself.
> .


They have less than 2% planted with crops. They have droughts and earthquakes on a regular basis. Of the 65million people, 1/2 are female of the males most are uneducated and unskilled. Almost all of the industrial is based on oil and if the tankers are not moving they have no new income. Key trade partners are Japan China Turkey Italy and the Netherlands. With the exception of china they are US friendly and as long as were buying at walmart, Chinas not going to ---- us off.



They do have a usable navy and the airforce has some left over F16 but I dont think those would hold up for long since spares parts are not available.


----------



## Chuck-prime (Jul 24, 2007)

uyk7 said:


> Damascus is to be totally destroyed. There is no record of Damascus ever being destroyed in the past means that this particular prophesy has yet to occur.
> 
> As I understand it, Iran, Russia, and other ME countries will attack Israel but lose. At some point, the EU will attack Iran (probably over oil) and win. Can't remember the particular Bible verses that show this but I'm sure someone here knows where they can be found.
> 
> ...



Isaiah talks about the flattening of Damascus.

Ezekiel 38 (39?) talks about the destruction at Megiddo.;


But I don't remember any verse about the Antichrist attacking Iran.

I think what will happen, though, is after the smoke clears, he makes his entrance.


----------



## stranger (Feb 24, 2008)

Aintlifegrand said:


> We better all hope there is not an attack on iran either by us or Israel...
> 
> Oil is predicted to be 400.00 pb if Iran is attacked ( no matter who does the attacking)...as well as massive shortages.


 maybe this is what we need to get congress and the environmentalist's
off their asses


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

I didn't know that cruise missiles had pilots... also didn't know that the Iranians had cracked the stealth technology of our best aircraft.

IMHO, Iran is playing the same game that Iraq did... they're either bluffing, and are so incredibly stupid to not know the lesson from their neighbor... Bluffing with a Conservative is suicide. They might get along with such foolishness with a fellow traveler in office...

My last minute prep would be to get a couple extra barrels of fuel...


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Aintlifegrand said:


> We better all hope there is not an attack on iran either by us or Israel...
> 
> Oil is predicted to be 400.00 pb if Iran is attacked ( no matter who does the attacking)...as well as massive shortages.


You know, I recollect that a few years ago, it was predicted oil would jump up to an unheard of $100/barrel if we or Israel attacked Iran! Imagine that... we have 140 oil, and we didn't even fire the first missile...


----------



## Chuck R. (Apr 24, 2008)

My guess is, anything that's of strategic/tactical value has already been targeted by either our SOF guys or the Israelis. 

We really only need to involve ground forces IF we want to seize and hold key terrain and infrastructure, IF our strategic objective is to stop their nuclear power program we could be pretty easily accomplish that with our assets that we presently have uncommitted. 

As texican mentioned cruise missiles don't require pilots and I seriously doubt Iran has countered our stealth technology. Their Airforce is flat out no match for ours and once we've eliminated their air-defense assets we'll own the sky. 

You'd think they'd learn after what happened to the last guy that promised us the "Mother of all Battles". 

Chuck


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Karen said:


> No, but if things go bad, he could declare martial law and cancel the elections.


 Wouldn't that be a nightmare :help:


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Gary in ohio said:


> We haven't had a warn in Afghanistan or Iraq, Were playing police men. We need to get out of this we have to be nice in the war mentality and stop letting TV crews drive what is done and not done. If you put a factory next to a day care center then the day care center might have bombs dropped on it. No I dont want to see a bunch of kids dead from a dropped bomb but thats war. Were making war nice and neat and suitable for 1 minute news shows. War should be horrific and something no one wants but if the enemy wants to fight they should be killed, not policed and put in jail.


I agree. If we have a real war, it'll be levelling cities, destroying everything, until they raise the white flag of unconditional surrender... no peace treaties, no negotiations, unconditional surrender, or the daisy cutters keep falling. Think: Dresden and Tokyo firebombing... destroy the will of the enemy to fight.

If Germany or Japan had started up with terrorist (freedom fighter, depending on which side of the boat your sitting on) activities, after the surrender, do you think we wouldn't have given them some more radioactive ashfields?


----------



## JGex (Dec 27, 2005)

*Report: U.S. 'preparing the battlefield' in Iran*

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html

Stupidest. Move. Ever.


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2008)

JGex said:


> *Report: U.S. 'preparing the battlefield' in Iran*
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html
> 
> Stupidest. Move. Ever.


I hope it's not true!!!!!!!!


----------



## JGex (Dec 27, 2005)

ladycat said:


> I hope it's not true!!!!!!!!


If BushCo doesn't do it before the elections, you can count on John "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain to if he gets elected.


----------



## stranger (Feb 24, 2008)

if marshall law is declared, what do they think 300 million people are going to do, bow down to them, i don't think so. right now our military is stretched out, our cops who number about 1 mil counting state, county, local,FBI, marshalls, every kind of LEOs have all they can do to bust a few pot heads and write tickets for no seat belts. If there was an economic break down, the cops would have all they can do to protect peoples stores and busineses
there are at least 30 mil young people that want their freedom and will not give it up.
I watch cops all the time on TV and often wondered how some of them would handle a crowd of ten thousand hungry armed people. even the military, i don't believe any of them would ever turn their guns on the American people, cops yes, soldiers no.


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2008)

stranger said:


> even the military, i don't believe any of them would ever turn their guns on the American people, cops yes, soldiers no.


I'm not so sure about that.......


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

stranger said:


> if marshall law is declared, what do they think 300 million people are going to do, bow down to them, i don't think so. right now our military is stretched out, our cops who number about 1 mil counting state, county, local,FBI, marshalls, every kind of LEOs have all they can do to bust a few pot heads and write tickets for no seat belts. If there was an economic break down, the cops would have all they can do to protect peoples stores and busineses
> there are at least 30 mil young people that want their freedom and will not give it up.
> I watch cops all the time on TV and often wondered how some of them would handle a crowd of ten thousand hungry armed people. even the military, i don't believe any of them would ever turn their guns on the American people, cops yes, soldiers no.





ladycat said:


> I'm not so sure about that.......



I figure if it came to that most of our military will be on the side of their folks, friends, and towns people. We in this country don't have a truly separate government force to control the population. 

This is how every red blooded American feels about such things. Liberal/conservative... Republican/ Democrat. It makes no Differance where the rubber meets the road. We Believe the Second Amendment is there so if need be we can take arms against those that would seek to hurt or harm us. We also as a group believe it's our responsibility to do so. 

If you disagree ask yourself this. There is an invading force. They are coming into your town. Does granny sit on the porch with pa's 12 gage or does she pack up and run? What about you? Yes, your neighbors fell the same way. We all do. We in the US don't have a passive population.


----------



## JGex (Dec 27, 2005)

stanb999 said:


> I figure if it came to that most of our military will be on the side of their folks, friends, and towns people. We in this country don't have a truly separate government force to control the population.
> 
> This is how every red blooded American feels about such things. Liberal/conservative... Republican/ Democrat. It makes no Differance where the rubber meets the road. We Believe the Second Amendment is there so if need be we can take arms against those that would seek to hurt or harm us. We also as a group believe it's our responsibility to do so.
> 
> If you disagree ask yourself this. There is an invading force. They are coming into your town. Does granny sit on the porch with pa's 12 gage or does she pack up and run? What about you? Yes, your neighbors fell the same way. We all do. We in the US don't have a passive population.


The military won't be used to control the population.... I'd bet on the US govt hiring out mercenaries like Blackwater as they did in NOLA after Katrina.

Just like Jericho....


----------



## cougargnw (Aug 6, 2007)

If we make a move on Iran, I feel it will be a air and cruise missle campaign. we simpy dont have any interest in taking over that goverment. that and the people are ready for a change as well. They are massively oppressed by the religous rulers. There was an article a week or so ago about how if we could wipe out the governing leaders the people would step in and take over.
I would be more concerned if one of the alledged sleeper cells went active and decided to start doing suicide runs here.


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> if marshall law is declared, what do they think 300 million people are going to do, bow down to them, i don't think so.


That is exactly what 99.99% of the people will do as long as they can have their TV's and something to eat.




> If there was an economic break down, the cops would have all they can do to protect peoples stores and busineses


That is why our government has made agreements with other countries (such as Canada) to help us out in the case of a national emergency.




> even the military, i don't believe any of them would ever turn their guns on the American people


In the mid-1980s, an Army War College study showed that ~ 30% of the military would take arms against fellow Americans if ordered to do so. Today I think that number is over 50% (can't remember off the top of my head). While military personnel may not take arms against their neighbors, what about people on the other side of the country?



.


----------



## stranger (Feb 24, 2008)

uyk7 said:


> That is exactly what 99.99% of the people will do as long as they can have their TV's and something to eat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 you,re right, I guess, Patton turned guns on the returning WW1 vererans


----------



## Hip_Shot_Hanna (Apr 2, 2005)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/06/20080626-4.html


,I GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that the current existence and risk of the proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat


----------



## WanderingOak (Jul 12, 2004)

Hip_Shot_Hanna said:


> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/06/20080626-4.html
> 
> 
> ,I GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that the current existence and risk of the proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat


Hunh. I was under the impression that we were going to be lifting sanctions against North Korea, after they demolished their nuclear program.


----------



## Chuck-prime (Jul 24, 2007)

stranger said:


> I watch cops all the time on TV and often wondered how some of them would handle a crowd of ten thousand hungry armed people.


They won't. They'll probably try to get food for their family as well.


----------



## mtman (Sep 2, 2004)

i have very few grey hairs becouse i dont worry about much


----------

