T1B

Just reporting...

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html

Russian intelligence sees U.S. military buildup on Iran border

17:31 | 27/ 03/ 2007

MOSCOW, March 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.

"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.

He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."

He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.

A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf.

The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006.

The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.

damned liberal media forwarding information from russian media. If Putin knew about this, Wolf Blitzer would be killed.

I hope they watch out for Iran's Sizzlers.

Justa Heel wrote:He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."

I see the Rumsfeldian concept of war on the cheap is still in play. Welcome to Quagmire v3.0.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Justa Heel wrote:He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."

I see the Rumsfeldian concept of war on the cheap is still in play. Welcome to Quagmire v3.0.

It isn't a Rumsfeldian concept, you fucking ignorant dumbshit.

So it was some other Sec of Defense who deliberately under-equipped and under-supplied our men and women in Iraq?

BSmack wrote: So it was some other Sec of Defense who deliberately under-equipped and under-supplied our men and women in Iraq?

Well now that you mention it ......

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote: So it was some other Sec of Defense who deliberately under-equipped and under-supplied our men and women in Iraq?

Well now that you mention it ......

What? Clinton bashing?

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote: So it was some other Sec of Defense who deliberately under-equipped and under-supplied our men and women in Iraq?

Well now that you mention it ......

What? Clinton bashing?

Not Clinton bashing at all. Actually Reagan bashing, if it must come down to it, if we are to attribute the collapse of the former Soviet Union to Reagan.

The contraction of the Military that occured through the late 80's and 90's.


Why is "not looking at things in a vacuum" and understanding the dynamics of history and consequence "bashing" someone ?

Tom In VA wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Tom In VA wrote: Well now that you mention it ......

What? Clinton bashing?

Not Clinton bashing at all. Actually Reagan bashing, if it must come down to it, if we are to attribute the collapse of the former Soviet Union to Reagan.

The contraction of the Military that occured through the late 80's and 90's.


Why is "not looking at things in a vacuum" and understanding the dynamics of history and consequence "bashing" someone ?

The question talked about under-equipping the troops in Iraq. I didn't know if you were talking about the shrinking of the military before Iraq.

Bizzarofelice wrote: The question talked about under-equipping the troops in Iraq. I didn't know if you were talking about the shrinking of the military before Iraq.

1. I don't know shit from shinola when it comes to our military needs.

2. The contraction of the military, appeared to me, to be based on one thing. No more cold war. Throughout the years following the cold war, I think the military had an "identity crisis". What was it do without such a major foe as the Soviet Union and the proposed land battles and attrition based scenarios being considered for almost 55 years(1945-1990).

Some schools felt the old standard shouldn't be thrown away, others, and Rumsfeld apparently fell into the school of "less is more".

But base closures, realignments, and budget cuts throughout the years leading up to the Iraq war, all have an impact on the fighting force that was sent into Iraq. That, and as much as people try to anticipate needs prior to engagement, the actual engagement of the enemy will show you holes and vulnerabilities in your planning. Take for instance the Hummer. The vehicle was not designed to do, what it was doing in Iraq. They didn't know that, unfortunately, until they engaged and saw what the real needs were.

Which brings me back to my first point.


Hindsight, shows Rumsfeld screwed the pooch on a few thing no doubt. But I think people who are truly concerned and interested in necesssary change and future preparedness will analyze things over a period of time and place facts and other dynamics into consideration rather than ... "Bwahahahahahha, tell that to your man Rumsfeld" and other partisan sophistry.

Tom In VA wrote:Hindsight, shows Rumsfeld screwed the pooch on a few thing no doubt. But I think people who are truly concerned and interested in necesssary change and future preparedness will analyze things over a period of time and place facts and other dynamics into consideration rather than ... "Bwahahahahahha, tell that to your man Rumsfeld" and other partisan sophistry.

Should we have even bothered seeing as there was nowhere near the required level of troops and preparation put into the effort, and no real rush to go get Saddam?

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Hindsight, shows Rumsfeld screwed the pooch on a few thing no doubt. But I think people who are truly concerned and interested in necesssary change and future preparedness will analyze things over a period of time and place facts and other dynamics into consideration rather than ... "Bwahahahahahha, tell that to your man Rumsfeld" and other partisan sophistry.

Should we have even bothered seeing as there was nowhere near the required level of troops and preparation put into the effort, and no real rush to go get Saddam?

I don't know Bizzaro. Seemingly the combat arm was more than efficient and able to trek across Iraq. In fact their success apparently showed holes in the logisitical chain's ability to keep up with them. Mvscal will correct me. But I think even Patton experienced similiar things where he outran his logistical support and at times was slowed down by them.

It goes back to the apparent fact that the planners were spot on in terms of taking Iraq. The issue then became, holding Iraq.

Your guess is as good as mine when it comes to assessing that. When coalition troops actually close with the enemy, coalition troops continue to "win". When coalition troops and civilians get caught up in the terrorist guerilla style warfare ... it's a "quagmire".

If I knew how to beat that and the right number of troops to beat that, I wouldn't be here discussing it with you.

General Patreaus (sp?) seems to think he needs more men. I trust his judgement more than mine and more than any member of Congress, including those with military and combat experience.

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Rumsfeld apparently fell into the school of "less is more"

Rumsfeld inherited a policy that was already well under way. It was partially due to the "peace dividend" at the end of the Cold War and partly due to our failure in Desert Storm. Rumsfeld's failure was never recognizing that we didn't have the military needed for a protracted occupation. The military's failure was that we never put any emphasis on post-war stabilization missions. It was all warfighting all the time. Now that we can do like nobody else in history.

The dreaded "neocons" warned of this shortcoming, but evidently there was at least one time when the administration failed to listen to them.

Sounds as objective as it gets. RACK

mvscal wrote:Of course it comes as no great surprise to see that this story provides yet another shining example of liberal hypocrisy/stupidity.

Eight days ago:

BSmack wrote:Foreign

1. Order an immediate redeployment of all US troops in Iraq from security to border interdiction. From now on Iraqi troops are to handle internal security arrangements. The US role will be to guarantee that no outside help reaches the insurgents.

Today's news: Russian intel sees U.S.military buildup on Iran border

Reaction?

BSmack wrote:I see the Rumsfeldian concept of war on the cheap is still in play. Welcome to Quagmire v3.0.

Of course you neglected THIS "He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."

Also, what I was proposing was for the troops to perform border security/interdiction, NOT invade and occupy yet another country we are incapable of securing.

BSmack wrote: Of course you neglected THIS "He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."

And any time a foreign country's(especially one that seems bound and determined to play all sides of every conflict on earth) propaganda department issues a statement, we should take it as the final word, right?

Tom In VA wrote: I think the military had an "identity crisis". What was it do without such a major foe as the Soviet Union...

Why, invent one, of course.

You know, like the threat of Al Queda landing craft dropping waves and waves of crazed jihadis on your shores in a full blown invasion.

'Cause, that's what you dummies believe, right?

"Wolverines!"

Dinsdale wrote:

BSmack wrote: Of course you neglected THIS "He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."

And any time a foreign country's(especially one that seems bound and determined to play all sides of every conflict on earth) propaganda department issues a statement, we should take it as the final word, right?

RACK.

I think the Pravda and Isvestia editorial staff went to the Baghdad Bob School of Journalism.

BPelosi wrote:
Also, what I was proposing was for the troops to perform border security/interdiction...

You're one of those dopes that believe that Iran is smuggling weapons and fighters over the border, correct?
Remember when it was Syria?

Because, left to their own devices, why would a well armed Iraqi citizenry have any bone to pick with a foreign occupier?


Breath into a paper bag for a few minutes before you hit SUBMIT again.

OCmike wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:

BSmack wrote: Of course you neglected THIS "He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."

And any time a foreign country's(especially one that seems bound and determined to play all sides of every conflict on earth) propaganda department issues a statement, we should take it as the final word, right?

RACK.

I think the Pravda and Isvestia editorial staff went to the Baghdad Bob School of Journalism.

Sheeeeit, my bet is that it's the other way around.




The only news I believe, comes from MartyRed anyway. Unadulterated truth.

Tom In VA wrote: The only news I believe, comes from MartyRed anyway. Unadulterated truth.

I'm fair...






...and balanced.

mvscal wrote:

Martyred wrote:You're one of those dopes that believe that Iran is smuggling weapons and fighters over the border, correct?
Remember when it was Syria?

It's both of them, you fucking dimwitted slob.

So why isn't your brave "war president" doing anything about it?
Why is he allowing Iranian EFP's into Iraq, killing and maiming American soldiers?

mvscal wrote:Are you fucking stupid or what? Try reading your own headline, idiot.

C'mon chickenshit, why isn't your "fearless leader" responding to an "attack" with due force?

C'mon, idiot. Iranians are (by extension) killing Americans, no?

One intention can easily substitute for the other. I remember them saying they were moving troops to close down the border. It just so happens that that particular manuver also puts them into a position to slap Iran down, if needed.

Given the British Soldier Hostage dealio, Iran is moving closer and closer to the fly swatter.

The trouble isn't on the "border".
It's in the Sunni Triangle, where, apparently America can't even manage an occupation of a starved, beaten people.

What a failure, and on display to the entire world.

mvscal wrote:

Martyred wrote:The trouble isn't on the "border".
It's in the Sunni Triangle, where, apparently America can't even manage an occupation of a starved, beaten people.

You're a fucking moron. Where the fuck do you think the weapons and money needed to finance this insurgency come from?

Here's a hint: It isn't coming from the fucking Sunni Triangle.

Martyred wrote:So why isn't your brave "war president" doing anything about it?
Why is he allowing Iranian EFP's into Iraq, killing and maiming American soldiers?

You know I'm just baiting you, waiting for you to answer that Dems are "hamstringing" Bush on the whole "Attack On Iran"
business, right?

Please, indulge me. I'm holding a BIG stick behind my back...

Martyred wrote:
Please, indulge me. I'm holding a BIG stick behind my back...

So you're one of them preoperative ones 'eh ?

Dinsdale wrote:

BSmack wrote: Of course you neglected THIS "He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."

And any time a foreign country's(especially one that seems bound and determined to play all sides of every conflict on earth) propaganda department issues a statement, we should take it as the final word, right?

When that statement is backed by years of DoD penny wise pound foolish mismanagement?

Yea, I'll give it some weight.

Tom In VA wrote:
So you're one of them preoperative ones 'eh ?

You're creeping me out, Tom.

mvscal wrote: At most, we would be positioned to support limited objective raids inside Iran.

Please. I'm begging at this point.

Now that's what I call consensus.

Let this thread be a shining beacon to all Spin Zone denizens, that occasionally, common cause may be found in the
cauldron of turmoil.

Those Limey Sailors have it pretty good in Iran.

Maybe they're not getting the rum, but the buggery and the lash more than make up for it

mvscal wrote: All smack aside, the fact is that you are a fucking clueless idiot who is totally incapable of independent thought or critical reasoning. You are spoonfed horseshit by equally stupid individuals and you swallow it without question.

All smack aside?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I want mv up on that wall.

He's a great American.

mvscal wrote:the shit eating tards who represent morons like you in Congress

Umm like it or not, they represent you too, voter.

mvscal wrote:At most, we would be positioned to support limited objective raids inside Iran.

What more would we need? If a few limited objective raids put them out of the nuclear weapons production business for a decade, that right there is a success.

mvscal wrote:That alone is enough to inform anybody who does not have his head stuck up his ass that the mission is interdiction not invasion. At most, we would be positioned to support limited objective raids inside Iran.

Or, they are doing the preliminary groundwork for something larger than interdiction. If I'm wrong and Bush is doing something smart for a change, then props to him.

I'm not of the opinion that Bush will stumble blindly into Iran. He did so in Iraq...and a lot of folks took the blame that he deserved. Bush's handlers have to know that repeating this mistake would be disastrous.

Sure, Iran needs their comeuppance. Like I said above, though...our options in the region are quite limited because of how things went down in Iraq.

Hindsight, shows Rumsfeld screwed the pooch on a few thing no doubt. But I think people who are truly concerned and interested in necesssary change and future preparedness will analyze things over a period of time and place facts and other dynamics into consideration rather than ... "Bwahahahahahha, tell that to your man Rumsfeld" and other partisan sophistry.

I'm going to take issue with this. I know that personally, I've discussed this with you many times.

Objecting to Rumsfeld's approach, at least in my case, has little to do with getting at Bush or simply feeling good with myself. It has everything to do with the demonstrable fact that it was the wrong approach for our country - wrong for our soldiers, wrong for our foreign policy, wrong for our citizens, wrong for Iraq and the rest of the world. Because of those immense shortcomings, one shouldn't give Rumsfeld a pass on Iraq.

I might counter with my feeling on the matter...I read post after post in which you specifically failed to explore these demonstrable shortcomings, even conceptually. Moreover, you seem to have felt that it was less than patriotic to explore these shortcomings.

Reading that you now entertain the possibility that Rumsfeld was wrong is something new for me...and therefore, I am looking askance at your current bleating about "partisanship".

Tom, true patriots question when they honestly feel it is necessary to do so. A patriot doesn't gloss over things because they might reflect poorly on their particular political leader. With all due respect, I feel that you have done exactly that in recent years.

We don't need to invade to bring Iran to its knees.

If we were to destroy their only gasoline refinery, bomb the revolutionary guard installations, sink their pathetic navy, and blockade the country, they'd be the ones with a civil war on their hands.

My favored response is still doing whatever is necessary to foment an islamic civil war throughout the entire mid-east and encourage them to slaughter each other. When it's over, we can slaughter whatever & whoever is left.

With what money With what soldiers? With what public favor?