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



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 30, 2008)

From CNN

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


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


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 30, 2008)

Is this different from the battlefield preparation they were supposedly doing in 2007, 2006, and 2005? Because I'm starting to think they're just messing with the reporters and/or Iran.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 30, 2008)

Good question.


----------



## tellner (Jun 30, 2008)

It would be a lot easier to tell if we all had security clearances a level or two above "Q" 

We seem to be doing the same things, but there is more money being allocated to it out where everyone can see. Stories have been leaked in the last couple months about how Cheney tried to get bombing started only to be stopped by the generals. Israel ran some very public training maneuvers where were, once again, leaked to be practice runs for action against Iran. 

The US may or may not be planning on an invasion or some other form of overt military action. But it certainly seems to be trying very hard to give that _impression_. 

Some of it is due to US electoral politics. The only issues the pollsters find where the Republicans consistently lead the Democrats is terrorism and the prosecution of wars. A reminder of war - a nice shiny new one as opposed to the quagmires the people are generally unhappy with - may serve the Party's interests this close to an election. Former Democratic Senator and current McCain campaign aide Lieberman announced that there will be a terrorist attack on US soil early in the next Administration and that that was a reason to vote for the GOP. Some of it may be the current occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They are increasingly marginalized, unpopular and losing headline ink to their probable replacements. I have no proof, just a suspicion that it may be a way of staying relevant.

A similar situation holds in Israel. The Olmert government is losing coalition members. It's unpopular. The Prime Minister - who was a well known for corruption and ineptitude as mayor - is facing criminal charges. That is always a good time to focus attention outwards at an enemy who wants to kill you. And while President Ahwannajihad doesn't have much real power in Iran he is certainly a visible enemy who represents the future biggest power in the region.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 30, 2008)

"The US may or may not be planning on an invasion or some other form of overt military action. But it certainly seems to be trying very hard to give that _impression_."

Tellner is, in this sentence, most likely correct. If the bad guys BELIEVE you are ready to fight, they are less likely to start something.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 30, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> "The US may or may not be planning on an invasion or some other form of overt military action. But it certainly seems to be trying very hard to give that _impression_."
> 
> Tellner is, in this sentence, most likely correct. If the bad guys BELIEVE you are ready to fight, they are less likely to start something.


Sun Tzu - Art of War.


----------



## tellner (Jun 30, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> If the bad guys BELIEVE you are ready to fight, they are less likely to start something.



Why in the world would Iran want to "start something"? All they have to do is sit back and let us do their job for them. The Arab governments are variously weak, corrupt, bickering and ineffectual. The US Occupation of Iraq - it ceased being a war years ago - has pushed the Shia in that country closer to Iran.  It turned Al-Sadr from a strongly nationalistic Iraqi who wanted all the foreigners out to a grudging friend of Tehran. Hezbollah is firmly entrenched in the Lebanese government, a fact on which the US finally declared defeat. Hamas runs Gaza, and Fatah is viewed with increasing contempt in the West Bank. We're already losing the international propaganda war on this one. 

Besides, what would Iran do? They aren't likely to invade anyone. They are in the ascendancy in the Middle East. They aren't going to invade Iraq to drive out the Americans. Other people are willing to fire the rifles and serve as human bombs. If they do develop nuclear weapons nobody will do anything about it. Consider the examples of North Korea, Pakistan and India. After a few face-saving words those countries were all rewarded. 

This is much more about US internal politics than anything in Asia.


----------



## Hopeful Tomorrow (Jun 30, 2008)

This has nothing to do with our charity, but it's a slow day at work and this post caught my interest. The media has been slowly pushing this story forward over the past year or so. Iran should have been the country we went to war with in the first place if we really got into this war for the reasons they say we did. They actually do have terrorist organizations there and are actually a threat to the U.S. 

The idea of more war is absolutely disgusting to me. We can't even win the one we're involved in now but we're talking about invading another country? I don't get it. The profiteering by the Bush administration has got to stop. This is ridiculous. Our soldiers die and a select few get extremely rich. Hopefully with a new administration we can avoid further war in the middle east but I fear that this nation's future was bought and sold a long time ago. I don't for one second buy the line "We are going to offer stability to the region" by invading it? Look at Iraq! It's pure chaos with no end in sight.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 30, 2008)

Hopeful Tomorrow said:


> Look at Iraq! It's pure chaos with no end in sight.



You must have missed the news for the last six months. Violence is down, across the whole nation, the surge worked. Native opinion of the US is higher than ever, more Iraqi units are functional than ever before, and they are taking over patrolling areas the US used to control.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/23/iraq.security/

"All major indicators of violence in Iraq have dropped by between 40 and 80 percent since February 2007, when President Bush committed an additional 30,000 troops to the war there, the Pentagon reported Monday."


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 30, 2008)

tellner said:


> Why in the world would Iran want to "start something"?



it doesnt have to make sense to US, it just has to make sense to them. And making noise, and making anti-israeli noise is something that improves one image in much of the middle east.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 30, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> You must have missed the news for the last six months. Violence is down, across the whole nation, the surge worked. Native opinion of the US is higher than ever, more Iraqi units are functional than ever before, and they are taking over patrolling areas the US used to control.
> 
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/23/iraq.security/
> ...



A *very* abbreviated report on the status of Christianity in Iraq.  The piece that aired last night was much longer and discussed the general military status there.

In the version that aired, the reporter noticed that the citizens there are generally old, infirm or infantile.  Even children, if they admit they are Christian, disappear. The males have all been killed.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 30, 2008)

There was something said about a US plan to take out Iraq, Syria and Iran. The big thing with the whole "attack Iran" thing now is I think just to cover up the fact that the "forgotten war" in Afghanistan is now heating up, with increasing US losses, and an enemy who has had plenty of time to regroup, reform, rearm, recruit and train. (Couldn't find another r word, sorry, lol)  Of course, Iran is between Iraq and Afghanistan, and a 2 front war for them would be costly.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 30, 2008)

Shesulsa,
While that is a terrible thing,t he same thing happens in pretty much every Islamic country in the Middle East.

Things are not perfect, no, but they are BETTER. And "chaos" isnt really accurateany more.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 30, 2008)

Well we are either going to g'wan over dere and open up our brand of whoop-*** or we're just rattling our saber. 
Bush did say "we are going to go where-ever Terror hides..."


----------



## Big Don (Jun 30, 2008)

Saber rattling is only effective if you run a few louts through every now and then. We've all heard the story of "The Boy Who Cried "Wolf!" If a nation keeps saying "We're gonna make war on you" sooner or later you either have to make war or resign yourself to being known as a paper tiger. 
The longer you give your enemy to prepare for war, the more blood you will shed...


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 30, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Shesulsa,
> While that is a terrible thing,t he same thing happens in pretty much every Islamic country in the Middle East.
> 
> Things are not perfect, no, but they are BETTER. And "chaos" isnt really accurateany more.


Well, I don't know about you, but I know that *I* haven't recently traveled there to see for myself.  But the lack of male presence outside the US and Islam was ... remarkable ... at least in the video.  I would think that if there's no one to fight ... fighting ceases. :idunno:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 30, 2008)

Personally, I'm not inclined to head there to check it out myself.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 30, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Personally, I'm not inclined to head there to check it out myself.


Nor I.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 30, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> While that is a terrible thing,t he same thing happens in pretty much every Islamic country in the Middle East.



Prior to the invasion, Iraq was one of the most secular Middle Eastern countries, particularly in regards to the role of women.  The invasion's aftermath has enabled the religious extremists to exert power who were previously suppressed by Saddam.  In some particular parts of Iraq now, women must go about veiled, and are subject to roving bands of morality enforcers in a similar manner to Iran.  Iraq's small but vital Jewish community has now vanished.  This is an area of Iraqi life that has undeniably gotten and continues to be worse.

That said, perhaps this lull in violence will permit the establishment of a civil order that can curtail these abuses.  I certainly hope so.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 30, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Prior to the invasion, Iraq was one of the most secular Middle Eastern countries, particularly in regards to the role of women.  The invasion's aftermath has enabled the religious extremists to exert power who were previously suppressed by Saddam.  In some particular parts of Iraq now, women must go about veiled, and are subject to roving bands of morality enforcers in a similar manner to Iran.


Yes but who the hell are we to determine that way of life is WRONG!? It's how they want to live, it's how they were living before we got involved. Remember, we're just there to help get rid of a despot and restore order. With Iran well, they've been living that way since before the Shah (who was ousted because he wasn't living that way of the majority). 

We say we are there for the right moral reasons but honestly deep down inside... how many of you can feel that we're not there (in Iraq and soon to be Iran-- which really wouldn't be surprising now would it??)  for the potential oil?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 30, 2008)

oh yes, the _oil

_notice we havnt started taking it yet.

tellner posted a couple months back that the us forces actually get charged MORE than the natives do for gas in Iraq.

No.

We are not there for the oil.

Deep down inside? i wish we WERE taking their oil. Call it payback for ousting Saddam.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 30, 2008)

actually, I think it is about the oil.  Ever since these wars started, and everytime someone notices a burka at Ohare, or a camel in the desert has a dry crap, the panic starts, and I notice the numbers at my local gas watering hole climbing. Iraq starts reporting it's stabilizing, so what hits the news next? Afghanistan is burning and Iran is smoking. And oil goes higher.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jul 1, 2008)

Bob,
are you saying that the government is manipulating the prices or that the news agencies are manipulating the prices?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 1, 2008)

Yes. Yeah, I know it sounds conspiracy-nut like, but, the government rattles it's sabers, the "news" reports it, and sticks the good stuff on page 47, and the speculators wet themselves in panic buying of a product they only have to risk 5% on. 

The oil producers
- state repeatedly that there is enough oil on the market to meet current demand
- state that increased production will only be a few cents difference at the pump

The oil companies
- want to drill in environmentally protected areas, despite being decades away from maxing out current allowed areas
- have said they can't pump US oil until it's $100+/barrel
- Have failed to invest significantly in improved refining capacity
- Make money on exploration more so than supply

The car companies
- continue to produce low efficiency vehicles despite being able to produce higher efficiency at low cost.
- Are suddenly in panic "discovery" mode

Oil prices rise because of
- war
- environmental problems
- threat of war
- political unrest
- demand
- threat of political unrest
- mechanical difficulties (refinery fires, breakdowns, etc)
- weak US $
- Panic buying and uncontroled speculation

The Government
- created the uncontroled speculation by not regulating it.
- Is engaged in 2 wars, and is threatening a 3rd this year.
- Has done little to correct Oil concerns

The News
- Fuels panic by giving more attention to bad news than good
- Ignores news that would calm the panic.


I've got more, just running out of steam here...long day.

The bottom line is, the News focuses on the Iran situation, which fuels panic buying, which drives oil up, while ignoring news of higher efficiency vehicles or other "positive" things which would calm the situation and decrease speculation.  People speculate that oil will be $200 in Sept, so they buy now at $150 to be ahead of the curve.

Follow? 

Now, is this all a coordinated thing, or just a bunch of random events that make me pay more for my pizza? I dunno.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 1, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Oil prices rise because of
> - war
> - environmental problems
> - threat of war
> ...


 Don't forget hysteria induced by environmentalists who, 40 years ago predicted doom by way of over population (The Population Bomb) 30 years ago predicted doom by way of impending Ice Age, 10 years ago predicted doom by global warming, and NOW predict doom by Climate Change,  a catch all term that is really meaningless(but, protects them from criticism of Global warming when reports that give lie to their pontifications come out saying there is no warming, and hasn't been for a few years) considering the climate has ALWAYS changed, that also manages to come off looking foolish because the media and many prominent "environmentally conscious" celebs  talk the talk and use resources beyond what any 50 of the rest of us could combined





> The Government
> - created the uncontroled speculation by not regulating it.
> - Is engaged in 2 wars, and is threatening a 3rd this year.
> - Has done little to correct Oil concerns


 - Mandates a plethora of different distillations of gasoline, causing higher costs, which cause (Ta Da!) higher prices.
- has not allowed a new refinery to be built in decades, creating a bottleneck and (TaDa!) higher prices
- Mandate that everyone buys only governmentally mandated formulations of gasoline, thus creating shortages of the ingredients.
- Make sure that each area of the country has its own mandated formulation, which will strain the already over-strained existing refining infrastructure, thus raising prices.
 - Create even further price increases by ensuring that each area of the country moves to seasonal blends, which will create even more havoc on the refiners, thus raising prices even further.





> The News
> - Fuels panic by giving more attention to bad news than good
> - Ignores news that would calm the panic.


 In some cases intentionally distorts facts, ignores facts, outright creates "facts" that are later proved false, etc





> I've got more, just running out of steam here...long day.
> 
> The bottom line is, the News focuses on the Iran situation, which fuels panic buying, which drives oil up, while ignoring news of higher efficiency vehicles or other "positive" things which would calm the situation and decrease speculation.  People speculate that oil will be $200 in Sept, so they buy now at $150 to be ahead of the curve.
> 
> ...


The good news (well for me) the price of pizza here has not increased...


----------



## Logan (Jul 1, 2008)

Recently I have been wondering if Bush, McCain (et al's) constant confusing of Iraq with Iran in media interviews is a slip-up or deliberate means of associating one with the other.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 1, 2008)

Well, a good portion of the US population believes that Iraq was directly behind 9/11 based in part on early "information" so, I'd say it's deliberate.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 1, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Well, a good portion of the US population believes that Iraq was directly behind 9/11 based in part on early "information" so, I'd say it's deliberate.


Sadly, a fair portion thinks Elvis is alive, aliens (from space) have visited, etc...


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 1, 2008)

It'd be interesting to see some comparative statistics on these 'beliefs'.

When it comes to those which touch on topics that we might consider to be more 'real', it'd be even more interesting if we could see if people were actually believing conflicting things.

Sadly, surveys these days are seldom worth the non-existent paper they're presented on.  They're not formulated properly, not conducted properly and the results are therefore unreliable.  

Statistics should be gathered in as neutral a method as possible with no 'leading' or 'directing' of answers by either the order or phrasing of the questions.  The urge to create a survey with "Yes/No" type answers or a limited scale of variability is very strong as it makes results easy to compile but it also degrades the information content.

For example, if someone asked me a binary question like:

"Do you think that the West is heading for open war with the East?"

I would have to answer "Yes" because, given what I see at present, that seems a more likely outcome than otherwise.  But that simple "Yes" leaves out all of my reasoning, background or attitudes and practically becomes a data-point devoid of information.

Follow up questions such as "Do you think war is avoidable?" {Yes} or "Do you think the East is provoking the situation?" {No} would bring answers that might seem to increase the information but are actually constructing a pattern of responses to build the picture desired by the questioner.  From those three fantasy questions above, it would be easy to paint a conclusion along the lines of "Our survey found that war with the East was not inevitable and could be avoided if the West ceased it's provocative actions".

What I'm aiming at with all this blather is that I'd like to see some statistical analysis of the current 'belief pie' but we have to be careful of how those statistics have been gathered.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 1, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Bob Hubbard said:
> 
> 
> > Well, a good portion of the US population believes that Iraq was directly behind 9/11 based in part on early "information" so, I'd say it's deliberate.
> ...


And that there are Sasquatches roaming around in your back yard. 

Here's something a friend sent to me... among other things which I'll post later... There's even a phone number to call for verification for those inclined.


> Here in south central Utah we just had the LARGEST inland oil discovery in 30 years. Estimated at 11 Billion barrels. of the HIGHEST grade crude.  There are currently 14 oil wells  on 6 platforms located in Sigurd (8 miles from Richfield, UT) pumping 500 barrels per day. There are 3 refineries in North Salt Lake City where most of the oil is going.
> I have FIRST HAND knowledge of this because I was hired as a real estate consultant by an oil company out of Louisiana 4 years ago to check out possible minerals rights owned locally. They wanted to lease oil and mineral rights in this area because of the possilibilty of an oil discovery based on the information from Floyd Moulton and University of Utah geology department. Since we own 66 acres in the Sevier valley we have since leased our oil and mineral rights to Kervin and Kervin Land Services, Inc. There has since been another large oil discovery in Mayfield, UT only 50 miles from Richfield.  For any wanting to ask questions or verification of these facts you may call
> Jamie Kervin, 801-580-1056.
> Floyd Moulton is the 82 yr old geologist who has said the oil was here back in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Look him up on the internet and read his articles regarding this oil.  All the more reason to come to south cental Utah and live. I'll help you find a place.


I've geologist (read: caver) friends that tell me that the area mentioned is indeed ripe with potential for oil based on geologic formations and evidence of shale and other things (way over my head) that are good indicators.
The above quote is from a fwd-ed e-mail and there was a political rant to the rest of it that I decided to snip. 
We've got the reserves we need here across the country (remember that big find somewhere in the mid-west?) but we're not doing anything about it. Why? I think it's because there's *more money* in WAR than producing energy and a peaceful resolution to the world's energy needs.


----------



## tellner (Jul 1, 2008)

Well Caver, it's certainly easier to take someone else's oil than to drill for your own. That's doubly true when the tax payers picking up the tab _and_ paying the butcher's bill.

The problem with a lot of the North American oil reserves is twofold.

First, a lot of them like the Northern Prairie shales and the Athabasca tar sands are very expensive to extract. They're not nicely capped oil fields with lots of volatiles. Extracting oil from shale or using the low grade stuff from the sands is expensive. When the energy to get it out is close to the energy you get out of it the price has to be pretty high to make it worth the effort.  

Second, the oil companies are already sitting on a lot of conventional domestic resources that they just don't want to exploit. They are only prepared to do it when it will maximize profit - i.e. when the price of oil has gone from "Unchristly" to "OMFG do you want to rip my heart out while you're at it!?!?!?" 

It's a nice perk to get offshore drilling again; Dick Cheney was lying when he said the Chinese were drilling off Cuba. And it would be nice to have the last major arctic wildlife refuge opened for royalty-free drilling. But even the oil companies admit that the reserves in ANWR aren't that significant. And the offshore stuff, again by their and the government's best estimates, won't make a significant difference for ten to twenty years. When people are afraid they'll give you whatever little thing you want. When they're panicking they'll thrown in their children and grovel for the privilege. It's best to keep them afraid and panicked.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 1, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Yes but who the hell are we to determine that way of life is WRONG!?



Widespread religious oppression is wrong in any context.  You can tell that because those who don't want to live that way (i.e. the women who now have to walk around veiled) have no choice in the matter.  If they had a choice, perhaps it would be different.



MA-Caver said:


> It's how they want to live, it's how they were living before we got involved.



No, it's not how they want to live, a small number of violent and armed extremists are forcing this on the others.  Also, as I _just said_, it isn't how they were living before we got involved.  Our involvement is what enabled the religious extremists to exert power again.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 1, 2008)

At the risk of saying the obvious...they can always rise up and refuse to go gently into that good night as it were. Freedom is won, not given as a gift.


----------

