# The Coming War with Iran?



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 3, 2008)

With plans underway for a US attack on Iran reportedly later this summer, what are your thoughts?

This attack has of course been rumored to be coming since the opening of the Iraq war.

Will it happen? 

Paul Craig Roberts calls it "Another                American War Crime in the Making"


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 3, 2008)

Who knows?  I would say there is a greater chance of it than not.  I would also say that it will be an "October Surprise", and a "Gulf of Tonkin event".

Does anyone know if it is becoming harder for the United States to borrow money yet?


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 3, 2008)

One thing is for sure -- let Iran squeeze one off -- there won't be much of Iran left after that (and I, for one, will not loose any sleep over it).  Isreal will take care of business in a WHOLE different way, if they are smart about it.  It won't take take 6 years, that's for sure, hahaha!


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 3, 2008)

lemme fill you guys in on something

there are ALWAYS people drawing up war plans

got that?

ALWAYS

it is all hypothetical, but there are teams of people that that is all they do, they pick a country, and draw up a hypothetical plan of how to wage war on that country

it's called planning. And if there is one thing the military LOVES to do besides train, it is PLAN

You practice MA of some kind I assume. Does that mean you PLAN on attacking someone?

no? then why practice self defense?

in case you have to

it is the same thing. 

to quote Sgt Hulka

"settle down Francis"


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 3, 2008)

Oh yeah, Israel will nuke them in a heartbeat.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 3, 2008)

Here's the questions:

What's the reason? Is there really a problem, or is it just more "because we can" crap from Bush and Cheney?

We're already stretched thin with our Iraqi Forever War. Do we have the ability to fight another war, this one against a better equiped enemy who hasn't been weakened by a decade of sanctions?


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 3, 2008)

did you not read what I posted?

We make war plans with everyone, just in case we need them. hell when I was in the navy i saw the plans for war with japan. and they were our bestest buddies back then in the 80's

as for why we might be worried about iran NOW?

do you REALLY need that explained to you?


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 3, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Do we have the ability to fight another war, this one against a better equiped enemy who hasn't been weakened by a decade of sanctions?



I don't know war science.  There are military people on this board who can say, but my gut feeling is that we simply can't afford it, if nothing else.  Again, as I posted above, who will lend us the money?

If Iran keeps #####-ing around, then, well, who knows?  Of course, there is a BIG difference between HAVING a nuclear weapon (and a delivery system) and USING it.  That's for sure.  Now, as far as I know, Isreal *might* let the US know (or the US may speculate) that:

Isreal will preemptively strike Iran now (I, again, would NOT hold this against Isreal, they can do as they wish to protect themselves.)

The US may then say (in order to keep a World War at bay) -- "No, we will try to remove this threat, you will now stand down while the US command addresses this." 

I'm not sure how this works.  I do know that I, for one, think 
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not to be trusted.  That guy is a bad guy!  He has already made that QUITE CLEAR himself!!!  He seems to me to be more dangerous than Sadam Hussein was!  But, no, our lackey president had to have forces invade Iraq.  He could have concentrated on Afghanistan only, but instead he was foolish!


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 3, 2008)

Just some food for thought.

look at a map of the middle east

afganistan-bad guys
iraq- bad guys
iran-bad guys

the mountains and russia are to the north.

whats in between the Afgans (where we have bases now) and iraq (where we have bases now)

IRAN

we have them cornered with mountains to the north and the ocean to the south.

Still think it was foolish?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 3, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> did you not read what I posted?
> 
> We make war plans with everyone, just in case we need them. hell when I was in the navy i saw the plans for war with japan. and they were our bestest buddies back then in the 80's
> 
> ...


Yes, I read it. This is however a discussion board with 9,000 members. Some of them might have more to add than your final word on the subject.


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 3, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Just some food for thought.
> 
> look at a map of the middle east
> 
> ...



OH!  You don't think that this was part of a larger plan, do you?  To inhibit egress to Iraq?


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 3, 2008)

Well, I can say this -- and it goes without saying, but I will say it nonetheless.

*IF *Iraq does "turn" (become a country resembling the US, one that would support our interests)

*THEN* Bush will go down in history as being a Great Man, but I despair that there is little or no chance of that happening.

However, who can say until its over?


----------



## tellner (Apr 4, 2008)

I seem to recall the Iranian government saying "You and what army?" when Chimpy last rattled his shrunken little saber at them. By "not taking anything off the table" he's left the open the possibility of strikes with strategic weapons. Given "Swinging" Dick Cheney opposition to strategic weapons treaties I'm a bit nervous.

Israel doesn't get along well with Iran, but a nuclear exchange between the two would hurt Iran and destroy Israel. 

With Fallon gone the chance of a war goes up. He was widely seen as the last independent thinker in Bush's inner military circle. Since so many senior command staff have resigned what's left is mostly hacks and yes-men. If Shrubus Minimus wants a war he'll get one without any military objections. 

If it happens in the next couple months there may be an election, so the sheep can vote for a Strong Abusive Republican Daddy to make them Feel Safe. If it happens near the end of Bush's term he will take complete power without bothering to invoke the powers the spineless Democrats helped grant him with the Warner Reauthorization Act, the bird flu legislation and the DMCA. If he's feeling a little less contempt than usual for the Constitution and the Rule of Law he may invoke the National Security Act and declare a State of Emergency With Limited Mobilization. That roughly translates to:



> ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul,
> ash nazg thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 4, 2008)

Yes, we will "take it", and not even have the common courtesy of having a reach around.

I forgot all about Fallon being fired.


----------



## LuzRD (Apr 4, 2008)

On March 30, the Russian News & Information Agency, Novosti, cited "a high-ranking security source: "The latest military intelligence data point to heightened US military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran.".....


from an article that is a year old?  27/ 03/ 2007

couldve MAYBE read "On March 30, 2007..."??


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Apr 4, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> *IF *Iraq does "turn" (become a country resembling the US, one that would support our interests)



This is a big problem.  The arab world seem to think America is intent on exporting its vision and model to the world.  We cant do that, they are, and must be their own people.  That was the idea of 'Iraqi Freedom' was it not?  



Twin Fist said:


> lemme fill you guys in on something
> 
> there are ALWAYS people drawing up war plans
> 
> ...



Well said that man.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 4, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> lemme fill you guys in on something
> 
> there are ALWAYS people drawing up war plans
> 
> ...



Saber rattling is not planning.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2008)

We rarely plans things ahead of time, we tend to be spontaneous but then this isn't the first time our army has been in Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran for that matter. I can't remember a time when the British army hasn't been at war, we were fighting in the Second World war obviously, then Korea and Malaya, Suez, Salalah in the 70's, the Falklands, the ongoing N Ireland situation, first Iraq war etc etc. 
If America goes into Iran they are unlikely to be supported by our troops, we simply don't have them to open up another front. We are stretched far too thin now.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Apr 4, 2008)

It's been a desire of Dick Cheney to attack Syria, Iraq and Iran for decades.


----------



## tellner (Apr 4, 2008)

The Last Legionary said:


> It's been a desire of Dick Cheney to attack Syria, Iraq and Iran for decades.



Fine. Hand him a rifle and extra batteries for his pacemaker and let him and his hand-puppet lead the charge. They can command the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, Rush, Mike Wiener, Michelle Malkin and the entire cast of the Free Republic and LGF.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 4, 2008)

That's the trouble with a war you never wanna end.

Afghanistan was one thing. Iraq, necessary, but bungled, what's next? how much will be enough? Iran? Korea? Mexico?

You shout "War On Terror" at the Chinese and they laugh so hard the world blows up in your face.......


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 4, 2008)

tellner said:


> Fine. Hand him a rifle and extra batteries for his pacemaker and let him and his hand-puppet lead the charge. They can command the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, Rush, Mike Wiener, Michelle Malkin and the entire cast of the Free Republic and LGF.


One can only wish!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 4, 2008)

The problem is, Dick's got nothing to lose. No friends or family at risk. Just more profit on his Haliburton stocks. 

Someone once said, only a fool fights on 2 fronts.  How many incomplete wars do they want and how many of our youth are going to die so DC gets a bigger dividend?


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 4, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Someone once said, only a fool fights on 2 fronts.



Next thing you know, we'll be going in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 4, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The problem is, Dick's got nothing to lose. No friends or family at risk. Just more profit on his Haliburton stocks.



not so fast there Bob

The TRUTH is that Cheney doesnt profit AT ALL from his remaining stock options.

http://www.factcheck.org/kerry_ad_falsely_accuses_cheney_on_halliburton.html

The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education, a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.​ The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.

sorry buddy, but you are wrong
​


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> not so fast there Bob
> 
> The TRUTH is that Cheney doesnt profit AT ALL from his remaining stock options.
> 
> ...


 

Any idea if Cheney holds shares of Halliburton stock outside of the stock options program?  Does he have any shares that he or his family members have purchased directly thru an investment account?


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 4, 2008)

yes and no, he sold his actual stock in Aug 2000

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/12/campaign.cheney.halliburton.reut/index.html

The options he still owns were part of his salary as CEO, and as I have already proven, he doesnt profit from those in any way. his tax returns are public record.

Not to mention the fact that Haliburton lost it's biggest contract in Iraq in 2006

http://www.alternet.org/story/39567/

Some people sure wont like it, but  those are the facts. 
Cheney is really not the boogey man some folks like to paint him out to be.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> yes and no, he sold his actual stock in Aug 2000


 
And you know for sure that he and his family members havn't bought any shares in the last 8 years?

I wonder how one might go about finding this out...


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> The options he still owns were part of his salary as CEO, and as I have already proven, he doesnt profit from those in any way.


 
yes, stock options are a different thing from simply owning shares of stock in a brokerage account.



> Cheney is really not the boogey man some folks like to paint him out to be.


 
well, Cheney certainly is one of the the boogey men, it just may be that this isn't the issue.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Not to mention the fact that Haliburton lost it's biggest contract in Iraq in 2006


 
I don't know the details of Haliburton's contracts in Iraq.  However, it is clear that the war in Iraq has meant nothing but profit for them.

As far as the connection to Cheney goes, it is direct croneyism, that much is certain.  The company that he founded got a lot of fat contracts very easily, as soon as the conflict started.  He may be officially disconnected from the company, but it is very difficult to pretend that it is simply coincidence.

And it's hard to believe that he or his family won't profit from it somehow, even if it is a few years down the road.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 4, 2008)

his financials and tax returns are public record. Do you think that if someone had proof that he, or someone close to him was buying up defense contractor stock it wouldnt make the news? Google "cheney haliburton stock" and all you get are stories about his stock options.

What i dont get is that Haliburton has been getting government contracts since Korea. the got contracts during Vietnam, all through the 80's and 90's

Why suddenly is it a big conspiracy that they still do? If they never had before, but suddenly did after their former CEO was vice president, i could understand all the hubub. 

Oh, thats right, people just want a scandal, even if it is false.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 4, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> I don't know the details of Haliburton's contracts in Iraq.  However, it is clear that the war in Iraq has meant nothing but profit for them.
> 
> As far as the connection to Cheney goes, it is direct croneyism, that much is certain.  The company that he founded got a lot of fat contracts very easily, as soon as the conflict started.  He may be officially disconnected from the company, but it is very difficult to pretend that it is simply coincidence.
> 
> And it's hard to believe that he or his family won't profit from it somehow, even if it is a few years down the road.



Micheal.
1- Cheney didnt found Halibuton. Haliburton goes back tot he 40's
2- yes the company has profitted from contracts in Iraq. LOTS of companies have
3-Unless someone can PROVE that Cheney got the contract for them, it isnt crony anything. Like I said, they have been getting military support contracts since KOREA. How was THAT cronyism? It isnt "certain" because it isnt true. And contracts are handed out not by the vice president, but by the GAO
4- it seems hard to believe that 19 guys killed 3000, but it happened.

I am not trying to bust your chops bro, I am just trying to show you that everything you think you know might not be what you think it is.

The Truth is out there, you just gotta look for it.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 4, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Why suddenly is it a big conspiracy that they still do?



The fact that the Iraq war contract, at least the initial one, was no-bid might have something to do with it.


----------



## tellner (Apr 4, 2008)

Recall that he's still getting pay and bonuses from Halliburton. It's going into a trust so he can't officially put it into his private bank account right now. When he was asked about the propriety during the 2000 election he said that _of course_ it would all go straight to charity. None of it has. Not a bit. And even if he did donate it he would tax deductions worth millions.

If he has no interest in Halliburton or KBR there wouldn't be any reason at all for them to get billions of dollars in every year in no-bid audit-free contracts, would there? But they do. And they are generally the only company even considered. 

The man gives corruption a bad name.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> 1- Cheney didnt found Halibuton. Haliburton goes back tot he 40's


 
my misunderstanding.  I honestly haven't looked closely at the company.



> 2- yes the company has profitted from contracts in Iraq. LOTS of companies have
> 3-Unless someone can PROVE that Cheney got the contract for them, it isnt crony anything. Like I said, they have been getting military support contracts since KOREA. How was THAT cronyism? It isnt "certain" because it isnt true. And contracts are handed out not by the vice president, but by the GAO


 
No, I don't have proof, but I do have suspicions.  We'll see what happens when he becomes a civilian again.



> 4- it seems hard to believe that 19 guys killed 3000, but it happened.


 
not sure what you are referring to here...


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> The fact that the Iraq war contract, at least the initial one, was no-bid might have something to do with it.


 
yup, that's what I was thinking about, couldn't quite pin it down...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 4, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> not so fast there Bob
> 
> The TRUTH is that Cheney doesnt profit AT ALL from his remaining stock options.
> 
> ...


I wasn't aware of that. Thank you.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 4, 2008)

Not so fast

The last payment he received from haliburton was in 2005, that was the final installment of he pay as CEO which he deferred. Which is a common practice btw

Also, you are right, nothing has gone to charity yet from his Halibuton stock options. 

Not because he is Darth Cheney, but because he hasnt sold them yet. You cant direct proceeds of a sale to charity until you actually sell something
Huh, who would have thunk it. You cant give away the proceeds of a sale untill you , you know, sell something. Thats Crazy.......

Plus, he has also signed away the tax deduction he will get when he does. The truth is out there.

that takes care of most of your post, as for the rest:
"If he has no interest in Halliburton or KBR there wouldn't be any reason at all for them to get billions of dollars in every year in no-bid audit-free contracts, would there?"

well, thats not true either.

"4/27/2003: (CBS)                 Halliburton&#8217;s government relations                 director says his company&#8217;s former CEO, now the vice president                 of the United States, has nothing to do with the company getting                 billions of dollars in federal contracts, including a recent                 no-bid job, worth up to $7 billion, to put out oil well fires in                 Iraq.

                Dominy says the connection between the vice president and                 Halliburton&#8217;s business with the government has &#8220;absolutely                 zero impact.&#8221; Asked if his being a former three-star Army                 general had anything to do with his employment at Halliburton,                 Dominy replies, &#8220;None.&#8221;

                Why did they get the no-bid contract to put out oil fires for                 the Army? &#8220;We are the only company in the United States that                 had the kind of systems in place, people in place, contacts in                 place, to do that kind of thing,&#8221; says Dominy.

                But he acknowledges the perception of cronyism it creates, which                 is a view only a look inside the process could dispel. &#8220;In                 fact, I wish I could embed [critics] inside the Department of                 Defense contracting system. Once they&#8217;d done that, they&#8217;d                 have religion just like I do about how the system cannot be                 influenced,&#8221; he tells Kroft."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3141.htm

They got it because no one else could do it. The FBI investigated it in 2004, and found no wrong doing.

But like i said, people want a scandal, weather or not it is true.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 4, 2008)

"people want a scandal, weather or not it is true."
Very true.  Which is why the repeated requests for backing info. I think you said here or elsewhere anyone can put up a webpage, which was 100% right. My arguement on all these issues is, lets put all the info out there we can, weed through it, debunk is, etc and see where "truth" really is. Sometimes dude, I put stuff up so it -will- be debunked. 


Now, regarding Iran, and war plans..... having plans for various wars, etc, is a good thing. Constantly updating them, modifying them, etc, also good.

The concern here is, that given various things, and a track record of deceit, that these are more than "whatifs" but "we're going in soon" type plans.

I also ask, "Why?". Because I and others honestly would like to know, and don't want to simply assume that what we "know" is in fact, what is real.

9,000 members, many, in the middle of all this fun stuff.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 4, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Very true.  Which is why the repeated requests for backing info. I think you said here or elsewhere anyone can put up a webpage, which was 100% right. My arguement on all these issues is, lets put all the info out there we can, weed through it, debunk is, etc and see where "truth" really is. Sometimes dude, I put stuff up so it -will- be debunked.



I agree 100% (as long as national security isnt violated you understand)

I HATE no bids cuz the potential for abuse is so high. But I wont assume abuse till it is proven. Which is pretty fair i think.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 23, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> The fact that the Iraq war contract, at least the initial one, was no-bid might have something to do with it.


The fact that Halliburton was the only SINGLE company, operating in the region, that had the capabilities and resources to actually do the work required, just may have had something to do with it.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 23, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> Who knows?  I would say there is a greater chance of it than not.  I would also say that it will be an "October Surprise", and a "Gulf of Tonkin event".
> 
> Does anyone know if it is becoming harder for the United States to borrow money yet?




Off Topic but:

I believe not yet. Why? To many countries and companies want to develop in China and China has bought lots of USA Debt to use as collateral for thei currency.


----------

