The Iran War

Marines 'assault' US beaches in amphibious drill

With beach landings, 25 naval ships and an air assault, the United States and eight other countries are staging a major amphibious exercise on the US East Coast this week, fighting a fictional enemy that bears more than a passing resemblance to Iran.
After a decade dominated by ground wars against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, the drill dubbed Bold Alligator is "the largest amphibious exercise conducted by the fleet in the last 10 years," said Admiral John Harvey, head of US Fleet Forces Command.
The threat of mines, anti-ship missiles and small boats in coastal waters conjure up Iran's naval forces, but the commanders overseeing the drill, Admiral Harvey and Marine Lieutenant General Dennis Hejlik, say the scenario is not based on any particular country.

The war drums beat loudly.

93_confirmed wrote:

Marines 'assault' US beaches in amphibious drill

With beach landings, 25 naval ships and an air assault, the United States and eight other countries are staging a major amphibious exercise on the US East Coast this week, fighting a fictional enemy that bears more than a passing resemblance to Iran.
After a decade dominated by ground wars against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, the drill dubbed Bold Alligator is "the largest amphibious exercise conducted by the fleet in the last 10 years," said Admiral John Harvey, head of US Fleet Forces Command.
The threat of mines, anti-ship missiles and small boats in coastal waters conjure up Iran's naval forces, but the commanders overseeing the drill, Admiral Harvey and Marine Lieutenant General Dennis Hejlik, say the scenario is not based on any particular country.

The war drums beat loudly.

Huh, I thought that they cancelled the EFV because the Marines don't do amphib assaults anymore.

I didn't see anyone mention the sanctions yesterday ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...

I think I heard somewhere that imposing sanctions such as these could be a possible tipping point for Iran, forcing the regime to take action such as causing grief in the Strait. I've still not seen any conclusive evidence produced that confirms Iran is working towards a weapon so to me it appears we are self producing our next enemy. So depressing.

The Marines do amphibious assault practices against fake Middle Eastern countries on a regular basis. This one would have been scheduled long before the crisis blew up.

Robear wrote:

The Marines do amphibious assault practices against fake Middle Eastern countries on a regular basis. This one would have been scheduled long before the crisis blew up.

Before 1979 ? j/k

The crisis started basically when Iran started enriching Uranium . Every military usually trains for scenarios they will face in the future in order to learn from experience . There is a common saying in that was adopted by IDF "Hard training, easy combat" (Alexander Suvorov) and I bet the IDF isn't the only army who adopted this ideology.

93_confirmed wrote:

Iran Training 3500 Female Ninja Assassins (With Video!)

Game Over! Iran Wins - FATALITY!

Fairly impressive. I can ask my brother in law if they are any good He's a Shihan (Dan 10) and it's not easy to get to that level because you have to visit Japan to get Dan 4 or 5 (sword slash from behind test) and later it's generally politics .

I don't think these Iranians women can infiltrate Israel too well , because Their Hijab will give them away . I'm just kidding because there are plenty of women who wear a Hijab in Israel. I haven't seen many wearing a Niqab( face covering) but they are not illegal like in France and Belgium.

In related Middle East war news...

Assad forces mull use of chemical weapons in Homs, opposition says

Opposition activists said they had received reports that the Syrian army had transferred a significant quantity of grenades and mortars containing chemical agents to a school building in Homs.

The opposition also reported that gas masks were being distributed to soldiers at roadblocks.

I'm slightly skeptical because this is reported by the opposition forces but if they do start using WMDs, it's time for international forces to swifly crush this regime.

I don't think using chemical weapons on your own people is technically a war crime though. It'd be condemned, but I don't know how much it would actually spur other countries to action.

Nothing will happen under any UN mandate, because of our ridiculous overreach in Libya. In exchange for hurrying Gaddafi out of power, we now get to sit and watch people suffer and die without being able to do anything about it, because Russia and China will prevent it.

Lying can have consequences. Sometimes, terrible consequences.

Malor wrote:

Lying can have consequences. Sometimes, terrible consequences.

The individual words make sense, but I just can't put them into a sentence I understand.

Malor wrote:

Nothing will happen under any UN mandate, because of our ridiculous overreach in Libya. In exchange for hurrying Gaddafi out of power, we now get to sit and watch people suffer and die without being able to do anything about it, because Russia and China will prevent it.

Lying can have consequences. Sometimes, terrible consequences.

Wasn't Gaddafi doing pretty much the same thing as Assad? Killing civilians in his own cities.

Perhaps we should spin off the discussion of the Syrian uprising to a new thread. It certainly deserves one.

Yonder wrote:
Malor wrote:

Lying can have consequences. Sometimes, terrible consequences.

The individual words make sense, but I just can't put them into a sentence I understand.

We lied about what we were doing in Libya, and the consequence for that lying is that we're unable to intervene under U.N. jurisdiction in Syria.

If we'd actually done what we said we'd do, that would have started a nice positive precedent to let us stop the worst of the abuses of civilians. Instead of being able to intervene and save civilians forever, we traded all that away for one country that wasn't in anywhere near as bad a shape as Syria is now. It's unlikely that Russia or China will allow any further military interventions of any kind for a very long time.

It's blood for oil, just indirect this time. We (NATO) grabbed Libya as soon as we had a figleaf of cover for doing so, and the long-term cost of that outright deception will be paid in the lives of innocent civilians.

So, to recap: Lying can have consequences. Sometimes, terrible consequences.

Malor wrote:
Yonder wrote:
Malor wrote:

Lying can have consequences. Sometimes, terrible consequences.

The individual words make sense, but I just can't put them into a sentence I understand.

We lied about what we were doing in Libya, and the consequence for that lying is that we're unable to intervene under U.N. jurisdiction in Syria.

If we'd actually done what we said we'd do, that would have started a nice positive precedent to let us stop the worst of the abuses of civilians. Instead of being able to intervene and save civilians forever, we traded all that away for one country that wasn't in anywhere near as bad a shape as Syria is now. It's unlikely that Russia or China will allow any further military interventions of any kind for a very long time.

It's blood for oil, just indirect this time. We (NATO) grabbed Libya as soon as we had a figleaf of cover for doing so, and the long-term cost of that outright deception will be paid in the lives of innocent civilians.

So, to recap: Lying can have consequences. Sometimes, terrible consequences.

Sorry, I understood what you were saying, I was trying to convey the idea that as an American(tm) I flat out couldn't understand the concept of our nation's actions on the world stage having negative repercussions.

And this is a lot of why I was so upset at the time. I was criticized for not looking at the greater good, that deceiving the Russians and Chinese were okay, apparently because they were bad guys. Our little deception was good for the Libyans. But I was thinking about the next country that needed help.

It's like the 9/11 reaction -- if we'd used it to increase our cooperation with foreign police, we could have had a much greater impact on terrorism, but we wasted it in useless violence against mostly unrelated countries, causing enormous civilian casualties. Likewise, that U.N. mandate to impose the no-fly zone was precious and fragile, and could have been used as a precedent to stop extreme forms of domestic suppression all over the globe, but instead we wasted it on turning one oil-rich country into a satellite state. (or at least trying to.) This was mostly the fault of Britain and France, as they were the big drivers on the invasion... they had substantial oil interests in Libya. But we backed them up in their deception and violent overthrow of a non-friendly dictator.

The only way we can intervene in Syria now would be as NATO, not as the U.N., and the long-term consequences of that could potentially be worse still... increasing tensions sharply around the globe. Russia and China mostly are run by bad guys, so if we go in without their permission, they may choose to try to stop us, in one form or another. And it strikes me as extraordinarily unlikely that they'll voluntarily allow another U.N. military intervention in the foreseeable future.

We lied about what we were doing in Libya, and the consequence for that lying is that we're unable to intervene under U.N. jurisdiction in Syria.

What was the lie? Here's part of UN Resolution 1973:

“Protection of civilians

“4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

That's *in addition* to the no fly zone, which is in a different paragraph. The US opened operations to degrade the air defenses, then handed operational control to NATO, as it said it was going to do. The US then continued to participate in NATO-led operations as it said it was going to do. In late October, the UN ended NATOs power to operate in the area.

I understand you feel strongly about this, so please, let us know where the US lied about it's intentions.

Come on, Robear. Bombing Gaddafi's compound, blowing up his entire military, isn't stopping civilian casualties, it's overthrowing a dictator.

And the Syrians are paying the price of that lie.

Malor wrote:

Come on, Robear. Bombing Gaddafi's compound, blowing up his entire military, isn't stopping civilian casualties, it's overthrowing a dictator.

And the Syrians are paying the price of that lie.

I think it's more that the Syrians are paying the price for living in a country that Iran has an interest in. I think China and Russia vetoing intervention has a lot more to do with what's going on in Iran than it does with what went on in Libya.

Bombing Gaddafi's compound, blowing up his entire military, isn't stopping civilian casualties, it's overthrowing a dictator.

You're kidding. That's it? Gaddafi and the military *were* the ones causing military casualties. How would anyone have protected civilians by *not* attacking Gaddafi and his military? If you can explain that, then you're on target.

Look, Gaddafi went down because he *would not stop* attacking his own people. He had many opportunities to walk away, and later to turn himself in. He could have shut down the attacks. But he decided in the early part of the year that because people were marching against him, he was going to simply wipe out the towns and neighborhoods that were against him. And he certainly tried to do that, and continued to do that, beyond the point where a few units could be targeted as they attacked civilians. His entire military was involved in this (excepting of course the units that stood down or turned coat, which, surprise, were not attacked after that.)

I understand that you don't like the method, but the fact is that Gaddafi took the attacks to civilians through the use of his military, which made them legitimate targets. Even the Arab League participated in the fight. The end result was that Gaddafi lost enough military strength that he could not resist the rebels, but his forces *still* retaliated against civilians. Even as he was being captured, his final entourage was firing on civilians in the streets as they moved.

Sometimes, to protect people from a dictator, he's got to go in the process. But the US did not *lie* about it's goals. I think you just didn't *like* them. That's fine, but spinning it to draw conclusions about the current situation is not. (The problem with the Chinese and the Russians is that we're now messing with one of their client states, not that they are upset that we "lied". They don't trust us in this regard because for nearly 30 years we've had an overt policy of spreading democracy, and they've seen that pull states out of their sphere during the period with varying levels of success. They don't want to lose another foothold in the Middle East, is my read.)

The *danger* of intervening in Syria is that they are far better equipped, trained and led than any of our recent opponents, and would represent a real fight. They are not going to cave after a round of strategic bombing, or allow us to take down their air defense network without a serious fight. And they have the capability to spread the fight to other countries; heck, they *owned* Lebanon for decades and still control one or more of the major parties. And they border on Israel, remember.

The US *has* lied to go into conflicts. But Obama is not Bush, and Libya was not Iraq. For once we get a positive result, without deception, and with widespread support, and that's the one you pick on? Seems like maybe this is one for the good guys. The Libyans seem to think so, anyway.

I think it's more that the Syrians are paying the price for living in a country that Iran has an interest in. I think China and Russia vetoing intervention has a lot more to do with what's going on in Iran than it does with what went on in Libya.

Syria has been a power in the region for a long time, and it has allied with Iran for convenience. Both of them opposed Saddam Hussein and Israel and the US, but neither wanted to be the next on Bush's domino list. (Remember the speculation that there had been preparations for an invasion of Syria, called off at the last minute during the Iraq invasion?) So yeah, now that they are both united against the US again, Iran is helping Syria get Russian and Chinese weapons and bring in supplies to ease the embargo. This makes a lot of sense, and it's part of what we have to factor into any possible intervention.

Bombs target Israeli diplomats in India, Georgia; 2 injured

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu angrily blamed Iran on Monday for twin attempts to bomb people affiliated with the Israeli embassies in New Delhi and Tbilisi, Georgia.

The wife of an Israeli diplomat in New Delhi and her driver were injured in a blast from explosives slapped on their car by a passing motorcyclist, authorities said. Around the same time, a grenade-type device was found duct taped to the bottom of a car affiliated with the embassy in Tbilisi. It was defused without anyone being injured.

Any chance Mossad is responsible for this and the attacks on the Iranian scientists?

I was surprised when I read in a Wired article that we'be received a large chunk of nuclear plant fuels from Russia which were made from their missiles!

Now, since this is the case, why isn't Iran getting nuclear fuel this way? I believed it was offered in the past and they have plenty of oil to trade with.

If your answer is "Iran has the right to make nukes", fine, that's an opinion but I'd like to know other reasoning why they don't take advantage of that solution. Has a lot been said on that and I missed it?

karmajay wrote:

I was surprised when I read in a Wired article that we'be received a large chunk of nuclear plant fuels from Russia which were made from their missiles!

Now, since this is the case, why isn't Iran getting nuclear fuel this way? I believed it was offered in the past and they have plenty of oil to trade with.

If your answer is "Iran has the right to make nukes", fine, that's an opinion but I'd like to know other reasoning why they don't take advantage of that solution. Has a lot been said on that and I missed it?

A large part of the answer is that the wording and the spirit of the NNPT make it clear that peaceful nuclear technology belongs to no one and everyone and that the inability to produce your own nuclear fuel simply makes you a consumer of someone else's commodity. And should that supplier simply decide not to sell it to you, you're pretty well cornholed.

Another one of those times that The Onion can be funny and depressing at the same time just by accurately reporting on real life events.

1. Man, the author of that paper made the completely innocent oversight of accidentally not mentioning the Iranian scientists murdered. He also made the totally overlookable error of not including a single piece of evidence that the Iranians are actually trying to develop a bomb.

2. Oh thank goodness we are about to invade another country. For a second I thought that the increased pressure building in opposition of our out-of-control attack spending might actually manifest in some cuts. Not to worry though, we found more brown people to murder. Whew.

Yonder wrote:

1. Man, the author of that paper made the completely innocent oversight of accidentally not mentioning the Iranian scientists murdered. He also made the totally overlookable error of not including a single piece of evidence that the Iranians are actually trying to develop a bomb.

2. Oh thank goodness we are about to invade another country. For a second I thought that the increased pressure building in opposition of our out-of-control attack spending might actually manifest in some cuts. Not to worry though, we found more brown people to murder. Whew.

Say..you ain't no terrr'ist are ya?

The west's tactic of applying unfair sanctions for completely fabricated reasons and then accusing Iran of being unreasonable and ratcheting up the possibility of war is getting a little old now.

The Young Turks have had really good coverage on the propaganda we've seen slathering US citizens into a frenzy against Iran. Here is their latest piece:

Paleocon wrote:
karmajay wrote:

I was surprised when I read in a Wired article that we'be received a large chunk of nuclear plant fuels from Russia which were made from their missiles!

Now, since this is the case, why isn't Iran getting nuclear fuel this way? I believed it was offered in the past and they have plenty of oil to trade with.

If your answer is "Iran has the right to make nukes", fine, that's an opinion but I'd like to know other reasoning why they don't take advantage of that solution. Has a lot been said on that and I missed it?

A large part of the answer is that the wording and the spirit of the NNPT make it clear that peaceful nuclear technology belongs to no one and everyone and that the inability to produce your own nuclear fuel simply makes you a consumer of someone else's commodity. And should that supplier simply decide not to sell it to you, you're pretty well cornholed.

Yeah, well the same can be said for oil, certain important metals, etc. The point is a decade of sanction sand issues when they could just trade with one of their supposedly best buddies and ally, Russia. Then, they still have nuclear power no issues.

Iran winning on oil sanctions. In a nutshell, the possibility of war and shortages elsewhere have driven up the price, which means the embargo is currently entirely ineffective in its ostensible goal of reducing Iranian oil revenues.