WAR WITH IRAN IN DECEMBER 2006!

Hugo Eccleston said:

Don't believe me? Well, I guess I don't blame you, you've heard a lot
of speculation about what the next target in the GWOT (Global War on
Terror) will be, some of it probably coming from some characters with
credibility problems that wou wouldn't trust to even shine your shoes.
But the signs are all here, and if you'll all bear with me, I'll make
you realize why regime change in Tehran will soon be real.

1) AMMUNITION ORDERS ARE UP - In a given year, the military always uses
up a certain amount of ammunition, even in peacetime. However, the
military has just signed contracts with a variety of coproatrions that
provide ammunition for small arms, rifles and machine guns. These
orders are far larger than what is needed by the military to provide
ammunition for Iraq and Afghanistan, and in fact the military is paying
some of these comapnies to expand their production facilities. The only
answer is that the military is preparing for another large ground war.

2) SPECIAL OPS ALREADY IN IRAN - Seymour Hersh has reported that U.S.
special forces are already inside Iran (having entered from
Afghanistan) preparing for operations. Israeli special forces,
meanwhile, have been infiltrating from northern Iraq. You'll remember
that preceding our operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan were special
forces infiltration.

3) OUR RECRUITING PROBLEMS - The recent inability of the United States
military to meet recruiitment goals (especially the Army and its
auxillary Reserve and Guard forces) actually increases the probability
of war with Iran. First off, at the moment it would be difficult to
launch any sustained military operation that went beyond the air and
naval realm, due to the fact that the vast majority of America's ground
forces are in Iraq and Afghanistan. With fewer and fewer people wanting
to enlist, a draft would be necessary in order to launch ground
operations. Of course, nobody wants a draft. The Bush Administration
and the Pentagon don't want one (well, at least they don't SAY they
want one), the typically spineless Democrats don't want one, and the
American people don't want one. However, if current recruiting and
deployment trends stay the same, or even get worse, then there will
soon come a time when, in order to meet America's global obligations,
Democrats and Republicans alike will have no chocie but to vote for a
draft (I predict both sides will vote for it overwhelmingly, then spend
the next two year blaming each other for creating the conditions that
forced them to do such). Though a draft would initially be meant simply
to fulfull current commitements, the foot would be in the door at that
point and the government could draft as many men as it likes. The other
services would benefit too because draftees not wanting to go into the
Army would opt for the Navy or Air Force instead, ensuring that all the
services have enough raw recruits.

I'm not crazy, you can research all this yourself.

Hugo Eccleston

VOTE QUIMBY!

I'm assuming you mean October.

The U.S. doesn't have enough soldiers to invade Iran unless it gets out of
Iraq which isn't going to happen.

Craig

SCraig shared this:

Quoted message said:

The U.S. doesn't have enough soldiers to invade Iran unless it gets
out of Iraq which isn't going to happen.

Actuslly, the Republicans have been making some very quiet noises
about ditching Iraq. Seems a bit stupid to do that and then invade their
next door neighbours, but none of this has been sensible.

--
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| James J. Dominguez (aka DexX) | james[dot]dominguez[at]gmail[dot]com |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| "It only takes a room of Americans for the English and Australians |
| to realise how much we have in common." - Stephen Fry |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

The Marine Corps has met it's recruiting obligations for this year.

The miltary has known it was going to the middle east for over thirty
years. Towards the end on my tour, in 1978, all of our equipment, then
painted jungle camouflage, was being repainted desert camouflage. The
scuttlebutt said the next major conflict would be in the desert. We
just didn't know which desert.

So, I'm sure that they know where they are going next.

So, what does all this have to do with food? What's the relevancy of
this topic with this group: rec.food.cooking?

"B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So, what does all this have to do with food? What's the relevancy of
this topic with this group: rec.food.cooking?

its because john rambo could eat food that would make a billy goat puke!!

--
regards from BOD!

"dont worry yoko, its only a friggin water pist...."
JOHN LENNON 1980

see bod pissing in the wind at...
www.bodland.co.uk the home of bod!

"James J. Dominguez" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

SCraig shared this:

Quoted message said:

The U.S. doesn't have enough soldiers to invade Iran unless it gets
out of Iraq which isn't going to happen.

Actuslly, the Republicans have been making some very quiet noises
about ditching Iraq. Seems a bit stupid to do that and then invade
their next door neighbours, but none of this has been sensible.

Even in the USSR, people caught that things were going badly. And
elections are coming up in 2006.

--
"Are you going to torture him?"
"What would you do?"
"I'd torture him."
--Dog Soldiers.

"B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message...

Quoted message said:

So, what does all this have to do with food? What's the relevancy of
this topic with this group: rec.food.cooking?

It has about as much relevance as crossposting it to alt.horror

--
Best Wishes
Simon (aka Dark Angel)
"Dark Angel's Realm of Horror" - http://www.realmofhorror.co.uk
"Realm of Horror Radio" - http://www.live365.com/stations/313834

Even the Bush Administration probably isn't sufficiently detached from
reality to invade Iran given the current situation.

Very limited strikes on nuclear program sites, I could see (ie,
imagine, endorse). An invasion? Ha. Even if we didn't have the Iraqi
fiasco going on, Iran is a far more complicated endeavor than Iraq ever
could be. It's hard to imagine even the Bush Administration doing
something this moronic. Cynical Democrats would no doubt be gleeful at
the effects this would have on the 2008 race.

There won't be an invasion of Iran. Iran will just magically become a
pluralistic, liberal democracy because Iraq is (will be) a thriving
liberal democracy. That's the whole neocon delusion - enable a
freely-elected government in Baghdad and it will be viable. It will
also be a shining beacon to which the rest of the Middle East will
flock. And soon they'll all be democratic. So no invasion of Iran is
necessary. At least in the strange universe the neocons inhabit.

They're drinking their own Kool-Aid.

Incident said:

necessary. At least in the strange universe the neocons inhabit.

They're drinking their own Kool-Aid.

Watch out, this person is another cross posting drive-by poster. If
you are using Agent, ensure it is set to reply to only "current
group".

Like I said, all things remaining equal, the Iraq crisis will
eventually require a draft to be implemented. Once the foot is in the
door and draft legislation is on the books, Bush and company will be
able to draft as many soldiers as they need for other campaigns. The
trick is getting the law on the books.

Airstrikes against Iran (which I agree are coming) are not likely to be
limited, due to the fact that the neoconservatives believe that if
enough of Iran's military and governmental infrastructure are
destroyed, the result will be that the Ayatollah will quickly be
overthrown. Air strikes are not imminent though, because there has yet
to be a clear build-up in the region of the necessary naval and air
forces that would be required for such a strike.

There was almost a conflict between Iran and the U.S./UK in 2003 when a
detachment of Iranian troops crossed into a British-controlled sector
of southern Iraq and took up positions in several square miles of
territory whose ownership is disputed by the two countries. The
American theater commander called the local British commander and told
him that American reinforcements were on their way, and he was to
prepare his troops to attack the Iranian positions. The British
commander said somehtoing akin to, "I'm not going to do something that
stupid without direct orders from London", and fortunately cooler heads
prevailed and the Iranians ended up going home without firing a shot.

Quoted message said:

Airstrikes against Iran (which I agree are coming)

I don't know what you "agree" with - I certainly never said that
airstrikes against Iran are coming, nor that I expect them, just that I
can certainly foresee that possibility.

Quoted message said:

are not likely to be limited, due to the fact that the
neoconservatives believe that if enough of Iran's military
and governmental infrastructure are destroyed, the result
will be that the Ayatollah will quickly be overthrown.

1) They certainly are likely to be limited, unless you foresee hundreds
of megaton-range nuclear warheads raining down on Iran. Hint -
virtually all modern warfare is limited by political or other
considerations.

2) If you think they neoconservatives haven't blown a great deal of
their collective wad with their rosey predictions over Iraq that turned
out to be nonsense, then I don't know what to say. If you've paid an
ounce of attention to the Bush Administration, you'd understand that
even a headstrong President prone to going with his "gut" over the
evidence is still constrained by politics. Even someone has resistant
to reality as Bush tends to be at times has still shown an
understanding of overreach, that he's at it, and that he can't reach
any further. What do you think are the primary reasons we haven't
boosted troop level in Iraq? Bush knows it's political untenable.
Period.

Beyond that, the dispersal of the Iranian nuclear program (the Iranians
learned some valuable lessons from the 1981 Osirak raid) makes
airstrikes a difficult prospect without a high success rate.

As fond as you are of crying that the sky is falling, I'd suggest you
take a deep breath of reality.

"Hugo Eccleston" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

OUR RECRUITING PROBLEMS - The recent inability of the United States
military to meet recruiitment goals (especially the Army and its
auxillary Reserve and Guard forces) actually increases the probability
of war with Iran. First off, at the moment it would be difficult to
launch any sustained military operation that went beyond the air and
naval realm, due to the fact that the vast majority of America's ground
forces are in Iraq and Afghanistan. With fewer and fewer people wanting
to enlist, a draft would be necessary in order to launch ground
operations.

Be one hell of a time to invade the US wouldn't it?

--
Never worry about a book corrupting a child...Worry if your children are
not getting ideas from books.

http://www.bonestructure.net

Incident said:

I don't know what you "agree" with - I certainly never said that
airstrikes against Iran are coming, nor that I expect them, just that I
can certainly foresee that possibility.

You sounded a lot more certain than that.

Quoted message said:

1) They certainly are likely to be limited, unless you foresee hundreds
of megaton-range nuclear warheads raining down on Iran. Hint -
virtually all modern warfare is limited by political or other
considerations.

"Limited" in my definition means that the strikes would only target the
nuclear sites and take out any air defenses the Iranians have standing
in the way of that task. I foresee a much more in-depth Kosovo-style
air campaign aimed at degrading Iran's total military strength and
wrecking their economy. And as (hopefully) we remember from the days of
Kosovo, that massive air campaign was also a "limited" conflict.

Quoted message said:

2) If you think they neoconservatives haven't blown a great deal of
their collective wad with their rosey predictions over Iraq that turned
out to be nonsense, then I don't know what to say.

You're right, most mainstream conservatives, especially many of those
in Congress, have come to realize that most of the neoconservative
crowd is bonkers. But you must remember, the Bush Administration is no
longer even on the same page as many mainstream conservatives. While
many of them are, as was pointed out, quietly making noises about
getting out of Iraq, Bush goes on TV and makes speeches about staying
as long as is needed. While many of them in Congress are worried about
economic issues, including the national debt, Bush is going around the
country touting a Social Security plan that, if enacted the way he
wants it, will entail even more borrowing. And that doesn't even take
into account the judicial nominee fights that are coming. The Bush
Administration operates on its own logic, and many Republicans are
starting to see the president as out of step even with their
priorities.

Quoted message said:

If you've paid an
ounce of attention to the Bush Administration, you'd understand that
even a headstrong President prone to going with his "gut" over the
evidence is still constrained by politics. Even someone has resistant
to reality as Bush tends to be at times has still shown an
understanding of overreach, that he's at it, and that he can't reach
any further. What do you think are the primary reasons we haven't
boosted troop level in Iraq? Bush knows it's political untenable.
Period.

It's politically untenable currently. Still though, Democrats and
Republicans (as well as the American public) are still sold on the idea
of "power projection" and keeping troops in places like Europe and
Japan that are perfectly capable of defending themselves. A sudden
emergency (such as, say, "limited" airstrikes on Iran resulting in
Tehran unleashing massive violence in Iraq) could have an effect. By
creating a situation in which something HAS to be done, Congress might
very well look at the strategic situation and decide that a draft is
necessary. Like I said, both sides would probably vote overwhelmingly
in favor of it, then spend years blaming each other for causing the
crisis that necessitated it.

Quoted message said:

Beyond that, the dispersal of the Iranian nuclear program (the Iranians
learned some valuable lessons from the 1981 Osirak raid) makes
airstrikes a difficult prospect without a high success rate.

You said yourself Bush is resistant to reality.

Quoted message said:

As fond as you are of crying that the sky is falling, I'd suggest you
take a deep breath of reality.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!