United States is drawing up plans to strike on Iranian insur

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Skynet, May 4, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. From The Sunday TimesMay 4, 2008

    United States is drawing up plans to strike on Iranian insurgency camp Michael Smith
    Read Mick Smith's defence blog at www.timesonline.co.uk/micksmith

    The US military is drawing up plans for a “surgical strike” against an insurgent training camp inside Iran if Republican Guards continue with attempts to destabilise Iraq, western intelligence sources said last week. One source said the Americans were growing increasingly angry at the involvement of the Guards’ special-operations Quds force inside Iraq, training Shi’ite militias and smuggling weapons into the country.

    Despite a belligerent stance by Vice-President Dick Cheney, the administration has put plans for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities on the back burner since Robert Gates replaced Donald Rumsfeld as defence secretary in 2006, the sources said.
    More on the link
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3868063.ece
     
  2. Bugger. Where did I put the sunglasses and Complete Idiot's Guide To Farsi? :roll:
     
  3. Yes, I always believe reports of politically sensitive military actions which show up in the media...

    I wouldn't be surprised if the Pentagon has come up with plans to attack Iran. Hell, they probably have plans to attack Canada sitting in a shelf somewhere. They'd be remiss if they didn't make plans.

    NTM
     
  4. Why, tis more than simple plans dear chaps. Currently we're visiting over in Iran telling them to wind their necks firmly in once and for all, and if they do not and the madhi army kicks off again then there will be a strike.
     
  5. George W is probably thinking 'the Israelis got away with a strike in Syria, I could do the same in Iran and go down in history as a Great President'. after all his last minute attempts to sort out Palestine/Israeli are not bearing fruit. It is just a shame that Syria and Iran are two slightly different countries with differing military capabilities and different political leaderships. Bugger.
     
  6. to reitterate previous points youll find that most nations have
    pre-established plans of actions for everyother nation.

    iran is being brought to light because it would be really unpopular.

    but at the moment the UK and US are not neccesarily fighting foreign national armies but instead are fighting "holy wars" although i hate to use that term, because our enemy is not constrained by national borders.
     
  7. Well there is plenty of proof of Iranian involvement in Iraq and so a strike on Quds Force training bases would certainly be warranted.
     
  8. if you are responding to my comment, then i am not saying not to strike iranian insurgents but simply to state that it is more than just iran etc.

    if you read the article in the guardian today it talks about the high number of pakistani insurgents (in afghanistan and iraq) as well as other "forces" from a multitude of nations.

    so my basic point is i feel we shouldnt just focus on iran but instead be aware that there are many other people of different nations who are "asking for it".
     
  9. That's a given fusil89, but this case warrants special consideration.

    Iran has gone on record saying that it is committed to stability in Iraq and that it's not involved in supporting the militancy, so either they are bare faced liars or... no, actually that's all they are, bare faced liars.

    I perceive Brigadier General Qassem Suleimani entered into the picture again to broker the cease fire deal with the Madhi Army once they had their arrses soundly handed to them. That alone should materialise their direct involvement, and when the Iraqi delegation went into Iran to prevent to them the case and show them the evidence, the Sadarists were apparently 'furious' at being bypassed.

    The Iraqis have repeatedly said they do not want their territory to become a battleground for a proxy war between the United States and Iran, when defacto it became the reality on the ground when we entered into Basra.

    They go even further than that though:

    Suleimani went on record not that long ago saying that the Al Quds force had become unstoppable, unassailable, and impenetrable force with a duty to humiliate the Americans and the Israelis. The Americans simply have to deduce how long they are prepared to let them act un-addressed with their perceived air of impunity while they continue to act to kill American and coalition lives.

    And if you really want to know who's pulling the strings, just ask them. They're already in there cutting um up they are.
     
  10. Yeah! There's plenty of proof of Iranian involvement in Iraq! Right! It's just that you don't present any of it. In addition, there's even more proof (if it was needed) of Saudi Arabian involvement in Iraq. Would you like to say a word to that?

    Just in case you're wondering where I'm heading with this: the past 60 or 70 years indeed provide wonderful proof galore of the Septics poking their (financial) noses into all manner of national spiffs to their (national, financial) advantage - and completely and disastrously fücking it up.

    So suddenly, a country in the Middle East, that has never attacked any of its neighbors in two centuries (and Iran has never directly threatened the Septics, no matter how you decide to twist and turn) suddenly becomes an immediate danger to the whole World Order? Right?

    Try to look at the whole thing as a world-citizen, and not as a Septic, T6!

    You're in the same boat as everybody else, mate!

    MsG
     
  11. I could care less about the world Bugs the US is all that I care about.Iran has trained and supplied the shia militias that have killed US and British troops.Its time for them to pay a price for that meddling.
     
  12. [quote="Bugsy]...So suddenly, a country in the Middle East, that has never attacked any of its neighbors in two centuries (and Iran has never directly threatened the Septics, no matter how you decide to twist and turn) ...[/quote]

    Never attacked any of its neighbors in two hundred years. And never directly threatened the Americans.

    :roll:

    Have a wee think about that failed assertion for a spell, there's a good chap.
     

  13. however a point i have already stated and will reitterate is that yes iran has most likely "trained and supplied shia militants" but as other people have also stated in this forum there is also strong evidence of saudi arabia, pakistan and a whole host of generally naughty chappies, yet we are not taking action against these particular nations...why not?

    anyway i think everyone has become a bit sceptical on the US's evidence and intelligence (CIA hasnt too good a track record as of late)

    and again i will repeat my self in saying i do not object to military actions against these nations but i would like hard evidence, or failing that the real reason for such actions
     
  14. Never attacked any of its neighbors in two hundred years. And never directly threatened the Americans.

    :roll:

    Have a wee think about that failed assertion for a spell, there's a good chap.[/quote]
    Nice one, luntcugs! Now tell us what have would have happened if the Septics had never invaded Iraq. In the meantime, have a real think about your stupendously ridiculous and grubbingly scrapping chop about what I said - since you neglected to actually comment on it.

    MsG
     
  15. sorry bugsy but iran had a nice little war against iraq in the 80's and have generally been naughty since forever.

    by the way no developed country has lasted that long without waging war on another