Iran's Next. One Down (Kinda) and Two To Go

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Journalist: U.S. planning for possible attack on Iran

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile sites in Iran in preparation for possible airstrikes there, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.

The effort has been under way at least since last summer, Hersh said on CNN's "Late Edition."...

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/hersh.iran/index.html

Supposedly it is being planned by the same people that have done such a great job planning and managing the invasion of Iraq. Supposedly the same idea is being put forth that the people will rise up against their government and join US in liberating Iran just as was suppose to happen in Iraq.

Although the article gives voice to the White House claim that Hersch isn't completely right, note that the Hersch claim is not completely denied, either.

Ready for another attack and invasion? Time to liberate Iran?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 5,119 • Replies: 118

No top replies

Is this sort of attack on Iran sustainable? Surely the consequences to the region's stability will be worse than it is now!

0 Replies

I find it hard to believe that this administration even with this @#%@ in charge would be so rash and stupid. We neither have the resources, material or manpower to expand the war in the middle east, or anywhere else.
In addition war in Iran would cripple the worlds oil supply.

0 Replies

Oil supply?
Are there no more pressing issues than oil?

American lives, Iranian lives, Islamic militants, declining support of America through the eyes of the world, money/debt, military resources etc. etc.

Help me understand why oil is given primacy in your response, above anything else.

0 Replies

Oil makes the world go round - it's the lubrication of First World nations! To these governments nothing is more important.

0 Replies

Re: Iran's Next. One Down (Kinda) and Two To Go

squinney wrote:

Although the article gives voice to the White House claim that Hersch isn't completely right, note that the Hersch claim is not completely denied, either.

That's what makes me the most nervous.here is a New York Times article with a somewhat longer account of their reaction:

Quote:

The White House said Iran is a concern and a threat that needs to be taken seriously. But it disputed the report by Hersh, who last year exposed the extent of prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

``We obviously have a concern about Iran. The whole world has a concern about Iran,'' Dan Bartlett, a top aide to President Bush, told CNN's ``Late Edition.''

Of The New Yorker report, he said: ``I think it's riddled with inaccuracies, and I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact.''

Bartlett said the administration ``will continue to work through the diplomatic initiatives'' to convince Iran -- which Bush once called part of an ``axis of evil'' -- not to pursue nuclear weapons.

``No president, at any juncture in history, has ever taken military options off the table,'' Bartlett added. ``But what President Bush has shown is that he believes we can emphasize the diplomatic initiatives that are underway right now.''

It seems to go even farther than you said, Squinney. Not only is the New Yorker piece "not completely denied" -- no specific allegation made by the New Yorker is denied at all!

0 Replies

Candidone 1
Whether the loss of life American or other is a major concern of Mr. Bush I could not say.. However, I am sure a disruption in the oil supply would be.

0 Replies

The fact is: Hersch is a superb journalist and The New Yorker is a superb Journal. It is unlikely that this is speculation on their part.

0 Replies

panzade
Than I am sure it is insanity on the part of this administration.

0 Replies

I really think that the administration would have a tougher time selling going to war with another nation no matter what nation it is than they did even with Iraq. However, I don't think that would stop them.

I hope it is speculation and comes to nothing.

0 Replies

What was the last bru-ha-ha that Hersch was involved in? I remeber discussing some other ignorant thing he said...

0 Replies

Didn't I hear Bush say something about no draft, no increased National Guard mobilization etc.? How in hell can we invade yet another country without a new military draft? Our defensive line is stretched pretty thin now as it is.

0 Replies

Ask Hersch. He's the one speculating.

0 Replies

Don't you hate being right?

All Bushco. has to do is fake up a big terrorist attack in Iraq (killing a bunch of what were previously useless Iraqi citizens), lay a trail to Iran, and boom, the war is on. Literally.

We'll start hearing things like 'we're in this now, we have to see it through' and 'the islaamic terrorist states have to be stopped,' &c...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

What was the last bru-ha-ha that Hersch was involved in? I remeber discussing some other ignorant thing he said...

Ummmm....he broke Abu...remember? So far it's a lot worse than he reported.

0 Replies

http://www.jhw.co.uk/images/document_images/12/fingers-crossed.jpg

0 Replies

Merry Andrew refers to "our defensive line" being "stretched pretty thin".

Andrew... despite all you've been told (by the rabid militarists), INVASION in not a "defensive" act.

Invasion is an OFFENSIVE act.

The USA "deposed" our lackey Hussein, farcically; in the process we established our Base of Operations for Imperial conquest of the MidEast.
Eventually, we will "liberate" the region...( shortly after their petroleum reserves are utterly depleted, the MidEast will be "granted" full "autonomy").

0 Replies

Magus wrote:

Merry Andrew refers to "our defensive line" being "stretched pretty thin".

Andrew... despite all you've been told (by the rabid militarists), INVASION in not a "defensive" act.

Invasion is an OFFENSIVE act.

The USA "deposed" our lackey Hussein, farcically; in the process we established our Base of Operations for Imperial conquest of the MidEast.
Eventually, we will "liberate" the region...( shortly after their petroleum reserves are utterly depleted, the MidEast will be "granted" full "autonomy").

You misread me, Magus. I never meant to imply that the invasion of Iraq was, in any sense of the word whatever, "defensive." I was refering to the fact that because of that invasion, our homeland defense is now next to nonexistent. All the National Guard units are overseas. Who's minding the store?

0 Replies

Andrew - are you sure about that? I remember reading something just a couple months ago and the number of ANG mobilized is just a fraction of those in the reserve.

0 Replies

Lets see; a president who thinks God is on his side (and that he has made no mistakes so far), a cabinet full of yes men, majorities in the House and Senate, a cowed national media, the power to secretly monitor and detain those who are suspected of being "disloyal" under the Patriot Act, no regard for world opinion, and 51% of the voters on board; there's nothing in the way that I can see.

0 Replies

Iran's Next. One Down (Kinda) and Two To Go

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know