1
   

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

 
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Jan, 2005 11:36 pm
If Dubya uses the phrase "evil empire" in his inaugural speech, I think we'll have our answer. :wink:
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 10:14 am
Even if your theory is correct, JW, what's the difference? A threat of force is useless unless there is a willingness to follow through, which we can assume there is. So the question remains, will we be invading Iran before the end of Bush's second term? And of course, is that a good idea?
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 10:32 am
Given the news, I actually thought Syria would be next. But, if playing Hersh gets the message loud and clear to the Mullahs, perhaps they'll fall into line as well.

As far as invading Iran being a good idea, I think it's foolish not to have contingency plans. If you think the UN is going to be instrumental in getting Iran to allow inspections, think again. It won't happen.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 10:39 am
It sounds to me like war drums. I remember when I heard these drums for Iraq I wondered if they could possibly get away with it while things were still messy in Afghanistan. Then I watched as Afghanistan disappeared from the news. There's nothing quite like changing the subject.

I think it would be foolish to attack Iran in any way. It's reasonable to expect that if we did so we would be providing incentive for Syria and others to quickly develop nuclear weapons, as well as destroying any fledgling political reformist movements from within the country. Also, what would happen if Iran and Syria formed an alliance and began supporting the insurgency in Iraq. Or rather, what if they just went ahead and invaded Iraq?
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 10:50 am
Syria is already supporting terrorists in Iraq.

There are many scenarios (and I'm sure as many contingency plans) possible, and I'm still wondering if Dubya will give us a hint in his upcoming inaugural speech.

Meanwhile, my Navy S.E.A.L. cousin wonders if Hersh isn't placing our special forces operating in Iran at great danger. Like Hersh would care.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 10:55 am
JustWonders wrote:
Syria is already supporting terrorists in Iraq.


And I guess this is a proven fact in your book.

Quote:

There are many scenarios (and I'm sure as many contingency plans) possible, and I'm still wondering if Dubya will give us a hint in his upcoming inaugural speech.

Meanwhile, my Navy S.E.A.L. cousin wonders if Hersh isn't placing our special forces operating in Iran at great danger. Like Hersh would care.


Whoever sent our special forces into Iran put them in great danger. I believe they get paid to be in great danger. I believe that citizens of this country should be informed as to what their government is getting them into.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 10:55 am
Pentagon blasts article alleging reconnaissance missions in Iran

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon is criticizing an article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh that says the United States has been carrying out reconnaissance missions in Iran to identify nuclear, chemical and missile sites for possible airstrikes as soon as this summer.

But the Pentagon's response Monday did not specifically address Hersh's contention that the United States has been "conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran since at least last summer" to identify and isolate at least three dozen targets in Iran "that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids." (Full story)

In a written statement, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita said Iran's "apparent nuclear ambitions and its demonstrated support for terrorist organizations is a global challenge that deserves much more serious treatment than Seymour Hersh provides in The New Yorker article titled 'The Coming Wars.' "

"Mr. Hersh's article is so riddled with errors of fundamental fact that the credibility of his entire piece is destroyed."

The statement cited Hersh's description of a post-election meeting between Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and said it "did not happen."

In the article, Hersh said the meeting was described to him by "a former high-level intelligence official."

The statement also disputed Hersh's assertion that "Rumsfeld and two of his key deputies, Stephen Cambone, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, and Army Lt. Gen. William G. [Jerry] Boykin, will be part of the chain of command for the new commando operations."

"The only civilians in the chain of command are the president and the secretary of defense, despite Mr. Hersh's confident assertion that the chain of command now includes two department policy officials. His assertion is outrageous, and constitutionally specious."

Hersh also said Doug Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, oversaw Defense Department civilians who "have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons and missile targets inside Iran."

But DiRita said ties between Feith and Israel "do not exist."

The defense spokesman added, "Mr. Hersh is building on links created by the soft bigotry of some conspiracy theorists. This reflects poorly on Mr. Hersh and the 'New Yorker.' "

Hersh described DiRita's criticisms as "quibbling."

Hersh said his information came from "very, very senior" sources.

"There are serious people on the inside who don't like what's going on and don't have a way to communicate that," he said. "The real issue is: What are we doing? Who's in control here? The Pentagon? The White House? That's the real issue."

Senior officials told CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr that there is no immediate planning for a strike against Iran.

Iran has refused to dismantle its nuclear program, which it insists is legal and intended solely for peaceful purposes. Hersh said U.S. officials were involved in "extensive planning" for a possible attack -- "much more than we know."

He said his information came from "inside" sources who divulged it in hopes that publicity about the alleged plans would force the administration to reconsider them.

"I think that's one of the reasons some of the people on the inside talk to me," he said Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition."

In an interview on the same program, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said the story was "riddled with inaccuracies."

"I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact," Bartlett said.

The United States is working with its European allies to help persuade Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons, Bartlett said.

Asked if military action is an option should diplomacy fail, Bartlett said, "No president at any juncture in history has ever taken military options off the table."

That the Pentagon would have contingency plans for an attack on Iran is "not unusual," former Secretary of Defense William Cohen told CNN Monday.

"The issue really is whether or not this information being gathered is to help put pressure on the Europeans to bring more pressure on Iran to cease and desist from its nuclear ambitions," Cohen said. "Or whether or not that decision's already been made and they're actually planning a military operation."

Cohen noted that Hersh's article has not been "categorically denied" by the Bush administration.

"So there seems to be some confirmation that there is a fairly serious effort under way to gather this kind of information for potential military operations," he said.

Iran, meanwhile, on Tuesday said it has the power to deter any attacks.

"We are able to say that we have strength such that no country can attack us because they do not have precise information about our military capabilities due to our ability to implement flexible strategies," the semi-official Mehr news agency quoted Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani as saying.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 10:58 am
Why should he? We have no business attacking another sovreign country. Hell, we're not even done with the first two we've attacked in the last 3 years!

The SEALS in Iran were in great danger before some stupid journalist wrote a story; specifically, they were in danger of helping the US make yet another gigantic mistake. Just doing their job, though, of course, can't blame them, nope.

Quote:
Syria is already supporting terrorists in Iraq.


So is Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon, and Iran, and Pakistan, and everywhere that Muslims live. Are we going to attack them all? Don't be dense.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 10:59 am
There's no doubt in my mind that Syria is organizing the "insurgents"

http://www.walidphares.com/artman/publish/article_478.shtml

Washington Post
General: Iraqi Insurgents Directed From Syria
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
December 17, 2004

A top Army general said yesterday that the Iraqi insurgency was being run in
part by former senior Iraqi Baath Party officials operating in Syria who
call themselves the "New Regional Command."

These men, from the former governing party of deposed president Saddam
Hussein, are "operating out of Syria with impunity and providing direction
and financing for the insurgency," said Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the U.S.
commander in Iraq. "That needs to stop," Casey said at a Pentagon briefing.

He called on the government of President Bashar Assad to do more to stop the
insurgency from being managed by Iraqis hiding in Syria. "The Syrians are
making some efforts on the border," he said. "But they are not going after
the big fish, which is really the people that we're interested in. And we're
really interested in them going after the senior Baathists."

Casey's comments echoed remarks by President Bush on Wednesday but provided
new details, including the name of the leadership organization in Syria. In
recent weeks, new intelligence on anti-U.S. forces in Iraq has led officials
to focus increasingly on the sanctuary being provided there.

Casey contrasted his view of Syria's role with what he described as the more
distant threat presented by Iran. The Iranian government's influence on Iraq
needs to be watched, he said, but does not appear to pose a major problem in
affecting next month's elections.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 11:04 am
Thanks, p. I guess I can see that. But I still say that the danger would be greater if the Syrian government actively supported the insurgents. For example, if they supplied money and weapons. That may be the case but my understanding is that it is not.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 11:05 am
candidone1 wrote:
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.


not to bushinc.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 11:05 am
McGentrix wrote:

But the Pentagon's response Monday did not specifically address Hersh's contention that the United States has been "conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran since at least last summer" to identify and isolate at least three dozen targets in Iran "that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids."


The only significant paragraph in McG's post IMO
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 11:16 am
FreeDuck wrote:
JustWonders wrote:
Syria is already supporting terrorists in Iraq.


And I guess this is a proven fact in your book.

Quote:

There are many scenarios (and I'm sure as many contingency plans) possible, and I'm still wondering if Dubya will give us a hint in his upcoming inaugural speech.

Meanwhile, my Navy S.E.A.L. cousin wonders if Hersh isn't placing our special forces operating in Iran at great danger. Like Hersh would care.


Whoever sent our special forces into Iran put them in great danger. I believe they get paid to be in great danger. I believe that citizens of this country should be informed as to what their government is getting them into.


http://www.nysun.com/article/5661
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 11:17 am
Will Bush force those U.S. Soldiers (1/3rd of them approximately) who are returning from Iraq with anticipated mental health issues to turn right back around and march into Iran? Or will he rely more on the 16 and 17 year olds who, even though not considering a military career, are unsuspectingly being screened for a military career?

Only time will tell...
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 11:22 am
JustWonders wrote:
Meanwhile, my Navy S.E.A.L. cousin wonders if Hersh isn't placing our special forces operating in Iran at great danger. Like Hersh would care.

That's the question, JW; Did the our secret people intentionally leak secrets to Hersh, or is Hersh intentionally leaking our secrets? Many decades ago they used to hang posters that read "Loose lips sink ships".

I think it is imperative that Iran and Syria both get the message that we are ready, willing and able to crush them if they step too far out of line. Those of you who think we're over-stretched are badly underestimating the Military Monster that is the United States. I do hope our enemies aren't doing the same or, like Saddam, they'll be learning the hard way.

As unpopular as it may be; I think Bush needs to do some more tough talking and remind everyone that the United States will use whatever means we deem necessary to ensure the security of the United States. Also; that "Axis of Evil" States that seek WMD do so at their peril. We mustn't allow the theory that WMDs provide security against the paranoid fears of a Colonizing United States. Acknowledging that strategy is inviting more North Korea's where fiends like Kim go unchecked while murdering millions for fear he'll murder millions more. This sh!t must stop. In poker terms; it's time to go "All in". Jerk-offs can fold their weak hands or face the wrath of facing our Aces. If we don't put this nightmare to rest soon, it will only get worse.

Our enemies need to understand that the days of the United States just "crying wolf" have passed.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 11:23 am
Dookiestix wrote:
Will Bush force those U.S. Soldiers (1/3rd of them approximately) who are returning from Iraq with anticipated mental health issues to turn right back around and march into Iran? Or will he rely more on the 16 and 17 year olds who, even though not considering a military career, are unsuspectingly being screened for a military career?

Only time will tell...

can't make an omelette...etc etc....
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 11:31 am
Quote:
Our enemies need to understand that the days of the United States just "crying wolf" have passed.


Actually, it's quite the opposite. Our enemies clearly understand our penchant to have our noses in just about everybody elses business. It is our alignment with corrupt regimes and murders of thousands of innocent civilians around the world that angers the masses.

http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/interventions.html

As we're the only ones to have dropped the atomic bomb on a civilian population, how is THAT crying wolf?

Unbelievable.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 11:47 am
Gosh Dookie... I thought you committed seppuku after Kerry's meltdown... Bummer.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 11:50 am
Dookiestix wrote:
Quote:
Our enemies need to understand that the days of the United States just "crying wolf" have passed.


Actually, it's quite the opposite. Our enemies clearly understand our penchant to have our noses in just about everybody elses business. It is our alignment with corrupt regimes and murders of thousands of innocent civilians around the world that angers the masses.

http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/interventions.html

As we're the only ones to have dropped the atomic bomb on a civilian population, how is THAT crying wolf?

Unbelievable.


Excellent post, Dookie.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2005 12:02 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Gosh Dookie... I thought you committed seppuku after Kerry's meltdown... Bummer.


We're crawling out after the H-Bomb like cockroaches Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.6 seconds on 01/23/2025 at 04:18:38