Tech Support Guy banner

Is Iran Next After Iraq!

175224 Views 5049 Replies 122 Participants Last post by  bassetman
I guess some troops will be pulled out of Iraq if this comes to fruition! :eek: I can't help but see how Bush is further alienating us from the world...making America the country to hate! :( Following right along the book of Revelations....I hope and pray along the same lines that Bush realizes sometime before it's too late..that China and Russia are not our "friends"!

Journalist: U.S. planning for possible attack on Iran
White House says report is 'riddled with inaccuracies
Sunday, January 16, 2005 Posted: 9:23 PM EST (0223 GMT)

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."

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.

Iran has refused to dismantle its nuclear program, which it insists is legal and is intended solely for civilian purposes.

Hersh said U.S. officials were involved in "extensive planning" for a possible attack -- "much more than we know."

"The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids
," he wrote in "The New Yorker" magazine, which published his article in editions that will be on newsstands Monday.

Hersh is a veteran journalist who was the first to write about many details of the abuses of prisoners Abu Ghraib in Baghdad.

He said his information on Iran came from "inside" sources who divulged it in the hope that publicity would force the administration to reconsider

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

Hersh said the government did not answer his request for a response before the story's publication, and that his sources include people in government whose information has been reliable in the past.

Hersh said Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld view Bush's re-election as "a mandate to continue the war on terrorism," despite problems with the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Last week, the effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- the Bush administration's stated primary rationale for the war -- was halted after having come up empty.

The secret missions in Iran, Hersh said, have been authorized in order to prevent similar embarrassment in the event of military action there.

"The planning for Iran is going ahead even though Iraq is a mess," Hersh said. "I think they really think there's a chance to do something in Iran, perhaps by summer, to get the intelligence on the sites

He added, "The guys on the inside really want to do this."

Hersh identified those inside people as the "neoconservative" civilian leadership in the Pentagon. That includes Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith -- "the sort of war hawks that we talk about in connection with the war in Iraq."

And he said the preparation goes beyond contingency planning and includes detailed plans for air attacks:

"The next step is Iran. It's definitely there. They're definitely planning ... But they need the intelligence first."

Emphasizing 'diplomatic initiatives'

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

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."

But Bush "has shown that he believes we can emphasize the diplomatic initiatives that are under way right now," he said.

Hersh said U.S. officials believe that a U.S. attack on Iran might provoke an uprising by Iranians against the hard-line religious leaders who run the government. Similar arguments were made ahead of the invasion of Iraq, when administration officials predicted U.S. troops would be welcomed as liberators.

And Hersh said administration officials have chosen not to include conflicting points of view in their deliberations -- such as predictions that any U.S. attack would provoke a wave of nationalism that would unite Iranians against the United States.

"As people say to me, when it comes to meetings about this issue, if you don't drink the Kool-Aid, you can't go to meetings," he said. "That isn't a message anybody wants to hear."

The plans are not limited to Iran, he said.

"The president assigned a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other special forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia," he wrote.

Under the secret plans, the war on terrorism would be led by the Pentagon, and the power of the CIA would be reduced, Hersh wrote in his article.

"It's sort of a great victory for Donald Rumsfeld, a bureaucratic victory
," Hersh told CNN.

He said: "Since the summer of 2002, he's been advocating, 'Let me run this war, not the CIA. We can do it better. We'll send our boys in. We don't have to tell their local military commanders. We don't have to tell the ambassadors. We don't have to tell the CIA station chiefs in various countries. Let's go in and work with the bad guys and see what we can find out.'"

Hersh added that the administration has chipped away at the CIA's power and that newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss has overseen a purge of the old order.

"He's been committing sort-of ordered executions'" Hersh said. "He's been -- you know, people have been fired, they've been resigning."

The target of the housecleaning at the CIA, he said, has been intelligence analysts, some of whom are seen as "apostates -- as opposed to being true believers."
See less See more
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 5050 Posts
Many people in Iran still like Americans, starting a war with them should take care of one more protential friend we have in the world! :rolleyes:
somefellow said:
Canada likes you ..........most days . ;)

it makes me weary just reading this thread....doesn't anybody feel the least bit of OUTRAGE?
Fidelista said:
Yes , I agree. Our enemies will make the most of our mistakes.
I think its time to reforge our friendships with western Europa.
Regain trust, and move ahead. This "Old Europe" is indespenable to the U.S..
The UN is a player and cannot be ignored--belittled.
These games should played by competent players who have vision and common sense, not cowboys and Israelis.
It does scare me when I find agreement with you :eek: ---just kidding.
We just approach things from different angle, most times want to get to same place. >f
:eek: Hehe! ;)
Fidelista said:
Do I detect some sarcasm here? :D
Seriously, leftists , Euros, the UN, and the world in general are worried about atomic weapons in the middle east---its a world problem.
Nations like Iran , Israel, N.Korea, Pakistan , are unstable , and in the case of N.Korea and Israel, dangerous. They should be disarmed---by hook or crook.
I think conservatives are just as worried about outcome as "commies" like me.
Their approach to problem solving leaves a lot to be desired , and turn a blind eye to Israel, :rolleyes: , but we all want peace and security.
There are worse than Lan!!!! :D
I just don't see bombing Iranian people as a solution to any weapons they may have! :eek: ;)
iltos said:
not piling on, LAN

remember the domino theory? communism was gonna crush us if we let it make inroads ANYWHERE?

i believe the same thinking is at work here, only, as your avatar (very cool, btw) illustrates so well....we are just pouring fuel on the flames

as the buffalo springfield once sang...
"into your heart it will creep
it starts when you're always afraid"

imo...the considerations bantied about on this thread do not point to a strong america, but a weak one
linskyjack said:
Thats funny----Mississippi is a red state--why poison everyone?
Duh! ;)
Words of wisdom! :up:


See less See more
angelize56 said:
Maybe North Korea will have to be next! :eek: :( Sounds ominous!!

MSNBC Breaking News

North Korea's government publicly acknowledged for the first time Thursday that
it has nuclear arms, and said it is suspending participation in six-country
talks aimed at getting it to abandon its nuclear ambitions
. :down:
With Bush threatening Iran now, maybe he'll invade the wrong country again! :rolleyes:
WarC said:
Utter nonsense? The only thing nonsensical about it is the complete lack of reprisals the Clinton administration deemed necessary.

Come on, one single missile fired at one single Al Qaeda training camp thought to house Bin Laden after the first world trade center bombing? There should never have been a second bombing. It didn't kill anyone - that camp was probably back up and running later the same day. That would only add to their belief that we wouldn't retaliate as Bush did.

What about all those fits of aerial attacks Clinton ordered on Baghdad? Would that not simply stir the pot, fan the flames more? This is not putting down an enemy this is encouraging him.

After the attacks on embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania, plus the first WTC bombing, the writing was on the wall. Clinton's half-baked retaliations did nothing to deter terrorist organizations from attacking us, it only emboldened them.
The first president to turn tail and run from terrorists was Ron Reagan. Condi Rice even said so!
xico said:
That's an interesting image. Perhaps it would be more appropriate over at the evolutionary thread. Kind of shows the linkage between our leaders and our ancestors, doesn't it :D
lighthouse said:
I was stunned when I heard/read Condoleeza Rice making war gestures towards Iran recently. Not only is the population twice that of Iraq, (over 65 million) it's geography is vast enough to conceal insurgents probably far greater in numbers than those reportedly in Iraqi territory.(estimated at around 200,000). Iran is predominantly mountainous, as opposed to Iraq which is about 80% open dessert, which would make any S,A,D operations very difficult - surely? How many coalition troops would be needed to even attempt anything like they've (disasterously) tried to do in Iraq? Looking at the complete misunderstanding and underestimation of the task in pre-Iraq war planning what horrors would lie ahead in any proposed Iranian conflict if the same ineptitude applied? (Re:The hugely over optimistic idea that the aftermath of a war in febuary of that year could be monitored by a paltry 35,000 troops in Kuwait by the summer).

The resistance to allied 'occupation' in comparitively secular Iraq would probably pale into insignificance to that of a predominantly theocratic society, where the word "Jihad" would take on an even bloodier significance than any previous incarnations we might have known over the years. Then - of course - there's always the question of Irans border with Afghanistan, and how a coalition could rely on any conduciveness there. They certainly couldn't with the Afghan/Pakistan border where 5 bases had to be abandoned because of continued Al'Qaida and Taliban activity. Let's not forget here that A'Q is still operational and capable of stuff like the Madrid bombings and Russian School siege - the perpetrators of the latter turning out to be Saudis and NOT Chechen. So much for the Afghani campaign then! Put the whole theatre of operations together and look at the vastness of it all. How many thousands of miles of border (from Jordan in the west - to Pakistan in the east) would need to be secured?

Then, what of the situation in the west? Life in combatant countries could become unlivable as the predictably obvious escalation of terrorist activity makes our cities unsafe. The resulting 'anti terror' measures our government would inevitably introduce will see our remaining civil liberties further erroded as the upsurge in paranoia and fear-Politicking perpetuates each another. Every excuse and dodgy agenda would be pushed through the legislative process as 'emergency' powers are enacted and UK society - as we have known it - effectively transforms into something of a martial state. The fervour generated by the sight of the uninvited western "Infidel" on Iranian soil would produce wave after wave of volunteers wanting to exact paramilitary warfare in the "infidels" backyard here and in the US. Those 'acceptable amounts of terrorism' famously referred to by John Kerry will look like something of an understatement in the resulting backlash.

Then there's the question of South Yemen (another of the more 'hardline' States in the region). Upon the opening of hostilities what part will they play as the west - erm - increases its presence? And while all this is going on, vast amounts of diplomatic scaffolding (plus some military equivalent) will probably be needed to prop up the Saudi regime against insurgent activity within and north of its own borders.

Human rights angle? See Post 152

This is more than terrifying, it's completely insane.
I think that's a pretty good assessment!
ComputerFix said:
Well, we have to do something, otherwise "Bush has screwed up! Iran has nuclear weapons!" :rolleyes:

Western Philosophy "Don't just sit there, do something"!

Eastern Philosophy "Don't just do something, sit there"! ;)
angelize56 said:
I hope the U.S. doesn't decide to take on the whole Middle East! :eek:
Me too!
We occasionally do! ;)
lighthouse said:
Oh well - hey why do anything by halves? Lets go into Syria AND Iran all at the same time. And then I'll turn up the stereo to Vol 10 with "Holidays in the sun" playing and the immortal line - "I didn't ask for sunshine AND I GOT WORLD WAR THREE". Yeah lets do it eh - lets light the blue touch paper and see the whole damn world go up in flames. Listen - You yanks might be sitting in your nice big open plan ranch houses in the 'burbs, thousands of miles away from anything remotely resembling a war, but why don't you come and look at our UK cities and you might notice how some of them don't have many buildings that are pre-1941/2. Why do you suppose that is? So by all means cogitate on your stupid wars if you want. Hell you were late for the first two, you sure as **** ain't gonna be for the third!!!!!
Its one two three
what are we fighting for?

Don't ask me I don't give a damn
and its five six seven eight ....
xico said:
Mark Twain's take on war! ;)

Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and
will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank
God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.
- "Chronicle of Young Satan"
LANMaster said:
You need to work on your lyric recitals. ;) :D
If I'm wrong, why didn't you correct it? ;)

OK official one! :D

Yeah, come on all of you, big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
He's got himself in a terrible jam
Way down yonder in Vietnam
So put down your books and pick up a gun,
We're gonna have a whole lotta fun.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Well, come on generals, let's move fast;
Your big chance has come at last.
Gotta go out and get those reds -
The only good commie is the one who's dead
And you know that peace can only be won
When we've blown 'em all to kingdom come.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.


Well, come on Wall Street, don't move slow,
Why man, this is war au-go-go.
There's plenty good money to be made
By supplying the Army with the tools of the trade,
Just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
They drop it on the Viet Cong.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam.
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Well, come on mothers throughout the land,
Pack your boys off to Vietnam.
Come on fathers, don't hesitate,
Send 'em off before it's too late.
Be the first one on your block
To have your boy come home in a box.

And it's one, two, three
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam.
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.
See less See more
From the Evangelist Jim Wallis

Hearts & Minds
The Bush Doctrine

If the war in Iraq is the 'practical' expression of George Bush's theology of liberty and freedom, the world is in serious trouble.
by Jim Wallis

Since the first inauguration in 1789, each president has referenced God in his inaugural address. After taking the oath of office, George Washington ad-libbed the final words, "So help me God." Every president since has done the same in the oath.

The question has never been whether religious language will be used in presidential inaugurals, but how. In perhaps the most famous, Lincoln's second inaugural address, God was invoked not to bless the nation, or give any triumphal comfort to either side in the Civil War, but rather to call the nation to penitence. In doing so, he showed a preference for humble reflection over easy certainty, accountability over blessing, repentance over confidence. That was missing in George W. Bush's second inaugural, which was rather full of a religious sense of both confidence and mission.

For an evangelical Christian, George W. Bush does not seem to have a well-developed sense of sin - at least as far as the nation is concerned. In his speech, President Bush expressed a far-reaching commitment to "liberty" and "the force of human freedom" in the world - values that most Americans, religious or not, would readily affirm. The president has often rightly acknowledged that "freedom" is a gift from God, not the possession of any nation. But his remarkable speech announced that the role of deciding if, when, and where freedom will be defended belongs to the United States of America; America is on a religious mission to protect freedom, and George Bush is freedom's vicar.

But other words of religious wisdom were missing, such as the warnings of Jesus to not just see the specks in your adversary's eye, but also the log in your own. Religious leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out that America was often on the wrong side of freedom when it supported brutal dictatorships in Latin America, Africa, and Asia during the Cold War. Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr warned against easy and often self-serving definitions of good and evil, especially when it comes to the collective morality of nations.

In the Bush speech there was no acknowledgement of contradictions, double standards, or even limitations. The richest and most powerful nation in the world announced the right to define and defend freedom's cause. The only remaining superpower now claims the ability to be the arbiter of freedom around the world - intervention in Iraq, for instance, but not in Rwanda. Neoconservatives are tingling with excitement to see their expansionist view of U.S. power in the world so enshrined (and all dissenters removed from the Cabinet). But as Stephen Hayes of the neocon magazine The Weekly Standard said on NBC's Meet the Press, "I think you have to be practical about these things at the same time." Oh yes, "practical," and therein lies the rub. And the Bush administration will decide what practical means.

Will democratic reformers in Saudi Arabia and Egypt start getting encouraging calls from the White House and the feudal Arab regimes that trample freedom and liberty start getting pressure? What about Pakistan or the Asian dictators who have signed up to support the United States in the war on terrorism as we look the other way while human rights are abused in their countries? Will Israel finally be held accountable for the daily humiliation of every Palestinian at military checkpoints in the West Bank and Gaza?

Most important, if the war in Iraq is the "practical" expression of George Bush's theology of liberty and freedom, the world is in serious trouble. A war justified with falsehoods, conceived in confusion, and carried out in arrogance has now degenerated into chaos. Yet the war's neoconservative defenders still cite Iraq as the archetypal action in America's mission of freedom.

If Iraq is the best example of the Bush doctrine, pre-emptive and mostly unilateral war has become the preferred means of defending freedom. Many have rightly pointed out that having a mission of freedom is not a new idea in American history. But John Winthrop's "city on a hill" points more to a strategy of leading by example. America's slow and steady progress toward freedom and human rights for all its citizens has indeed had a profound influence on the cause of liberty around the world. In contrast to Winthrop, Bush offers a rocket launcher on a hill.

The Bush doctrine means new threats toward Syria, Iran, and any other regime that doesn't toe the U.S. line. Even democratic reformers in those countries worry about becoming new victims of the U.S. mission. Ugly Saudi despots rich in oil and friendships with the Bush family likely will be exempt while the civilian populations of other repressive regimes will suffer most from U.S. military action. There has still been almost no serious media discussion of tens of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Bush foreign policy has a different religious name than just freedom. In its prosecution of pre-emptive war, the equation of God's purposes with U.S. interests, and the neglect of global economic justice, there are other words that come to mind - such as hypocrisy, pride, and even idolatry. And many opponents of the Bush administration's war policies, here and abroad, will frame their dissent in the name of other religious values - words such as integrity, humility, and peacemaking.

Jim Wallis is editor-in-chief of Sojourners.
See less See more
xico said:
And they sure won't go away by oppressing them, stealing their resources, bombing them, torturing them--or in colonizing them while we fund their death squads. :down:

Bassetman: You did forget one thing though..........and that was the famous 'cheer' bit at the beginning (although T.S.G rules probably mean you wouldn't be able to put it here ) Didn't C,J or someone else contemporise it by putting it in a Gulf war context? Sigh - that was written in 1967 wasn't it? 38 years ago, and the world still goes to war
Yup, its old. And yes, we still go to war! :(
Most Direct Route, President Says

Under pressure to detail an exit strategy for Iraq, President George W. Bush said at a White House briefing today that he would not designate an exact timetable for a withdrawal of U.S. troops but added, “The fastest way to bring the troops home would be through Iran.”

After reporters audibly gasped, the president explained that bringing the troops home through Iran would be “the most direct route” and produced driving directions from Mapquest to back up his claim.

But less than an hour after his remarks, Iranian president Mohammed Khatami blasted Mr. Bush’s exit strategy, arguing that bringing U.S. troops home through Iran was far from the most direct route, and was, in fact, going totally in the wrong direction.

Using a map of the world and a magic marker, President Khatami showed that by traveling east rather than west, U.S. troops would have to circumnavigate the globe in order to reach their final destination.

In response, Mr. Bush acknowledged that it would be a long journey, but added, “If necessary, we’ll stop in North Korea.”

Scary part is that is believable! :D
See less See more
1 - 20 of 5050 Posts
Not open for further replies.