Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 27

Thread: Report: U.S. Conducting Secret Missions Inside Iran.

  1. #1
    Patron
    Join Date
    21 Nov 04
    Location
    Baltimore, MD, USA
    Posts
    253

    Report: U.S. Conducting Secret Missions Inside Iran.

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, The New Yorker magazine reported Sunday.

    The article, by award-winning reporter Seymour Hersh, said the secret missions have been going on at least since last summer with the goal of identifying target information for three dozen or more suspected sites.

    Hersh quotes one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon (news - web sites) as saying, "The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible."

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...a_newyorker_dc


    Which is more likely to happen? Air strikes against Iranian nuclear development sites and thats it or air strikes followed by an invasion or none of the above?

  2. #2
    Staff Emeritus Confed999's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Sep 03
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    10,026
    Good. There will be no invasion though, no troops to do it.
    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
    I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

  3. #3
    Patron
    Join Date
    21 Nov 04
    Location
    Baltimore, MD, USA
    Posts
    253
    Quote Originally Posted by Confed999
    Good. There will be no invasion though, no troops to do it.
    What about airstrikes on their nuclear facilities? I know its always an option but, do you see it actually happening?

  4. #4
    Staff Emeritus Confed999's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Sep 03
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    10,026
    Quote Originally Posted by nickshepAK
    What about airstrikes on their nuclear facilities? I know its always an option but, do you see it actually happening?
    It depends on how much of a threat the Iranians make themselves out to be. I don't discount airstrikes happening in alot of places around the world.
    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
    I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

  5. #5
    Banned Defense Professional Bluesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Misawa Airbase, Japan
    Posts
    8,578
    Quote Originally Posted by nickshepAK
    What about airstrikes on their nuclear facilities? I know its always an option but, do you see it actually happening?
    A nuclear-armed Iran is absolutely unacceptable. Before we see them produce a bomb, any responsible PotUS will use whatever is the least drastic method of making sure that doesn't happen. In the range of possibilities, 'airstrike' is fairly high on the 'Drastic' scale. But most other options below it are also fairly low on the 'Likely to Work' scale.

    So we'll see.

  6. #6
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Te Whanganui a-Tara, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,870
    If the US conducted air strikes against Iran, how would Iran retaliate?
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

  7. #7
    Banned Defense Professional Bluesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Misawa Airbase, Japan
    Posts
    8,578
    Quote Originally Posted by parihaka
    If the US conducted air strikes against Iran, how would Iran retaliate?
    Good question. They're already doing their damnedest to our forces in Iraq. They support any anti-US terrorist group that shows the slightest capability to actually operate. And they are arming as fast as they can, which tends to work against US interests in the Gulf.

    So, it seems they're already committed to a low-level war against us, and any level of intensity higher than the status quo would be VERY risky for the regime. So...where do they go from here? What would their answer be if we blew up something they value VERY highly?

    IF, on the other hand, they succeed in getting one or more nuclear weapons, we dare not back 'em into a corner ever again.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    808
    This article is a joke! Unkal Sam doesnot have the testicles to screw around with the Mullahs in Tehran. On the other hand, the Mullahs have Unkal Sams testicles. Any wrong move, and the Shia robots in Iraq will be activated.

    Then Bush and his thugs would find their position untenable. As it already pretty much sucks, the Mullas would make sure that Unkal Sam pays via Iraqi proxies doin the dirty.

    I dare the Neocon thugs to try it. Mullah's have already warned that any blunder by Bush, and they will take U.S. forces hostage in Iraq, like they did in 1979.

    There are zero U.S forces available in the theatre to cry out anything...short of airstrikes, which if carried out will bring Iran directly into Iraq. I'd like to see the battered U.S. forces in Iraq take on half a million men, deep buried and scattered nuclear sites and a 5000+ SSM inventory. Also here is an article from Global security on why it wont happen, despite serious but cheap wetdream scenarios by juvenile delinquints over here.

    Attacking Iran`s nuclear facilities `dangerous,` says UK magazine


    London, Oct 14, IRNA -- Any attempt by the US or Israel to attack
    Iran`s nuclear facilities would not only be more difficult but much
    more highly perilous than the 1981 bombing of Iraq`s unfinished
    plant by Israel, according to Britain`s New Statesman magazine.
    "Destroying Iran`s nuclear facilities would be a totally
    different affair from destroying Osirak: it would be both harder and
    much more dangerous," it warns in next week`s issue.
    "For a start, Iran has many installations scattered over its huge
    territory, and they are protected. The main military site, at Natanz
    in central Iran, is buried deep underground," the British weekly
    said in its main cover story.
    It suggested that even if bombing Bushehr, one plant on the verge
    of completion, were feasible (with Russian technicians working there
    moved out of the way), "it would bring about huge retaliation while
    chalking up only limited military gains."
    "And Iran, unlike Iraq, has many means of retaliation, directly
    against Israel and indirectly against US interests in Iraq and
    elsewhere," the New Statesman further warned.
    It also believed that America`s onslaught against with Iraq and
    Afghanistan have put Iran at the "heart of the world`s most sensitive
    region, giving it ample opportunity for good or for mischief."
    The News Statesman was considering whether the US and Iran were
    playing a game of bluff or double bluff in a dangerous game that was
    keeping the rest of the world guessing.
    With regard to the question on whether Iran would develop its
    nuclear industry for military means, it said that there was "one
    very good reason why it should, exemplified by North Korea."
    "By acquiring the bomb, North Korea had put itself on a higher
    level. Equally, there would be no better way for the Iranian regime
    to protect itself from overthrow from outside than by having the
    bomb," the magazine said,
    It also referred to Iran being surrounded, and in some cases
    threatened, by nuclear countries and forces, including the US in
    Iraq as well as Israel and suggested having its own bomb would would
    "provide a safety net for Tehran`s leaders."
    On the other hand, the weekly believed as long as Iran did not go
    nuclear, there was the possibility of a trade-off for some grand
    international deal.
    With the notion of the US and Iran developing a new relationship
    remaining a "forlorn, if not surreal, hope," it believed that the
    most likely outcome was that Washington would in the end getting the
    case referred to the UN Security Council.
    The New Statesman said that the US would then press the UN to
    punish Iran with some form of sanctions, but which was unlikely to
    go as far as oil "for no other reason than the precipitous effect
    this would have on oil prices."
    There was also questions on whether other Security Council
    members, like Russia and China, would allow any resolution on sanction
    be passed.
    The result, it concluded, was likely to be another stalemate. "It
    looks as if the perilous brinkmanship will continue - until one side
    or the other steps over the edge," it said.
    HC/2324/1432






    Last edited by lulldapull; 17 Jan 05, at 04:40.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    808
    Despite 2 cent rhetoric of "This and That" in the confrontation with Iran, among other mental masturbation scenarios to boost sapping morale in the U.S. military by Neocon thugs and their humbled lackeys, no one in the U.S. govt. is actually that stupid to attack Iran. I have posted this article before from CNS, and would be a good reality check for Christian fundos and their Apocalyptic/ armageddonist buddies.

    http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm

  10. #10
    Ubi dubium ibi libertas Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    04 Sep 03
    Location
    Boston, MA, USPRA
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by lulldapull
    This article is a joke! Unkal Sam doesnot have the testicles to screw around with the Mullahs in Tehran.
    I bet Saddam was thinking a very similar thing right before the bomb hit his compound at the beginning of the war.
    "Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
    "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

    NEVER FORGET

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Leader
    I bet Saddam was thinking a very similar thing right before the bomb hit his compound at the beginning of the war.

    if that happens in Irans case then A bomb will hit both Allawi's compound quickly followed by most of U.S. military compounds and garrisons where demoralised U.S. troops now sit huddled for cover

    then it will make the current (largely Sunni) insurgency look like a panty clad gay snowball fight, compared to what will happen next.

    God I wish Bush just does it! I will LMAO and bust out laughing a whole lot more on this forum!

  12. #12
    Ubi dubium ibi libertas Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    04 Sep 03
    Location
    Boston, MA, USPRA
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by lulldapull
    if that happens in Irans case then A bomb will hit both Allawi's compound quickly followed by most of U.S. military compounds and garrisons where demoralised U.S. troops now sit huddled for cover

    then it will make the current (largely Sunni) insurgency look like a panty clad gay snowball fight, compared to what will happen next.

    God I wish Bush just does it! I will LMAO and bust out laughing a whole lot more on this forum!
    You have no strategic sense at all. If the mullahs nuked our troops, they and 95% and their countryman would be dead within an hour. Am I to assume that the after the sentence about Iran killing thousands of our troops is meant as approval. If so, you're a very demented individual.
    "Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
    "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

    NEVER FORGET

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Leader
    You have no strategic sense at all. If the mullahs nuked our troops, they and 95% and their countryman would be dead within an hour. Am I to assume that the after the sentence about Iran killing thousands of our troops is meant as approval. If so, you're a very demented individual.
    no man Bush is a demented individual, for involving us in a war we can't win! And if he takes on iran, then he will really get it in the booty.

    nuclear weapons cannot be used anymore. Not by Iran, nor by the U.S.....or anyone for that matter. geting them however is another story and gaurantees that your enemy doesnot cross the threshold! precisely what the mullah's are after....if not already have it.

    great Job by Neocon thugs and Christian Fundo bible bigots! By threatening and intimidating other countries, they have actully accelerated WMD programs in all them nations. Did you bother to read the CNS article? or are you still slapping the mental maturbatory scenario.......of a "clean" and "effective" execution and zero consequence resolution of the Iranian WMD program???

  14. #14
    Staff Emeritus Julie's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 03
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    10,840
    Quote Originally Posted by lulldapull
    no man Bush is a demented individual, for involving us in a war we can't win! And if he takes on iran, then he will really get it in the booty.
    You sure have an over-powering fettish about "booty." Either your sex life sucks, or, er...you just need to get some booty Lull or your going to self-destruct or something.

  15. #15
    Ubi dubium ibi libertas Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    04 Sep 03
    Location
    Boston, MA, USPRA
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by lulldapull
    no man Bush is a demented individual, for involving us in a war we can't win! And if he takes on iran, then he will really get it in the booty.

    nuclear weapons cannot be used anymore. Not by Iran, nor by the U.S.....or anyone for that matter. geting them however is another story and gaurantees that your enemy doesnot cross the threshold! precisely what the mullah's are after....if not already have it.

    great Job by Neocon thugs and Christian Fundo bible bigots! By threatening and intimidating other countries, they have actully accelerated WMD programs in all them nations. Did you bother to read the CNS article? or are you still slapping the mental maturbatory scenario.......of a "clean" and "effective" execution and zero consequence resolution of the Iranian WMD program???
    I give up. Go tell someone who cares.
    "Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
    "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

    NEVER FORGET

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Future of afghanistan
    By raja khan in forum Operation Enduring Freedom and Af-Pak
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 23 Mar 09,, 11:09
  2. Liberals Blame America for Nick Berg's Death
    By Leader in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 20 Aug 07,, 09:30
  3. Articles and links for the Military Professional
    By Officer of Engineers in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 20 Nov 06,, 16:28
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07 Nov 06,, 23:17
  5. Russia says opposes use of force against Iran
    By Alamgir in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 29 Sep 05,, 09:39

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •