Report Says US Forces are in Iran Preparing for War
A report in the New Yorker magazine by award-winning journalist Seymour Hersh says that US special forces have been in Iran since last summer, preparing for attacks on sites in what is described as the Iranian part of a campaign in 'a huge war zone'.
Hersh, who exposed the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal, goes on to report that American forces are working in eastern Iran aided by Pakistani scientists. As many as 10 nations are having similar covert operations carried out within their borders, it says.
The report adds that President Bush has allocated the operations to the military rather than intelligence agencies so as to sidestep legal restrictions which the CIA has had imposed upon it regarding its secret activities abroad.
lurker, why are you and others so eager to believe the anti-war propaganda? What specifics do you know about US failures in the war against terrorism in Iraq? Have you searched for any reports of success, or do you take it for granted that it's all for naught?
Have you taken any testimony from Iraqis or al Quaida members, those in Guantanamo perhaps?
We can widen the war to other countries, other fronts! We must, because Islamic terrorism operates on a very broad front! You know this of course, but you try to deny it. Whose side are you on, anyway?
Perhaps the Pentagon and WH are finally acknowledging that the enemy we face is on a par with Germany and Japan and their allies during World War II, and they must be defeated in the same measure with similar methods?
that you'll get plenty of civilian casualties and many buildings in ruins, broken infrastructure etc...plenty of reasons to be pissed off because of this so called "liberation". It's like asking for more terrorism. Put yourself in their situation and understand that their amount of suffering is much larger than what USA suffered with 9/11.
You're kidding, right? What failures do we know about specifically? Do you consider the Iraq war to be a success (or even worth fighting for that matter)? If so, you are not the majority, not even inside the U.S. (check Rasmussen et. al. for proof of that). Also, you speak as if you HAVE taken testamony from the Al Quaeda and Iraqi insurgents. I highly doubt that YOU have, so where does that leave us?
I love how stating the obvious will silence any and all conservatives:
1) The United States does not have the money to extend the war on terrorism because it decided to attack an enemy that was an idle threat. A $400bn+ defecit should be fairly specific for you.
2) We failed to send the proper amount of troops needed (in accordance with reccomendations of top military officials) to secure the nation in a timely manner. The current insurgency should be specific enough for you.
3) The "Shock and Awe" campaign accomplished nothing. The failure to locate WMD should be specific enough for you.
4) Abu Ghraib. The current trials of those involved as well as the imperviousness of Donald Rumsfeld (who, more or less, suggested the torture)should be specific enough for you.
5) If there is no active schedule for the removal of 'allied' troops in Iraq, then things are not headed towards a "Catastrophic Success". The "Stop Loss" program should be specific enough for you.
I salute your "Morality" Luhker, but what part of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" didn't you understand?
Its difficult to say who would be better. Because both a trained heavily. But I think specops forces in the US usually work together with the CIA and other agencies. So Im sure there is some CIA involvement, if this report is true.
I read the following from one news source covering this story:
"Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz believe that Iran's clerical regime could not withstand a military blow and would collapse."
Is that the same Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz that said once Saddam fell the population of Iraq would welcome the coalition as liberators, peace would be swift, democracy would soon follow, durka durka islamic jihad, etc.??
Iran ...WTF .. don't they have 400,000 soldiers ... do you think the Us Hi-Tec weaponry is gonna get them all taking into account that Iran has one major advantage over the US in military terms ....ie they don't have to fight public opinion ...and the US does ..... Hi-tec or not if troops go in there, there will be a lot of them going home in bags.... so now they'll push Iraq and Iran together into a superpower in the area ( not all that super) but when you think about it my enemies enemy is my friend ...no ??
This reminds me of Nazi behavior and before some American jumps in here to defend the name of the nation let’s remind ourselves of something. What the Nazis, according to themselves were doing in occupied Europe wasn’t terror .
Ok here’s some Chomsky (as usual …lol) They weren’t carrying out terror in occupied Europe. They were protecting the local population from the terrorisms of the partisans. And like other resistance movements, there was terrorism. The Nazis were carrying out counter terror. Furthermore, the United States essentially agreed with that. After the war, the US army did extensive studies of Nazi counter terror operations in Europe. First I should say that the US picked them up and began carrying them out itself, often against the same targets, the former resistance. But the military also studied the Nazi methods published interesting studies, sometimes critical of them because they were inefficiently carried out, so a critical analysis, you didn’t do this right, you did that right, but those methods with the advice of Wermacht officers who were brought over here became the manuals of counter insurgency, of counter terror, of low intensity conflict, as it is called, and are the manuals, and are the procedures that are being used. So it’s not just that the Nazis did it. It’s that it was regarded as the right thing to do by the leaders of western civilization, that is us, who then proceeded to do it themselves. Terrorism is not the weapon of the weak. It is the weapon of those who are against ‘us’ whoever ‘us’ happens to be. And if you can find a historical exception to that, I’d be interested in seeing it.
Getting first hand knowledge of what exactly is going on there instead of depending on old, outdated unreliable info as the U.S. was accused of doing in Iraq. I dont expect to see any war there anytime soon unless there is a direct attack on the U.S from Iran. Now A direct attack does occur from Iran against the U.S. then you can count on the intel being on the money when the bombs start falling.
Not replying to anything else in the topic just kaleids thought "That you'll get plenty of civilian casualties and many buildings in ruins, broken infrastructure etc...plenty of reasons to be pissed off because of this so called "liberation"." Iraq and its civilain casulties was nothing compared to the invasion of Nazi germany in WWII
Those who are pro say they can Those who are against say they can't...
None of you live in the conflict zones, none of you (at least the pious and loving Europeans) know what it's like. Americans, they know. Post 9/11 Americans know. They experienced the pain of terrorism (even if it's at a lower scale than other countries who have had to suffer these acts for years)... Russians know. Spaniards know. Israelis/palestinians know (right Ganjaman?) Others as well, but that's not the point.
The point is, it's very easy for you, sitting in your comfortable chairs, having a smoke, sipping coke, and commenting on terror and war in a detached morally-superior attitude.
The truth of the matter is, once you experience this evil, once you feel this hatred that they have for all of us in every cell of your body, you can start to judge things more personally.
I say screw the International public opinion. Bush, although I may not agree with his policies on several issues, has seen this danger that is spreading like the plague. And he's trying to do something about it. He may not be doing it in the best of ways, he may not succeed, hell, and innocents will, most probably suffer because of his decisions, but get this: He IS making the world a better place.
And before you start bashing Republicans , and Americans and what not... check this out: I'm from the Middle East. And I know. I know the danger that surrounds me, my family, my friends and loved ones. I know the danger that Fundamentalism poses. And I know that a gale of optimism has swept my country in the recent year due to US politics.
I was on patrol with the Royal Navy escorting British-registered shipping from Iraq (our great ally at the time) out of the Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz. Although it was the best part of my time in the Navy, it was a scary 6 months.
I would love to visit the Lebanon one day. My father went to Beirut several times (before it was ruined) and I have always wanted to visit myself. The situation out there is a lot better than 10 or 15 years ago is it not?
Lebanon is enjoying peace and stability... Reconstruction is basically over and done with in Beirut, other main city's weren't really affected in the war... For the last 10 years or so, the situation is completely stable... (we could go into more details, but that's really irrelevant)
keep in mind that once you start something in one country then all the neighbors get agitated... in this case, we've already 'toppled' Saddam's regime but are still dealing with after-affects. How will the Syrians react when the U.S. pushes into Iran? how about the rest of 'the axis of evil' (the words that launched WWIII)? Will they ally together to defend themselves from US/allied invasion, if only in collaboration to develop WMDs...?
But it does show how people did not particularly care back then (to the same extent as people whine now) IT is not right, but it is unavoidable and chances are the casulties would have been less if you left the region alone
