ceilirose

Here we go again...I wonder if this will be as successful as Operation Iraqi Freedom. Then again I wonder where the money will come to pay for it and the bodies to fight it.

TokyoNiGHTS

Iran unlike Iraq actually has a very good military along with high end weaponry. If Bush tries to invade them without proper military support and planning, you're going to see blood bath, and it isn't going to be coming from their troops it'll be ours.

JW77

Interesting story. I wonder if people like Barack Obama are loving it.

Depends on what you're talking about. Ground force and air force, not so much. I mean, they do have a lot of ground troops, but they don't have any real armor to back them up. Not that the T-72s aren't worth anything, but we've seen what tanks like the M1 and the British Challenger can do against them. And besides, with the number of Iranian troops, their armor is probably spread pretty thin. Their air force does have some decent equipment, including F-14s, but I don't know how many of their aircraft are actually combat ready.

Now, they do have a better air defense system than Iraq did at the start of Iraqi Freedom, but I don't know that it'd be able to hold up for long. Especially because of the necessary strategic placement that has it all spread out.

The big thing with Iran though is that they actually have a somewhat modernized navy. I think that would be the hardest thing to get around.

Having said all that though, I hate it when people overestimate our technology and our military. So I guess you never really know. Can't ever underestimate someone that's fighting for their family.

- annuscka -

Oh good grief. That's about what I have to say.

No, Iran is certianly no place I'd love to live at, but that doesn't make disarming it the US's busniess. Period. If everyone thought like that, then the whole world'd be a war zone - I'd love to disarm Russia for example, may I?

Also, Iran is a very big country. About twice-thrice the size of Iraq, and that's only square kilometers, I'm not sure about population. And it's a lot more modernized and open than Iraq ever has been - things have been moving forward slowly, but surely, I believe. It will be hellish for the Pentagon to try and disarm Iran, if they really are heading for it.

ceilirose

What's being talked about in the blogs is that China might not be too happy about this either. China and Iran agreed last year to have China develop one of their oil fields.

I'm not sure but doesn't China have a pretty strong military? I'm guessing just because of their sheer numbers that it's probably so.

Also what would Britain think about this..would they be part of the coalition as in Iraq? I also thought that Britain was trying to work diplomatically with Iran on their nuclear program.

I fear that Bush will just go ahead and do this no matter what. He thinks that his re-election was his moment of accountability and people will just go along with it.

What will/would be interesting is how the media portrays this and if public opinion would go along with it as in Iraq.

JW77

I can believe that. You also have to remember that China, along with a few other nations, sells military equipment to Iran...so there's a lot of money involved. I'm guessing that the oil is probably far more important to them though. It'll be interesting to see how the Chinese respond if this information turns out to be correct.

Yes. They have a very strong military. They're still pretty wary of American military capabilities though. Even with our other commitments. That's why they haven't really pushed things with Taiwan (that seems to be changing now though).

Yeah, I think there are quite a few nations that are still trying to work things out diplomatically. Britain is one of them.

Personally, I don't feel that the British would go along with any attacks on Iran. I don't think Tony Blair would be able to sell it to the people this time.

The bad thing is that you have some Democrats (like Obama) who believe that it may be necessary to take some sort of military action against Iran. That could tip things in that direction.

No1important

What a surprise. I guess Iran will be next on "W's" hit list.

TokyoNiGHTS

I think what makes them more dangerous is that you know they've been planning for us to attack. Everyone in the US knows that Iran is on Bush's hit list, and I don't think a country like Iran is just going to sit around and wait for us to attack. It's something they know is coming and they're going to be ready for it. If we go in with the same style of attack that we had in Iraq, we're going to get run over. Our military as it is right now is already spread really thinly according to military experts. Taking on Iran would be a big mistake. If we were going to attack them it should've been before Iraq, as they were more dangerous all along.

No1important

I was watching CNN this morning and they had Seymour Hersh on from the New Yorker and he believes his secret sources who told him America will drop bombs on Iran this summer in hope to start an uprising to throw out the leader.

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.

here is the link. http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/...ran/index.html

So I guess Bush has dreamed up a "crisis" for Iran. I think it will be a mistake as Iran is more organized than Saddam ever was and I think Iran has the means to retaliate if "W" is that stupid. Hell, The American troops are not that far from Iran so they could inflict a lot of damage on U.S. soldiers.

I guess the draft will be back sooner than later, maybe?

TokyoNiGHTS

If that happens i'd be interested in seeing how Republicans defend him since he said that there would be no draft. Or would they finnaly realise that you simply can't trust the man.

Enigma, I.C.

That story is pretty disturbing. If those activities were to be officially confirmed one can expect many, many problems.

I met Seymour Hersh and he is really awesome. You can trust him.

UnsilentMajorty

"The anti-christ will create a war without end.

He will truth basic truth into lies and lies into truth".

"Even his own people will see him as just when the rest of the world sees him as evil."

This passage is from the Bible and is a sly, condescending wink... ... to all those who like to hide behind that stupid smilie and turn it into a backhanded insult.

Second...

You want to know who is conducting these operations?

The Pentagon.

Why?

Because they aren't beholden to the Senate Arms Oversight Committee -- The one that authorizes funding for these "activities" -- And others in Congress... Unlike the CIA, NSA and other federal agencies.

This is relevant because as things roll on Bush has no accountability in every sense of the word and can even start WWIII if he wants without having to go to Congress for approval. Even global thermo nuclear war if he so chooses.

Also, everyone keeps forgetting about the fact that they don't have to defeat our soldiers on the battlefields of the Middle East when terrorist groups -- their commando and special operators -- Can detonate a nuclear, or chemical weapon in the heart of Seattle, or San Francisco for example.

The world is sooooooooo much safer since 9/11, now that the God-appointed savior George Bush has been in office and will be for another four years

TokyoNiGHTS

I'm not religious, but its a bit disturbing to see how accurate that seems right now.

TheAngel

WASHINGTON (Jan. 17) - The Pentagon on Monday criticized a published report that said it was mounting reconnaissance missions inside Iran to identify potential nuclear and other targets.



AP
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney and President Bush met at the Pentagon Thursday to discuss the war on terrorism and tsunami relief efforts.


"The Iranian regime'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," the Pentagon's chief spokesman, Lawrence DiRita, said in a statement.

Hersh's article, published on Sunday, was "so riddled with errors of fundamental fact that the credibility of his entire piece is destroyed," DiRita said.


Hersh reported that President Bush had signed a series of top-secret findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces military units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia.

DiRita did not comment on that assertion.

Instead, he said, Hersh's sources fed him "rumor, innuendo, and assertions about meetings that never happened, programs that do not exist and statements by officials that were never made."

Asked whether U.S. military forces had been conducting reconnaissance missions in Iran, Defense Department spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable said, "We don't discuss missions, capabilities or activities of Special Operations forces."

elisheva

Like someone said on BBC World tonight (I forgot who).... I should hope there are American spies getting information in Iran.