Iran is next

[EXTRAPOLATER]

Actions are already underway (please contradict this and ask for sources).

2006 or 2007 sounds likely for ground forces.

Maybe not much of a prediction.

Any thoughts?

 

[EXTRAPOLATER]

Holy chit

just checked out some other posts (more closely) in this forum

lotsa animosity produced by these subjects, aye?

WTF...you only live twice

I still think Iran is greatly threatened by the evil bully accross the ocean (there...that might get the ball rolling ).

Did you hear the one about the new Pres. being a former terrorist hostage-taker? :mj07:

 

[kosar]

It wouldn't surprise me. Hey, we're already in the region! Hopefully we come up with something a little different than the great plan of trying to occupy, control and shove a new political system down their throat. We can see the the result with a country of 26 million. Iran has 3x that and a military that will actually fight.

A full blown occupation of Iran would be a disaster.

We already have guys on their second and third roration in Iraq. I can't imagine how bad the morale would be if we switch over to Iran in a few years.

 

[kosar]

Did you hear the one about the new Pres. being a former terrorist hostage-taker?

Yeah, saw that. Christ, what's next?

Iran is denying it's him, but the news showed now/then pics of this guy and it's almost certainly him.

 

[IntenseOperator]

There is a shiet storm coming

A story about CIA agents committing possible illegal acts while on the clock.

 

[smurphy]

Iraq literally is absolutely nothing compared to what Iran would be. The only way enough of this country could get behind major military action there would be for a 9-11 type act to happen again, specifically caused by Iran IMO.

The way Bush creatively links events, I'm surprised he's not already pushing for invasion based on the 1979 hostage crisis.

 

[kosar]

What kind of acts?

 

[AR182]

right before the invasion of iraq, i saw 2 ex-cia agents on hardball & they said that the u.s. should have invaded iran before iraq.

in hindsight i tend to agree with that.

 

[kosar]

right before the invasion of iraq, i saw 2 ex-cia agents on hardball & they said that the u.s. should have invaded iran before iraq.

in hindsight i tend to agree with that.

I guess if we absolutely had to invade another country while we were screwing around with Afghanistan, then it should have been Iran. But I really don't think the timing would have been wise. And it would have had to take a different form. There is no possible way we could do there, what we're trying to do in Iraq.

 

[AR182]

kosar,

we don't know that.

you can think it, but nobody knows for sure how an invasion against iran would work.......from what i have heard & read there are many iranians who are fed up with the mullahs...maybe an invasion would have energized those people to take arms....we don't know.

 

[kosar]

kosar,

we don't know that.

you can think it, but nobody knows for sure how an invasion against iran would work.......from what i have heard & read there are many iranians who are fed up with the mullahs...maybe an invasion would have energized those people to take arms....we don't know.

Al,

We've been waiting for the 'people' to overthrow the leaders of Iran, Libya, Cuba etc....since the beginning of time. It just doesn't happen. We also expected the people to do the trick in 1991 in Iraq. In 1991, we hung thousands of Shiites who got slaughtered out to dry by pumping them up and then leaving. People tend to remember that.

Iran has 3x the population as Iraq and something like 4 or 5x the land. They have, at the least, a competent military. The population there hates us more than just about any country, as their countrys state religion is Islamic fundamentalism and we are the 'infidels.'

We cannot control a very small country right now with 160,000 troops fighting against a rag tag bunch of insurgents.

The more recent things i've read about the Iranian youth is that they have become indifferent. Yes, they long for an end of the mullahs but have resigned themselves to what it is because their concerns are marginalized. Invasion or not, there will not be an uprising there. And it's damn sure not something we should count on in any sort of war plans against them.

An invasion/occupation along the lines of our invasion of Iraq would fail miserably.

Surgical strikes and/or bombing is maybe one possible option. The problem is that we have no idea exactly where their large reactors are. Also, they are underground.

Also, there are some airspace/refueling issues due to the range of our jets and where they would be coming from.

Also, you can count on even more hell breaking loose in Iraq 2 seconds after the first strike. At the least, they would bomb the shit out of Iraq and possibly send their military over there to join the fun.

We would have to handle this with no help from anybody, because Bush had the 'who cares what the world thinks' attitude in 2003.

In fact, Russia would certainly help Iran behind the scenes.

Our military is stretched to it's limit as it is right now. Really, beyond it's limits with them extending ETS', extending tours over there, using massive amounts of reservists, etc. A full-blown invasion of Iran would be insane at this time.

 

[Master Capper]

I guess if we absolutely had to invade another country while we were screwing around with Afghanistan, then it should have been Iran. But I really don't think the timing would have been wise. And it would have had to take a different form. There is no possible way we could do there, what we're trying to do in Iraq.

Why Iran or Iraq? What links do we have that tie them to terror or 9/11? We should of went into Saudi Arabia to make a statement about terrorism and the financing of terrorism.

 

[kosar]

Why Iran or Iraq? What links do we have that tie them to terror or 9/11? We should of went into Saudi Arabia to make a statement about terrorism and the financing of terrorism.

Yeah, I dunno. *Neither* would be the best choice at that exact time after 9/11. I don't know what we'd do when we got to Saudi Arabia. You know what I mean? It's kind of hard to explain with text what my point is about that.

I guess I would choose Iran to try to at least destroy their nuclear program, but you're right about no 9/11 ties. No strong ones anyways. They're sympathetic to terrorists though, and definitely have formal ties to them.

But don't misunderstand, I don't think we should have invaded Iran in 2003.

 

[IntenseOperator]

What kind of acts?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/30/world/main705412.shtml

 

[kosar]

Thanks I/O, but that a bad link.

 

[IntenseOperator]

worked for me :shrug:

(AP) The Italian government denied Thursday it had prior knowledge of the alleged CIA kidnapping of a radical Egyptian cleric in 2003, an operation that has led prosecutors to seek the arrest of 13 purported CIA operatives.

Carlo Giovanardi, minister for relations with parliament, addressed the Senate in response to opposition demands that Italy say whether authorities knew of plans to kidnap the Egyptian, considered an Islamic terrorist.

Italian prosecutors have accused the 13 CIA officials of kidnapping Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, known as Abu Omar, on a Milan street on Feb. 17, 2003, and sending him to Egypt, where he reportedly was tortured.

The Egyptian preacher purportedly was seized as part of the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program in which suspected terrorists are transferred to third countries without court approval, where they face interrogation and possible torture.

Premier Silvio Berlusconi's government has summoned the U.S. ambassador who was expected to meet with Italian officials Friday on the matter, Giovanardi said.

He said the reported operation was never "brought to the attention of the government of the republic or national institutions," often a term used to refer to Italy's intelligence agencies.

Therefore, he said, "it is not even possible" that Italy ever authorized such an operation.

Prosecutors have said they are preparing extradition requests for the 13 CIA operatives and have asked Interpol to help in tracing the suspects, all identified as U.S. citizens.

Nasr told his wife in an intercepted cell phone call from Egypt that he was tortured, the Milan prosecutor's office has said. He reportedly was hung upside down and subjected to extreme temperatures and loud noise that damaged his hearing.

The U.S. Embassy in Rome, the CIA in Washington and Egyptian officials have declined to comment.

The Milan prosecutor's office called the imam's disappearance a blow to Italy's own fight against terrorism. He had been under investigation for alleged terrorist activity in Italy at the time of his disappearance.

Responding to Giovanardi, opposition Sen. Tana De Zulueta referred to a report Thursday by The Washington Post that said the CIA station chief in Rome had briefed and sought approval from an Italian official before the purported operation, citing three unidentified CIA veterans said to have had knowledge of the operation and a fourth said to have reviewed it after it took place.

One of the veterans claimed in the report that the CIA "told a tiny number of people" about the action. The report said it was unclear how high in the Italian intelligence service the information was shared or whether Berlusconi was made aware.

At De Zulueta's reference to the article, Giovanardi shouted out: "It's false."

 

[kosar]

worked for me :shrug:

Your computer must be messed up then.


Thanks for the article. I had heard something about that last week, but didn't know a lot of those details.

 

[IntenseOperator]

Windows 98

Internet Explorer

 

[bjfinste]

So just to make sure I'm reading that correctly, the kidnapped guy was an Egyptian, but American CIA agents took him in Italy, and then brought him back to his home country to torture him? I'm assuming that it was the CIA that was doing the torturing... why would they bring him back to his home country to do it?

But yeah, IO, you're right. If this is proven, there could be definate shit storm to follow.

(btw, link worked for me)

 

[THE KOD]

Strong possibility Bin Laden is being harbored in Iran.

that should be reason enough.

where else could he get medical treatment he needs. Kidney
diasese does not just go away.

Maybe time to drop some nukes .

Go George go !