US special forces 'inside Iran'

[Dis]

I knew back then it was about oil. ... and big business such as haliburton.

[Alex]

Originally posted by Dissident


We did say something similar about afghanistan. And it's true, we didn't need any ground forces for that war. The only reason we sent them in was to try to find terrorists and stabilize the country.

And you failed in both objectives...

[Dis]

Originally posted by Alex


And you failed in both objectives...

yeah, well **** happens

you can't win them all.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Nuclear power is good but the reactor in Iran is designed to maximize the production of plutonium not maximize the creation of electricity. The reactors designed to produce the maximium amount of electricity and the least amount of plutonium are actually much cheaper to build and maintain then the design the Iranians have built.

That leads alot of people to believe the Iranians are more interested in nuclear bombs then civilian energy.

Iranian nukes preventing a war
Democratic reforms in Iran
Invasion

[Kaak]

this whole article is ridiculous. I'm sure we have people spying all over the world, mapping out potential targets, etc. Information is a most powerful resource, and lack of accurate information is, as we have seen, quite dangerous. So, instead of invading, then looking for nukes, we look for nukes first, and you guys are opposed to this? make up your damn minds.

and of course it is a better idea for the military to do it, if the CIA has to tell the whole world that they are going in to spy. kinda makes spying ineffective, don't ya think?

I would also like to point out that just because we are gathering information, it certainly doesn't mean an invasion is imminent. but i'd hate for some of you guys to jump off the "I hate the US" bandwagon, you might twist an ankle or something...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Kids these days

And WMD, yes. My point was that there was never any doubt that Saddam was going out.

[asleepathewheel]

Shockingly I agree with Dino.

I don't have a problem with reconning our enemies, which Iran is one of. If it changes to another war, then that's of course a different story, but making plans is fine with me, its what should be done. We should have people on the ground in the places which are openly hostile preparing in case a quick strike is needed.

The vitriol for Bush, which I myself carry, is clouding the posters here.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Kaak
this whole article is ridiculous. I'm sure we have people spying all over the world, mapping out potential targets, etc. Information is a most powerful resource, and lack of accurate information is, as we have seen, quite dangerous. So, instead of invading, then looking for nukes, we look for nukes first, and you guys are opposed to this? make up your damn minds.

and of course it is a better idea for the military to do it, if the CIA has to tell the whole world that they are going in to spy. kinda makes spying ineffective, don't ya think?

I would also like to point out that just because we are gathering information, it certainly doesn't mean an invasion is imminent. but i'd hate for some of you guys to jump off the "I hate the US" bandwagon, you might twist an ankle or something...

good point, we gathered information about the USSR for years and still continue to gather information about Russia. Doesn't mean we were planning on attacking them.

[Whaleboy]

And WMD, yes. My point was that there was never any doubt that Saddam was going out.

Of course, but the wars intentions I doubt were about Saddam or even WMD.

I don't have a problem with reconning our enemies, which Iran is one of. If it changes to another war, then that's of course a different story, but making plans is fine with me, its what should be done. We should have people on the ground in the places which are openly hostile preparing in case a quick strike is needed.

But it's an aggressive act in itself. There's no way in hell the UK would do such a thing except in a specific operation. Of course that's of no consequence, the greatest part of my opposition to this is rests upon the idea that it will lead to war.

There is spying, and then there is specific aggressive military action.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Of course, but the wars intentions I doubt were about Saddam or even WMD.

Maybe they were about multiple things?

[Kaak]

There is spying, and then there is specific aggressive military action.

and none of us have enough information to know which is going on, so maybe we should just stop talking out of our collective asses?

[Whaleboy]

Maybe they were about multiple things?

A shiny silver star for you!!

and none of us have enough information to know which is going on, so maybe we should just stop talking out of our collective asses?

There is spying, and then there is specific aggressive military action.

I'm not saying which is occuring, the whole argument rests on "ifs" and "buts", not least if the article is true. If you use the same assumptions then you haven't questioned my arguments. If you're not using the same assumptions then what are you doing here?

[Kaak]

disagreeing with the arguements that have been made because, just as you said, they rest on ifs and buts and a lot of people are making up their minds with extremely limited information, as people are apt to do. Then they use these judgements to find fault in leaders, whom they accuse of doing the exact same thing. can you say hypocrit?!

[Whaleboy]

Perhaps, but I can't speak for others I can only speak for myself, and with this article as the premise, trustworthy as it may be it is still unsubstantiated so any assessment on our part has to be provisional.

[Pekka]

I think some people have their blinders on.

Imagine a situation where say Iran would bomb the crap out of some country we like. The first question is "WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW ABOUT THIS!", "I CAN'T BELIEVE WE HAD NO ONE DOWN THERE!".

Of course there are people down there. Iran is a hostile nation, no matter if we want war or not, they are a hostile nation. They are about to grab some nukes, so I think it would be kidding ourselves if we thoght there was no one there. There SHOULD be people in there and there is people in there.

Are they doing recon, checking out possible targets.. well.. they're not looking for summer villas, now are they? Of course the targets must be ready at all times. war or no war, with hostile nation.

What is is information gathering if not this? And I bet there are other countries in there too, countries even that are not part of the current coalition, doing the same thing. Hey, I bet there are countries, even western allied countries, with plans how to bomb and attack US if it should ever happen. I bet location spotting has been done and is been done. I bet few days ago someone was taking notes in here too. It happens all the time by hostiles and friendlies, ESPECIALLY hostiles.

Iran is grabbing nukes what ever it is that we do to. Now, don't you think it would be kind of stupid not to explore the military enforcing option? Basically you need to have all the options open, even the military one, and for that recon must be done.

So I see this nothing but hot air. It's not shocking, it's what people do, it isn't even morally wrong, it's what you do as your duty. If you don't want to do it, fine, but don't mind if we do .