Iran is next. Another war for our age.

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Just how many wars are we going to start in the next 4 years?

Sy Hersh Article

Don't have a link to it yet, but William Cohen has coroborated(sp?) Hersh's story on the Wolf Blitzer show and that the White House hasn't denied Hersh's assessments either.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
The President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia.
Hate to rain on this guy's parade, but we have special ops people deployed somewhere in the world 365 days a year. This has been going on since before I was born and shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

The article repeatedly cites ex-'high-ranking officials' without identifying any. That's a great way to build credibility. It's written under the pretext of being a factual article but the writing style is anything but.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
" 'Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again.'

'I wish it need not have happened in my time', said Frodo.

'So do I', said Gandalf, 'and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us. And already, Frodo, our time is beginning to look black. The enemy is fast becoming very strong. His plans are far from ripe, I think, but they are ripening. We shall be hard put to it, even if it were not for this dreadful chance.' "

 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia.
Hate to rain on this guy's parade, but we have special ops people deployed somewhere in the world 365 days a year. This has been going on since before I was born and shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

The article repeatedly cites ex-'high-ranking officials' without identifying any. That's a great way to build credibility. It's written under the pretext of being a factual article but the writing style is anything but.


And how long do you think those that talked to Hersh would remain 'high-ranking officials' if he named them? :roll:
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: GrGr
And how long do you think those that talked to Hersh would remain 'high-ranking officials' if he named them? :roll:
They're all EX already, so who cares? It's not like the Bush administration is going to run around and off these people for talking up unclassified information - only Clinton would do that.
 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia.
Hate to rain on this guy's parade, but we have special ops people deployed somewhere in the world 365 days a year. This has been going on since before I was born and shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

The article repeatedly cites ex-'high-ranking officials' without identifying any. That's a great way to build credibility. It's written under the pretext of being a factual article but the writing style is anything but.

that guy has more credibility in his pinky then you'll ever have in a lifetime.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: rickn
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia.
Hate to rain on this guy's parade, but we have special ops people deployed somewhere in the world 365 days a year. This has been going on since before I was born and shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

The article repeatedly cites ex-'high-ranking officials' without identifying any. That's a great way to build credibility. It's written under the pretext of being a factual article but the writing style is anything but.

that guy has more credibility in his pinky then you'll ever have in a lifetime.
:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
The adminstration doesn't think negotiations will work, and they need to threaten force, so they should not negotiate at all. Since we aren't negotiating, no deal made will mean anything, so no deal will occur, and since no deal will occur, the only answer will be force. Self-fufilling prophecy anyone? On top of that, we unite the iranian people around the government, since their country is under attack by a foreign enemy (similar to what happened here after 9/11 i'd suppose), so once we invade, everyone hates us. it will be like Iraq, except even worse, because the current Iranian regime doesn't have a record of mass oppresion and slaughter like saddam.

Anyways I guess i'm happy the the americans have finally gotten the fascism they've been longing for for so long.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: rickn
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia.
Hate to rain on this guy's parade, but we have special ops people deployed somewhere in the world 365 days a year. This has been going on since before I was born and shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

The article repeatedly cites ex-'high-ranking officials' without identifying any. That's a great way to build credibility. It's written under the pretext of being a factual article but the writing style is anything but.

that guy has more credibility in his pinky then you'll ever have in a lifetime.
:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

Didn't you get the memo? Cyclo is TRUTH!
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Nothing like a war on Iran to unite the Sunnis and Shia against us. So instead of 10 Million Sunnis against us in Iraq, which we can't handle as it is, we'll have 100 Million Sunnis and Shia in Iran and Iraq against us.
 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
The adminstration doesn't think negotiations will work, and they need to threaten force, so they should not negotiate at all. Since we aren't negotiating, no deal made will mean anything, so no deal will occur, and since no deal will occur, the only answer will be force.

The US and Europe have been attempting some form of negotiations with Iran for over two decades now. The msot recent round has proven once again that the 'European' way of doing it is not working. Iran as usual promptly agreed, told Europe to bug off, and then looked for every loophole available. Now, they are within weeks of producing what they refer to as the Islamic bomb, the ones that will destroy Israel, and get funneled to every crack pot Islamic nut in the world.

Good bye, Tel Aviv, see ya, New York, no more Berlin, London, Moscow, Beijing, LA, etc... It is not like Iran has been veiling their threats and ultimate goals for years.
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
Hersh isn't foolproof, and in this case is waaaayyyyy off, though not as far off as his October Surprise that wasn't....

No credible evidence, no way that people not in the loop could have current info on classified information.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: maluckey
Hersh isn't foolproof, and in this case is waaaayyyyy off, though not as far off as his October Surprise that wasn't....

No credible evidence, no way that people not in the loop could have current info on classified information.

Didn't OBL have an appearance suddenly on like October 30? That would be an October surprise type event.
 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Didn't you get the memo? Cyclo is TRUTH!
I didn't get the memo where credibility was determined by rickn and rickn alone.

I wasn't questioning Seymours credibility, you were. I've read enough from you to know your full of hot hair. And since you're such an expert on everything, where are your written pieces published in national publications? Thought so.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: rickn
I wasn't questioning Seymours credibility, you were. I've read enough from you to know your full of hot hair. And since you're such an expert on everything, where are your written pieces published in national publications? Thought so.
I have three if you're really interested, though they're in scientific journals so I doubt you'd understand them. Maybe it's my science background that forces me to reject this article as hokey since he doesn't name a single source for all of his ranting. Or, maybe it's his unprofessional writing style that gives his bias away fresh out of the gate. Maybe a combination of the two.
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
I hope this isnt true. A full war with Iran would be a disaster. But if its going to a small scale operation where we would strike some sites, then I may favor it. Either way its very risky.
 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: rickn
I wasn't questioning Seymours credibility, you were. I've read enough from you to know your full of hot hair. And since you're such an expert on everything, where are your written pieces published in national publications? Thought so.
I have three if you're really interested, though they're in scientific journals so I doubt you'd understand them. Maybe it's my science background that forces me to reject this article as hokey since he doesn't name a single source for all of his ranting. Or, maybe it's his unprofessional writing style that gives his bias away fresh out of the gate. Maybe a combination of the two.

you're a cocky little punk aren't ya? and you would be right, I wouldn't be interested in them, afterall I graduated from Jack & Jill magazine about 25yrs ago
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: rickn
I wasn't questioning Seymours credibility, you were. I've read enough from you to know your full of hot hair. And since you're such an expert on everything, where are your written pieces published in national publications? Thought so.
I have three if you're really interested, though they're in scientific journals so I doubt you'd understand them. Maybe it's my science background that forces me to reject this article as hokey since he doesn't name a single source for all of his ranting. Or, maybe it's his unprofessional writing style that gives his bias away fresh out of the gate. Maybe a combination of the two.

Very few journalists reveal their sources. It's very common practice.

Do you deny Watergate ever happened?
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: rickn
you're a cocky little punk aren't ya? and you would be right, I wouldn't be interested in them, afterall I graduated from Jack & Jill magazine about 25yrs ago
You asked, I answered. Does that make me cocky? I guess I lied though, they're not national magazines. They're international refereed journals.
Originally posted by: silverpig
Very few journalists reveal their sources. It's very common practice.

Do you deny Watergate ever happened?
I understand it's a common practice. However, when someone is clearly just writing a piece to be anti-Bush, as indicated by his language and selected quoting of completely anonymous sources, I find it hard to lend credence to anything he says. You can lend him as much credence as you see fit, but don't expect me to do the same. I'm not sure what Watergate has to do with anything...?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: rickn
I wasn't questioning Seymours credibility, you were. I've read enough from you to know your full of hot hair. And since you're such an expert on everything, where are your written pieces published in national publications? Thought so.
I have three if you're really interested, though they're in scientific journals so I doubt you'd understand them. Maybe it's my science background that forces me to reject this article as hokey since he doesn't name a single source for all of his ranting. Or, maybe it's his unprofessional writing style that gives his bias away fresh out of the gate. Maybe a combination of the two.
I'm sorry, is it just my "elitist" alarm that just went haywire? :disgust:
 

GreatBarracuda

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,135
0
0
Hersch is not alone in this claim. Notice the very last line in the article:

US rebuts 'Iran covert op' claim

The Pentagon has hit back at claims by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh that US commandos are carrying out covert operations inside Iran.

A spokesman said Hersh's New Yorker magazine article was based on rumour, innuendo and conspiracy theories.

"Errors of fundamental fact" destroyed the article's credibility, he said.

Hersh argues that US forces, aided by intelligence from Pakistan, have been inside Iran, identifying military targets for future air strikes.

A Pakistani foreign ministry spokesman has described the reports of collaboration with the US over Iran as "far-fetched".

Hersh, an award-winning reporter who last year revealed abusive practises at the US military's Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, quotes unnamed intelligence officials as saying Iran is the Bush administration's "next strategic target".

He says US special forces have been conducting reconnaissance missions inside Iran for six months.

'Intelligence coup'

Pentagon spokesman Laurence DiRita said on Monday that Hersh's article did not do justice to the "global challenge" posed by the "Iranian regime's apparent nuclear ambitions and its demonstrated support for terrorist organisations".

Mr DiRita said the article was "so riddled with errors of fundamental fact" as to destroy its entire credibility.

"Views and policies" ascribed by Hersh to several top US defence department officials were not accurate, he said.

Hersh has told the BBC the White House is trying to make a plausible case that Tehran is cheating UN weapons inspectors in order to justify possible future military action against it.

He says the Pentagon is taking over much of the responsibility for covert "deniable" military operations from the CIA, in what amounts to an "intelligence coup" within the US.

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says that while Hersh could be wrong, he has a series of scoops to his name, including the details of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal last year.

His track record suggests that he should be taken seriously, our correspondent says.

Article
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not surprised at all at this news. I think there is a very good chance that Bush's despotic crusade will continue into 2005 with Iran being the target.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: rickn
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia.
Hate to rain on this guy's parade, but we have special ops people deployed somewhere in the world 365 days a year. This has been going on since before I was born and shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

The article repeatedly cites ex-'high-ranking officials' without identifying any. That's a great way to build credibility. It's written under the pretext of being a factual article but the writing style is anything but.

that guy has more credibility in his pinky then you'll ever have in a lifetime.


And this is why...

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: GrGr
And how long do you think those that talked to Hersh would remain 'high-ranking officials' if he named them? :roll:
They're all EX already, so who cares? It's not like the Bush administration is going to run around and off these people for talking up unclassified information - only Clinton would do that.