America Looks To Iran?
Hmmm"
Regime change in Iran is something that needs to happen. All the necessary components for invasion are there:
I do think we need to get Iraq past its elections and on the way to self-rule before we look to Iran. Clearly, we cannot over-extend ourselves. Many say that we are already over-extended with troops in Iraq. While I don't agree with that statement, should we invade Iran before we have the situation in Iraq in-hand we will be over-extended.
And that being said, why are American journalists reporting on secret American missions into Iran? Isn't this something we should be keeping a lid on? Isn't it absolutely necessary that we alert our enemies before we attack them?
Update:
David Limbaugh agrees:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, The New Yorker magazine reported Sunday.
The article, by award-winning reporter Seymour Hersh, said the secret missions have been going on at least since last summer with the goal of identifying target information for three dozen or more suspected sites.
Hersh quotes one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon as saying, "The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible."
One former high-level intelligence official told The New Yorker, "This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign."
The White House said Iran is a concern and a threat that needs to be taken seriously. But it disputed the report by Hersh, who last year exposed the extent of prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
"We obviously have a concern about Iran. The whole world has a concern about Iran," Dan Bartlett, a top aide to President Bush, told CNN's "Late Edition."
Regime change in Iran is something that needs to happen. All the necessary components for invasion are there:
- They are actively pursuing a nuclear program.
- They mullaharchy in that country is guilty of egregious human rights violations.
- Iran clearly supports terrorism. We've seen Iranian-backed terrorist attack our troops in Iraq. A side-effect of invading Iran will likely be a drastic decrease of terrorist activity in Iraq.
- There is an active uprising against the government going on in Iran right now. The people want regime change.
I do think we need to get Iraq past its elections and on the way to self-rule before we look to Iran. Clearly, we cannot over-extend ourselves. Many say that we are already over-extended with troops in Iraq. While I don't agree with that statement, should we invade Iran before we have the situation in Iraq in-hand we will be over-extended.
And that being said, why are American journalists reporting on secret American missions into Iran? Isn't this something we should be keeping a lid on? Isn't it absolutely necessary that we alert our enemies before we attack them?
Update:
David Limbaugh agrees:
So far, it appears that the White House is denying the factual accuracy of Hersh's report. They should, regardless of whether it's true or not, if our national security interests are to mean anything. Can you imagine the kind of journalistic ethic we are operating under that would celebrate, rather than condemn, the type of report that Hersh has just belched forth? If in fact the United States is engaged in covert operations to determine the nature, extent, and location of WMD and WMD delivery systems in Iran, what possible constructive purpose can be served by the publication of such information -- unless you consider helping our enemies in the War on Terror, such as Iran, a constructive purpose?
robert108
Carrick
DOUGLAS FIELD
dakotaninoregon
Proof
Rodney Graves
gilbyguy
