Are we already in Iran?

[techweenie]

Seems unlikely, but this guy thinks so:

--------------------
Retired Colonel: ‘We Are Conducting Military Operations Inside Iran Right Now. The Evidence Is Overwhelming.’

On CNN, Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner (Ret.) said, “We are conducting military operations inside Iran right now. The evidence is overwhelming.”

Gardiner, who taught at the U.S. Army’s National War College, has previously suggested that U.S. forces were already on the ground in Iran. Today he added several additional new points:

1) The House Committee on Emerging Threats recently called on State and Defense Department officials to testify on whether U.S. forces were in Iran. The officials didn’t come to the hearing.

2) “We have learned from Time magazine today that some U.S. naval forces had been alerted for deployment. That is a major step.”

3) “The plan has gone to the White House. That’s not normal planning. When the plan goes to the White House, that means we’ve gone to a different state.”
-----------------------

Discuss.

[Superman]

When we think of stuff like asteroid hits that might destroy thousands or millions or billions of lives........or when we think of volcanic eruptions that might do that........or massive, large scale terrorist acts......it is hard for us to legitimize that. That is, we tend to shrug certain rare-event dangers off because we perceive their likelihood as too low.

Same with obviously, decidedly, well-understood bonehead mistakes. Decisions we dismiss as outside the world of possibility because everybody knows that decision would be, obviously to nearly everyone, a HUGE mistake. Unfortunately, we have recently learned that this kind of idiocy is VERY possible. Very possible for the next two years and four months. We are indeed in grave danger.

[livi]

Moving into Iran would be a disaster that found a place to happen. Catastrophic consequences.

[Jeff Higgins]

I'm not; I'm still in Lynnwood.

[Jim Richards]

In their minds, some of these guys are already there.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Almost certainly we have covert and specops in there now - which will be disavowed by the U.S. Government if they're caught of course.

[dd74]

And these covert persons are there to do...what? Report back to the administration what it wants to hear?

The fact is we have no ground resources for Iran and Iraq. A quagmire in two countries. Heck, let's make it a third and invade Syria.

[Nathans_Dad]

I have no doubt we have covert forces in Iran. We were in Iraq months before the actual invasion. No question about it.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by dd74
And these covert persons are there to do...what? Report back to the administration what it wants to hear?

The fact is we have no ground resources for Iran and Iraq. A quagmire in two countries. Heck, let's make it a third and invade Syria.

Don't forget: it's going to be a quagmire in Afghanistan soon enough. The Taliban is resurgent. 85% of the country is vulnerable. The warlords have a $6.1 billion opium crop, and plenty of arms to buy with the proceeds.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by techweenie
Seems unlikely, but this guy thinks so:

--------------------
Retired Colonel: ‘We Are Conducting Military Operations Inside Iran Right Now. The Evidence Is Overwhelming.’

Special Forces Command is probably conducting "death squad" raids now in preparation for the illegal attack on Iran. As I've stated many times before, the US government has invaded Iran many times in the 20th century, why expect anything different?

Iran needs to play this "more smarter" as far as combat is concerned. For example, then need to sink a capital ship belonging to the US government which is demonstrably involved in combat operations against them, no matter what that takes. By capital ship, I mean a full on aircraft carrier or a heavy cruiser or such. More is better.

[dd74]

Originally posted by techweenie
Don't forget...Afghanistan...

Funny; I actually did forget Afghanistan. So make Syria country #4 in the quagmire queue.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Iran may be a lot more formidable than Iraq as a military power but I seriously doubt they could take out a U.S. carrier. If they did, you can only imagine the hell that would unleash. Probably tactical nuclear weapons.

They'll focus on ground forces (if any) rather than heavy equipment. Their chances of success are far better there anyway.

[Superman]

Originally posted by fastpat
Iran needs to play this "more smarter" as far as combat is concerned. For example, then need to sink a capital ship belonging to the US government which is demonstrably involved in combat operations against them, no matter what that takes. By capital ship, I mean a full on aircraft carrier or a heavy cruiser or such. More is better.

The carrier would, of course, be in international waters so I wonder how Iran might try to prove that it was 'demonstrably involved in combat operations....."

Also, as Porsche-o-Phile points out, getting near an aircraft carrier is....ummm.......im-frickin-possible. Im-frickin-possible.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by dd74
And these covert persons are there to do...what? Report back to the administration what it wants to hear?

The fact is we have no ground resources for Iran and Iraq. A quagmire in two countries. Heck, let's make it a third and invade Syria.

Yeah, so based on the Clinton Regime's experience in Serbia (you may not believe what we in the military were told about that), the US government just going to "F" them up from the air. They know they can't target much of the nuclear program, so expect the Iranian water, electrical, and other infrastructure to come under direct bombardment. Expect more than one million casualties in Iran as a result.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by Superman
The carrier would, of course, be in international waters so I wonder how Iran might try to prove that it was 'demonstrably involved in combat operations....."

Also, as Porsche-o-Phile points out, getting near an aircraft carrier is....ummm.......im-frickin-possible. Im-frickin-possible.

Not really, but that is for another day.

I do find it interesting that in another thread a well reasoned article gets snubbed because of the preceived political leaning of the scribe yet a CNN posit gets a, "seems unlikey, but" post without comment on the source.

[Jeff Higgins]

It's time to bring 'em home. Bring 'em all home and shut the gate behind us. With terrorists winning seats in the "legitimate" Iraqi government, the Taliban getting re-established in Afganistan, Lebanon harboring Hezzbola guerrillas, Iran beating its chest and defying the UN, Syria up to its usual shenanigans, it's time to leave. Physically and economically. Just step back, take a deep breath, and see where the chips fall.

I would bet once we are gone the whole region implodes on itself, collapsing under the weight of its religious zealotry and factionalism. It will re-divide along ancient tribal boundaries. There will be such instability that they won't be able to deal with their own problems, much less unite and focus on us as one. Then, and only then, the people might cast off the oppressive religious rule and start to see a better way.

With us still there, anywhere over there, their leaders have a rallying point. Visibly going into Iran will strengthen that. Dubya and company have made some serious errors in judging the nature of the Middle Eastern people, but they have had time to re-assess those errors. Iraq and Afganistan have been the "school of hard knocks". Going into Iran would prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that they didn't learn anything and were probably sleeping through class. I don't think I'm quite ready for WWIII...

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
It's time to bring 'em home. Bring 'em all home and shut the gate behind us. With terrorists winning seats in the "legitimate" Iraqi government, the Taliban getting re-established in Afganistan, Lebanon harboring Hezzbola guerrillas, Iran beating its chest and defying the UN, Syria up to its usual shenanigans, it's time to leave. Physically and economically. Just step back, take a deep breath, and see where the chips fall.

I would bet once we are gone the whole region implodes on itself, collapsing under the weight of its religious zealotry and factionalism. It will re-divide along ancient tribal boundaries. There will be such instability that they won't be able to deal with their own problems, much less unite and focus on us as one. Then, and only then, the people might cast off the oppressive religious rule and start to see a better way.

With us still there, anywhere over there, their leaders have a rallying point. Visibly going into Iran will strengthen that. Dubya and company have made some serious errors in judging the nature of the Middle Eastern people, but they have had time to re-assess those errors. Iraq and Afganistan have been the "school of hard knocks". Going into Iran would prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that they didn't learn anything and were probably sleeping through class. I don't think I'm quite ready for WWIII...

I applaud your suggestion.

Let's not do just that, let's make illegal with criminal penalties for any government official to suggest sending US government troops on military adventures EVER again.

[fastpat]

I can't wait for the elections so I can vote Democrat. Then we'll all be safe again.

Only a few h ave suggested that.

In fact, not voting at all, or voting for one of the "other" parties sends a better message to the two large parties. Until the Democrats return to their Jeffersonian roots, screw 'em.

[teenerted1]

wow has Higgie gone over to the Dark Side?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by teenerted1
wow has Higgie gone over to the Dark Side?

I reckon he's getting "more informed".