Looks like Iran might need those missles...

[yall]

From www.drudgereport.com:

 

"NBC NEWS confirms a secret U.S. military report that says 'Iranian Agents' may be behind a deadly ambush in Karbala, Iraq that left five American soldiers dead. The report also claims the Iranian revolutionary guard is providing intelligence on U.S. and Iraqi military to Shiite extremists, in addition to sophisticated weaponry. Developing... "

 

I'll wait until I see this on NBC before jumping to conclusions, but if this is true (and I mean really true not "oops WMD" true) then Iran should be lit the f*ck up like a christmas tree.

[chicot]

From www.drudgereport.com:

 

"NBC NEWS confirms a secret U.S. military report that says 'Iranian Agents' may be behind a deadly ambush in Karbala, Iraq that left five American soldiers dead. The report also claims the Iranian revolutionary guard is providing intelligence on U.S. and Iraqi military to Shiite extremists, in addition to sophisticated weaponry. Developing... "

 

I'll wait until I see this on NBC before jumping to conclusions, but if this is true (and I mean really true not "oops WMD" true) then Iran should be lit the f*ck up like a christmas tree.

 

"Lit the f*ck up like a Christmas tree".

 

So how many Iranian civilians would you like to see killed as retaliation for an attack that killed five US soldiers? Five hundred? Five thousand? Five million? Assuming Iran is supporting Iraqi rebels, it is not doing anything the US has not done many times in many different countries for decades. Should the US have been "lit up like a Christmas tree" for their support of the Contras in Nicaragua? Silly me, I forgot that when the US does this sort of thing it's "good", whereas if anyone else does it, it's "evil".

[yall]

"Lit the f*ck up like a Christmas tree".

 

So how many Iranian civilians would you like to see killed as retaliation for an attack that killed five US soldiers? Five hundred? Five thousand? Five million? Assuming Iran is supporting Iraqi rebels, it is not doing anything the US has not done many times in many different countries for decades. Should the US have been "lit up like a Christmas tree" for their support of the Contras in Nicaragua? Silly me, I forgot that when the US does this sort of thing it's "good", whereas if anyone else does it, it's "evil".

 

Why not bring up the battle of Hastings while you are at it?

 

The fact is there is a good chance (CNN is now reporting it as well) that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard disguised themselves, kidnapped US soldiers, and then executed them. Am I to understand you feel there should be no military action against a country that murders our troops?

 

We aren't talking accidental or combat deaths here, this is a government potentially sanctioning the murder of our troops. A goverment that funds terrorist organizations in Palestine. This isn't just funding some rebels. If you can't see the difference you must be blind.

 

I would like to see zero Iranian civies killed, but there is always collateral damage. And besides, we can completely cripple Iran militarily without many civilian deaths at all.

[chicot]

Why not bring up the battle of Hastings while you are at it?

 

The fact is there is a good chance (CNN is now reporting it as well) that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard disguised themselves, kidnapped US soldiers, and then executed them. Am I to understand you feel there should be no military action against a country that murders our troops?

 

We aren't talking accidental or combat deaths here, this is a government potentially sanctioning the murder of our troops. A goverment that funds terrorist organizations in Palestine. This isn't just funding some rebels. If you can't see the difference you must be blind.

 

I would like to see zero Iranian civies killed, but there is always collateral damage. And besides, we can completely cripple Iran militarily without many civilian deaths at all.

 

The US support of the Contras is slightly more recent than the battle of Hastings.

 

If they captured them and executed them in cold blood, then that is indeed different. However, the quote you provided just says they were killed "in a deadly ambush". I think troops being killed in an ambush (and most especially when they are occupying another country) would certainly come under the definition of "combat deaths".

 

I think you're being somewhat unrealistic if you honestly believe the US can completely cripple Iran militarily without many civilian deaths, though I suppose that would depend on what your definition of "many" is.

[yall]

The US support of the Contras is slightly more recent than the battle of Hastings.

 

If they captured them and executed them in cold blood, then that is indeed different. However, the quote you provided just says they were killed "in a deadly ambush". I think troops being killed in an ambush (and most especially when they are occupying another country) would certainly come under the definition of "combat deaths".

 

I think you're being somewhat unrealistic if you honestly believe the US can completely cripple Iran militarily without many civilian deaths, though I suppose that would depend on what your definition of "many" is.

 

There were many articles last week stating that they were ambushed, captured, and then executed at another site.

 

Iran's military can be easily crippled by sinking their naval vessles, and hitting their airfields. We don't need to worry about taking out their armor and SAM sites which are probably kept in heavily populated areas. Some surgical strikes are all we need to just remind them that they should sit this one out.

[erynthered]

There were many articles last week stating that they were ambushed, captured, and then executed at another site.

 

Iran's military can be easily crippled by sinking their naval vessles, and hitting their airfields. We don't need to worry about taking out their armor and SAM sites which are probably kept in heavily populated areas. Some surgical strikes are all we need to just remind them that they should sit this one out.

 

 

And their oil fields.

[molson_golden2002]

There were many articles last week stating that they were ambushed, captured, and then executed at another site.

 

Iran's military can be easily crippled by sinking their naval vessles, and hitting their airfields. We don't need to worry about taking out their armor and SAM sites which are probably kept in heavily populated areas. Some surgical strikes are all we need to just remind them that they should sit this one out.

And the oil they pump that is a big part of keeping the global economy afloat? The Straights of Hormuz where 20% of the world's oil flows through? It would be a big f-up to have a few tankers blown up, a missle hit the Saudi facilities or Iran to turn off the pump for two weeks.

[molson_golden2002]

And their oil fields.

LOL, you want to bomb their oil fields?

[chicot]

There were many articles last week stating that they were ambushed, captured, and then executed at another site.

 

Iran's military can be easily crippled by sinking their naval vessles, and hitting their airfields. We don't need to worry about taking out their armor and SAM sites which are probably kept in heavily populated areas. Some surgical strikes are all we need to just remind them that they should sit this one out.

 

Where would the US launch it's aircraft from? If it plans to sail a fleet into the gulf then it needs to worry about Iran's anti-ship missiles (SN 22 Sunburns as well as hundreds of exocets). If it's going to use bases in neighbouring countries then I think it would need those countries permission as well as the permission of countries whose airspace they were overflying.

[yall]

Where would the US launch it's aircraft from? If it plans to sail a fleet into the gulf then it needs to worry about Iran's anti-ship missiles (SN 22 Sunburns as well as hundreds of exocets). If it's going to use bases in neighbouring countries then I think it would need those countries permission as well as the permission of countries whose airspace they were overflying.

 

You are aware that we just sent 2 carrier groups to the Gulf right?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070103/ts_nm/usa_gulf_navy_dc

[woolley]

"Lit the f*ck up like a Christmas tree".

 

So how many Iranian civilians would you like to see killed as retaliation for an attack that killed five US soldiers? Five hundred? Five thousand? Five million?

 

I'd like to see 15,982 killed in retaliation. A single civilian more than that is over the line though.

 

Assuming Iran is supporting Iraqi rebels, it is not doing anything the US has not done many times in many different countries for decades. Should the US have been "lit up like a Christmas tree" for their support of the Contras in Nicaragua? Silly me, I forgot that when the US does this sort of thing it's "good", whereas if anyone else does it, it's "evil".

 

Much of the US was lit up like a Christmas tree just over a month ago, because it was Christmas. Once a year is enough, unless you're some sort of Christian fanatic who thinks we should celebrate Christmas more than once a year.

 

-Woolley

[Wacka]

This was on ABC radio over the weekend. They are finding Iranian markings on IEDs, Iranian supplied arms and ammo. I said a while ago, that the Iranians and Syrians were funding, supplying and even manning the terrorism in Iraq, but I was called a right wing nut by some here. I didn't call it an insurgency, because it is mostly foreigners doing it, not Iraqis.

One of the clerics in Iraq that was against us is saying he might let us in Sadir City because he realizes the Iranians are trying to force us out and then they will try to take over Iraq.

 

 

Get over your hatrered of Bush and take a good look at what's happening. Like I said before, if we don't do something about Iran now, we'll have WWWIII. Tthis time it will be nuclear. Talking won't work, it didn't work before WWII.

[Johnny Coli]

Why not bring up the battle of Hastings while you are at it?

 

The fact is there is a good chance (CNN is now reporting it as well) that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard disguised themselves, kidnapped US soldiers, and then executed them. Am I to understand you feel there should be no military action against a country that murders our troops?

 

We aren't talking accidental or combat deaths here, this is a government potentially sanctioning the murder of our troops. A goverment that funds terrorist organizations in Palestine. This isn't just funding some rebels. If you can't see the difference you must be blind.

 

I would like to see zero Iranian civies killed, but there is always collateral damage. And besides, we can completely cripple Iran militarily without many civilian deaths at all.

 

What "fact"? There's not a single substantiated fact at all in that CNN story. So, now we're invading countries on unverifiable leaked intelligence, speculation and "leading theories"? Oh, wait....

 

 

Let's see...

 

1. Leaked "secret US military report"...check

2. Iran-Iran-Iran-Iran-Iran...check

3. Providing intelligence to muslim extremists...check

4. "sophisticated weaponry"...check

 

Yup. They've got all the buzz words and foggy "facts" lined up. They've got their manufactured "they struck us first" reasoning set. They've leaked it to Drudge and CNN, so that's their two sources (that all other lazy journalists will site...next up, spread a rumour to the Associated Press about "iranian documents"). They've been spending weeks dictating to anyone and everyone why they have the legal authority to go to war without Congess' approval. Very convenient.

 

I would think that after having been through this once before in the not-so-distant past that people would take a step back and start to ask for actual proof rather than knee-jerk themselves headlong into another black hole that will swallow up thousands of US lives and billions of more dollars simply so a fool can try and save his legacy.

[chicot]

You are aware that we just sent 2 carrier groups to the Gulf right?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070103/ts_nm/usa_gulf_navy_dc

 

Wasn't sure whether the US had or not, but in that case they will have to worry about Iran's anti-ship missiles.

[molson_golden2002]

This was on ABC radio over the weekend. They are finding Iranian markings on IEDs, Iranian supplied arms and ammo. I said a while ago, that the Iranians and Syrians were funding, supplying and even manning the terrorism in Iraq, but I was called a right wing nut by some here. I didn't call it an insurgency, because it is mostly foreigners doing it, not Iraqis.

One of the clerics in Iraq that was against us is saying he might let us in Sadir City because he realizes the Iranians are trying to force us out and then they will try to take over Iraq.

Get over your hatrered of Bush and take a good look at what's happening. Like I said before, if we don't do something about Iran now, we'll have WWWIII. Tthis time it will be nuclear. Talking won't work, it didn't work before WWII.

How about posting a link to back up all this wacky bull sh-- you are spewing? The insurgency is mostly foreign? That's a complete load of crap. I guess you want to invade Iran to stop the insurgency in Iraq? Then who do we invade next?

[chicot]

This was on ABC radio over the weekend. They are finding Iranian markings on IEDs, Iranian supplied arms and ammo. I said a while ago, that the Iranians and Syrians were funding, supplying and even manning the terrorism in Iraq, but I was called a right wing nut by some here. I didn't call it an insurgency, because it is mostly foreigners doing it, not Iraqis.

One of the clerics in Iraq that was against us is saying he might let us in Sadir City because he realizes the Iranians are trying to force us out and then they will try to take over Iraq.

Get over your hatrered of Bush and take a good look at what's happening. Like I said before, if we don't do something about Iran now, we'll have WWWIII. Tthis time it will be nuclear. Talking won't work, it didn't work before WWII.

 

"I didn't call it an insurgency, because it is mostly foreigners doing it, not Iraqis. "

 

No, that's just plain wrong.

[molson_golden2002]

Wasn't sure whether the US had or not, but in that case they will have to worry about Iran's anti-ship missiles.

They would fly out of Iraq anyway, no permission needed from that "independent" government.

[yall]

What "fact"? There's not a single substantiated fact at all in that CNN story. So, now we're invading countries on unverifiable leaked intelligence, speculation and "leading theories"? Oh, wait....

Let's see...

 

1. Leaked "secret US military report"...check

2. Iran-Iran-Iran-Iran-Iran...check

3. Providing intelligence to muslim extremists...check

4. "sophisticated weaponry"...check

 

Yup. They've got all the buzz words and foggy "facts" lined up. They've got their manufactured "they struck us first" reasoning set. They've leaked it to Drudge and CNN, so that's their two sources (that all other lazy journalists will site...next up, spread a rumour to the Associated Press about "iranian documents"). They've been spending weeks dictating to anyone and everyone why they have the legal authority to go to war without Congess' approval. Very convenient.

 

I would think that after having been through this once before in the not-so-distant past that people would take a step back and start to ask for actual proof rather than knee-jerk themselves headlong into another black hole that will swallow up thousands of US lives and billions of more dollars simply so a fool can try and save his legacy.

 

Try reading the OP as well as re-reading what you have quoted...

 

Notice words such as "likely" and "probably" and also notice the "oops WMD" part of the OP.

 

I'm not taking this particular report as complete truth just yet, but given what facts we do have (Irans's support of Hezbollah, their comments about Israel, their flagrant violation of UN nuke policies, Iranian agents being captured in Iraq.. all FACT) there is strong reason to believe that there is some truth to this, and it warrant further investigation.

 

Should it turn out to be true, some type of military action is warranted.

[DC Tom]

Wasn't sure whether the US had or not, but in that case they will have to worry about Iran's anti-ship missiles.

 

None of those anti-ship missiles have the range to hit a carrier battle group in the Arabian Sea. Even if they did..."having" anti-ship missiles still isn't a big deal. You have to know how to use them.

[Johnny Coli]

Try reading the OP as well as re-reading what you have quoted...

 

Notice words such as "likely" and "probably" and also notice the "oops WMD" part of the OP.

 

I'm not taking this particular report as complete truth just yet, but given what facts we do have (Irans's support of Hezbollah, their comments about Israel, their flagrant violation of UN nuke policies, Iranian agents being captured in Iraq.. all FACT) there is strong reason to believe that there is some truth to this, and it warrant further investigation.

 

Should it turn out to be true, some type of military action is warranted.

 

I did read the OP. You say you're not going to jump to conclusions, then you start jumping to conclusions. You've already accomplished what they intended anyway...you took a Drudge headline (that erroneously claimed there was an NBC story) that disseminated factless speculations and passed it along. The Drudge headline is now gone, but the Iran-Iran-Iran echo is still wafting through the intertubes.

 

You claim that IF TRUE, this warrants military action. The title of your thread is "Looks like Iran might need those missles..." How knee-jerk is that?