http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4269835.stm

<font color = lightgreen>Well, of course they are. That is what intelligence agencies do--recon and analyze. </font>

I guess that because the satellite images of the Iraqi WOMD production facilities were found to be so inaccurate, the use of spyplanes at a far lower altitude would be able to give a much clearer picture of what is going on this time around.

Why shouldnt a sovereign state which has renounced terrorism and has no capability to deploy nuclear weapons against the USA be threatened with war?

They are gathering imformation, now we only have one side's word for what is going on. I learned a long time ago one side always seems right until you hear the otherside. And the other side hasn't said anything yet. That doesn't mean we aren't doing it, BUT it also doesn't mean we are!

If the sovergeign state of Iran wishes to send spy planes to over fly the USA, be my guest, just don't come complaining to me when the USA blows it out of the sky. :D

WAR? Where the "Hale" does that come from? Do you have any inside intel? Any thing like photos of troop movements, intercepted comunications between comanders and troops in the field, etc.? Or is the thrown out retorical question just because of distrust of US policies? Hasn't anybody said a damn thing about WAR!

Well, I'm going to source a few articles that seem to imply a build-up of tensions in the Middle East. The last time this happened as I recall there was a war. You may have heard about it on the news.
------------------------------
"There is an eerie similarity to the events preceding the Iraq war," commented David Kay, who led the search for banned weapons of mass destruction in postwar Iraq, in a Washington Post article.
------------------------------

Note that I am choosing arguements that support my statement from the sources below. If you know of anything relevant that would detract from these, let us all know about it.

( if you have the time, there are a number of very good articles on the subject at http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/0,12858,889981,00.html )

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story...416319,00.html

Iran and Syria heightened tension across the Middle East and directly confronted the Bush administration yesterday by declaring they had formed a mutual self-defence pact to confront the "threats" now facing them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story...415881,00.html

George Bush calls Iran "the world's primary state sponsor of terror" and US officials charge Syria with allowing Palestinian militants and Iraqi insurgents to operate from its soil.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/...415966,00.html

No one knows whether the US is serious about attacking Iran to destroy its alleged nuclear weapons programmes, and today's assertion from Tehran that US spy planes have been overflying the country will have done nothing to calm the jitters.

It takes two to create a sense of crisis, and George Bush deliberately used his state of the union address on February 2 to depict Iran as "the world's primary state sponsor of terror", as well as accusing it of secretly developing an atomic arsenal.

In Washington's eyes, one of the central members of the "axis of evil" of 2002 has now graduated to become an "outpost of tyranny".

Alarmingly, there are signs that military options are being explored by the US, with reports of unmanned drones, special forces identifying targets (Seymour Hersh's recent New Yorker article on this was reprinted in its entirety in the Iran News), as well as carefully-publicised nods, winks and briefings that Israel might attack Iran's nuclear sites, as it did Iraq's in 1981.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...411159,00.html

During a visit to France this week, US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice called on Iran to abandon what she says is a nuclear weapons programme, and pointedly refused to rule out an attack on atomic sites.

In January, the investigative reporter Seymour Hersh reported that US special forces were already operating inside Iran, selecting sites for future air strikes.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...ria/index.html

Article relates primarily to the tensions between Syria and the US. Iran is also brought into this article, probably because of the recent defence pact the two threatened countries made.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...eut/index.html

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iran, facing mounting U.S. pressure over its nuclear program, promised on Thursday a "burning hell" for any aggressor as tens of thousands marched to mark the 26th anniversary of its Islamic revolution.

=====================================

I could probably find articles like these all day long from dozens of news agencies. You have to concede that the rhetoric from the US administration is very similar to that immediately before the declaration of war and invasion of Iraq.

It seems a little naive to ignore the obvious signs of aggression that exist this time around and indicate premedative steps towards a second war in the Middle East.

[ 02-17-2005, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: Dace De'Briago ]

Well Dace, from what I can tell Mr Kay IS NOT in the command & control loop of the US Military, neither are any of the reporters MAKING GUESSES on what is meant by this statement or that statement. Please show what divisions in the field they have under their command. So a bunch of reporters say this or that, reporters are not the end all be all of what will happen. Where are the troop movments like before the invasion of Iraq? So what If President Bush called Iran some names, where is the deadline to comply with demands made by the USA, like there was in Iraq? So there are SF in Iran big woopty-doo the USA has SF all over the globe doing things some are covert actions some are not. Without troops there is no war, there is a bunch of talk, but "Hale" talk is cheap. People run their mouths all the time, running their mouths is not the same as doing. I'm still waiting on any Intel reports, intercepted comand & control comunications, etc.

To Quote one of your sighted sources "No one knows whether the US is serious about attacking Iran" even the sighted source admitts it doesn't have a clue to what will happen. :D The USA may very well attack Iran, BUT right now there is zero real evidence to be placing any credence(sp?) to any statements declairing the USA is threating Iran with WAR. If the USA is going to kick Iran's rear end, we'll come straight out and say it, no pussyfootin' around. Just like we did before the Iraq war.
Here's another quote form same: "None of this, however, is entirley convincing. With US forces bogged down in Iraq and hunting al-Qaida and Taliban remnants in Afghanistan, it requires a huge leap of the imagination to see the 82nd airborne heading for Tehran and Qom." If one wishes to leap be my guest, it's no sweat off my rear end.

Edit: Here's a nugget to chew on when ever one wishes to hold up the accuracy of reporter's geusses on when where and how War is conducted. Anybody remember what was said about when Turkey deined the 4th ID the right to use Turkey as a launching point? Why the reporters said the coalition would have to WAIT until the 4th got to Kuwait and set up before launching any invasion. Did the coaliton wait? NO the launched their attack before the 4th was ready like the reporters said they would have to do. Reporters/anylists-0 Military planers -1

[ 02-17-2005, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

<font color = lightgreen>I certainly hope we don't escalate with Iran right now. Two-front wars are notorious failures.... I also hope the following analogy isn't true--Iran : Iraq :: Cambodia : Vietnam.</font>

A two front war? In instance, Japan and Germany? Hmm? Seems recent history shows there was a defined victor (with a little help from friends)! It would also appear that the victor fought the two fronts!

An amased two front war? Say The desert of Iraq and the same adjacnet desert of Iran. Hmm, that would not really appear to be a two front war. That would just be an extension of a non linear battlefield!

I do like the part about "shiny flying things". Must be another case of.... Anyhow, they are welcome to remove them from their airspace.

Good!

<font color = lightgreen>Ok, ok. My beautiful hypothesis, ruined by an ugly fact. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]

Logistically and tactically we could be victorious over Iran, should it come to that. However, such an action would not generate much support here in the States, and there is no greater killer of morale for the folks on the front line than to see those at home whining about how the war is wrong and/or bad.

The simplest resolution for this issue is to surgically strike Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities if the intelligence concludes that weapon production is likely.</font>