How would Dems thwart the Iranian threat?

[Hatuey]

How do we know Iran is actually "giving" away these weapons? We've sold weapons to hundreds of countries during their times of conflict during the cold war. Iran could be doing the same. Which would kinda make this a "just business" situtation. How does the place a weapon is made prove that the country making them is actually supporting the people they sell guns to?

 

[Inuyasha]

How do we know Iran is actually "giving" away these weapons? We've sold weapons to hundreds of countries during their times of conflict during the cold war. Iran could be doing the same. Which would kinda make this a "just business" situtation. How does the place a weapon is made prove that the country making them is actually supporting the people they sell guns to?

This is right on the money. And add to that the fact that we are the biggest arms dealer on the planet with private individual allowing half of our arms sales we we just don't know where the arms are coming from. it is a wild and uneducated guess by an administration that is reaching for straws. We are one of the biggest suppliers of arms anywhere. Even huge amounts of non-American weapons have been put into the hands of combatants all over the world by US arms dealers. It's a damn good business,,especially those AK-47 rip-offs that sell cheap and in large numbers.

 

[Hatuey]

This is right on the money. And add to that the fact that we are the biggest arms dealer on the planet with private individual allowing half of our arms sales we we just don't know where the arms are coming from. it is a wild and uneducated guess by an administration that is reaching for straws. We are one of the biggest suppliers of arms anywhere. Even huge amounts of non-American weapons have been put into the hands of combatants all over the world by US arms dealers. It's a damn good business,,especially those AK-47 rip-offs that sell cheap and in large numbers.

Guns are part of an elite group of items that can be sold anywhere in the world and people will always recognize what it's used for. You might not know what the hell a calculator is for but you see an AK47 in the hands of your local villains and you know they're up to no good.

 

[Iriemon]

have you looked into it?

That is what I am doing now. TOT made the claim, that is why I asked what his support for it was. He cited a couple articles from Mar and Nov 06.

I read a couple articles on I found

The bombs must be machine-milled to precise specifications in order to work properly, said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., a member of the Armed Services Committee. There are indications that some explosively formed projectiles used in Iraq may have been manufactured in Iran, he said. "There's a lot evidence that there's some Iranian connection in producing or at least disseminating the technology," Reed said.

U.S. blames Iran for new bombs in Iraq - USATODAY.com

Speaking with reporters in Seville, Spain, on Friday before traveling to Munich, Gates told reporters that markings on explosives provide ``pretty good'' evidence that Iranians are supplying either weapons or technology for Iraqi extremists.

``I think there's some serial numbers, there may be some markings on some of the projectile fragments that we found'' that point to Iran, he said.

Gates: Bombs Tie Iran to Iraq Extremists - Netscape News

Hardly ringing endorsements, not even a "slam dunk." I am suspicious that the Administration is again taking dubious evidence and presenting it as an established fact. Certainly TOT seems to be.

 

[Inuyasha]

I served in a conflict that was as disorganized and wild in as many ways as the present conflict and even the lowest enlisted man could make money on stolen or captured weapons by selling whatever he could pilfer when he went on Rand R to Japan and the Philippines where the local gangsters were starved for arms so just figure what a great business you could make if you put your mind to it in such circumstances.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

How do we know Iran is actually "giving" away these weapons? We've sold weapons to hundreds of countries during their times of conflict during the cold war. Iran could be doing the same. Which would kinda make this a "just business" situtation. How does the place a weapon is made prove that the country making them is actually supporting the people they sell guns to?

lmfao, ya umm these IED's are used for one thing and one thing only and that is to commit acts of terrorism, if they were selling arms to the government of Iraq that would be one thing, but selling arms to terrorists is quite another.

 

[Hatuey]

lmfao, ya umm these IED's are used for one thing and one thing only and that is to commit acts of terrorism,

Yes but you still haven't awnsered my question.

if they were selling arms to the government of Iraq that would be one thing, but selling arms to terrorists is quite another.

Again my question remains.

How do you know Iran isn't in a business relationship with the insurgents?

Russian made AK47s are found in the hands of almost every 2-bit insurgency/guerrilla in the world. Does this mean the russians support what each group is trying to accomplish? No. It simply means a transaction was made. They had weapons. The insurgencies baught them. End of story.

 

[Inuyasha]

Again the AK-47 is the biggest knock weapon around. You could manufacture them in a garage. They are simple rugged and the best weapon for an insurgency.

 

[Sauwan]

I think one of the more important things to do would be to stop provoking them into war....

Blowup? America's Hidden War With Iran - Newsweek: World News - MSNBC.com

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yes but you still haven't awnsered my question.



Again my question remains.

How do you know Iran isn't in a business relationship with the insurgents?

Russian made AK47s are found in the hands of almost every 2-bit insurgency/guerrilla in the world. Does this mean the russians support what each group is trying to accomplish? No. It simply means a transaction was made. They had weapons. The insurgencies baught them. End of story.

Even if they are selling them to the insurgents they are still supporting terrorists and aiding them in the fight against the dually elected Government of Iraq not to mention our soldiers, that is an act of war.

 

[Hatuey]

Even if they are selling them to the insurgents they are still supporting terrorists and aiding them in the fight against the dually elected Government of Iraq not to mention our soldiers, that is an act of war.

Selling guns is not an act of war. It's called business. You've made the wild assumption that selling weapons equals supporting. If you're going to make that claim you might as well claim that anybody who sells guns is supporting the people they're selling to.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Selling guns is not an act of war. It's called business. You've made the wild assumption that selling weapons equals supporting. If you're going to make that claim you might as well claim that anybody who sells guns is supporting the people they're selling to.

Either way Iran is arming terrorists which are killing our troops, that is an act of war any way you cut it.

 

[Hatuey]

Either way Iran is arming terrorists which are killing our troops, that is an act of war any way you cut it.

How so?

Selling guns is not an act of war.

A dealer is not responsible for the way his product is used. He provides a service. People pay for it and thats the end of the matter. Business 101.

It's a business. France does it. Russia does it. China does it. Every country in the world with heavy machinery can and probably does sell guns. Accusing a country of supporting an insurgency's cause simply because it sells weapons is like saying your local gun dealer supports murder because he sold a gun that was used in a homicide. Pretty weak logic.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

How so?

Selling guns is not an act of war.

A dealer is not responsible for the way his product is used. He provides a service. People pay for it and thats the end of the matter. Business 101.

You can't sell guns to criminals and it is a violation of international law to supply terrorists with arms.

It's a business. France does it. Russia does it. China does it. Every country in the world with heavy machinery can and probably does sell guns. Accusing a country of supporting an insurgency's cause simply because it sells weapons is like saying your local gun dealer supports murder because he sold a gun that was used in a homicide. Pretty weak logic.

Again selling guns to a legitimate government is nothing like arming terrorist organizations especially ones that are actively attempting to overthrow a Democratically elected government that is an act of war not only on us but on Iraq as well. Next you'll be saying that it's fine and dandy for Iran and North Korea to supply terrorists with nuclear weapons, after all it's just bussiness.

 

[Hatuey]

You can't sell guns to criminals and it is a violation of international law to supply terrorists with arms.

I've already asked you this question.

Other then these allegations and assumptions you keep throwing out. How does the sale of weapons equal to supporting the cause of the group the weapons are being sold to?

Again selling guns to a legitimate government is nothing like arming terrorist organizations especially ones that are actively attempting to overthrow a Democratically elected government that is an act of war not only on us but on Iraq as well.

I completely agree with this point. However you've made the connection that since they were made in Iran, they were sold by the iranian goverment to these terrorists. Considering the middle east is a hotbed for weapons how do you come to the conclusion that they were bought by the insurgents straight from the Iranian goverment? How had do you believe it would be for Saudi Arabia or even Syria to purchase weapons and provide them to the fair share of insurgents that come from their countries and are currently in Iraq?

I'm not saying Iran is free of any guilt yet because obviously it should all be investigated and the matter should be cleared. However to assume that the weapons are being "given" and not sold to these terrorists and then throw out the even wielder assumption that Iran is supporting this insurgency simply because the weapons were made there is a pretty big mouthful to swallow without any strong evidence to support it.

Next you'll be saying that it's fine and dandy for Iran and North Korea to supply terrorists with nuclear weapons, after all it's just bussiness.

We did sell toxins that could be used in herbicides and neuro toxins to Saddam once. That was just business right?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I've already asked you this question.

Other then these allegations and assumptions you keep throwing out. How does the sale of weapons equal to supporting the cause of the group the weapons are being sold to?

It doesn't allthough in this case the Iranians do infact support the cause of the Shia militias, but it doesn't matter it is an act of war to supply terrorists which are trying to overthrow your government.

I completely agree with this point. However you've made the connection that since they were made in Iran, they were sold by the iranian goverment to these terrorists. Considering the middle east is a hotbed for weapons how do you come to the conclusion that they were bought by the insurgents straight from the Iranian goverment?

For one the captured weapons have manufacturing dates of 2006 which shows that they are going directly from Iranian factories to the insurgency not through the black market, and for two we have recently captured two members of Iran's revolutionary guard Al-Quds brigade in Iraq.

We did sell toxins that could be used in herbicides and neuro toxins to Saddam once. That was just business right?

Dual use chemicals with legitimate civililian applications all of which were legal under international law, blame the French and Germans who gave the Iraqi's the technological expertise which allowed them to turn benign and legal chemicals into deadly and illegal WMD.

 

[Hatuey]

It doesn't allthough in this case the Iranians do infact support the cause of the Shia militias, but it doesn't matter it is an act of war to supply terrorists which are trying to overthrow your government.

Wrong. Selling weapons is a business. It can be done by everyone. Supporting an insurgency is the act of war. We've yet to see which one of these is the case.

For one the captured weapons have manufacturing dates of 2006 which shows that they are going directly from Iranian factories to the insurgency not through the black market, and for two we have recently captured two members of Iran's revolutionary guard Al-Quds brigade in Iraq.

Hate to brake this to you. Alot happened between 2006 and 2007. How quickly do you think a gun can move through the black market? There are 550million weapons in circulation worldwide. To believe that the countries that make them are directly supporting the people buying them is a very weak logic.

Dual use chemicals with legitimate civililian applications all of which were legal under international law, blame the French and Germans who gave the Iraqi's the technological expertise which allowed them to turn benign and legal chemicals into deadly and illegal WMD.

Hold up. Lets see your logic here. Assuming you're right for a minute and the Iranian goverment is guilty and is "giving away" these weapons as a sign of support for the insurgency. This would make the U.S. guilty of knowingly selling the chemicals a dictator and terrorist such as Saddam would need to gas and torture his own people. Making the U.S. partially responsible for the actions commited by Saddam Hussein with the chemicals we provided. If Iran is responsible for the way the weapons made in that country are being used. The U.S. is equally responsible for the way the chemicals we sold Saddam were used. This is according to your logic of course.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Wrong. Selling weapons is a business. It can be done by everyone. Supporting an insurgency is the act of war. We've yet to see which one of these is the case.

Arming the insurgency regardless if they support the cause or not is an act of war there is no way these weapons could have gotten into the hands of the insurgency without the go ahead of the Iranian government.

Hate to brake this to you. Alot happened between 2006 and 2007. How quickly do you think a gun can move through the black market? There are 550million weapons in circulation worldwide. To believe that the countries that make them are directly supporting the people buying them is a very weak logic.

My sources were from March and November of 2006.

Hold up. Lets see your logic here. Assuming you're right for a minute and the Iranian goverment is guilty and is "giving away" these weapons as a sign of support for the insurgency. This would make the U.S. guilty of knowingly selling the chemicals a dictator and terrorist such as Saddam would need to gas and torture his own people. Making the U.S. partially responsible for the actions commited by Saddam Hussein with the chemicals we provided. If Iran is responsible for the way the weapons made in that country are being used. The U.S. is equally responsible for the way the chemicals we sold Saddam were used. This is according to your logic of course.

Umm that is in no way my logic, unless of course you can think of a legitimate civilian application for IED's, armor piercing sniper rifles, and rocket propelled grenades.

 

[Hatuey]

Arming the insurgency regardless if they support the cause or not is an act of war there is no way these weapons could have gotten into the hands of the insurgency without the go ahead of the Iranian government.

How so? You're still making the baseless assumption that the Iranian goverment sold these weapons directly to the insurgency. Something you keep trying to feed me without any actual evidence.

My sources were from March and November of 2006.

Post your sources please?

Umm that is in no way my logic, unless of course you can think of a legitimate civilian application for IED's, armor piercing sniper rifles, and rocket propelled grenades.

Obviously the U.S. knew the guy we were selling dangerous chemicals to wasn't going to plant a tomato garden in his backyard adding to that Saddam was a dictator and a terrorist who had most of his country living under poverty. To even sugest that he had the interest of his people in mind while buying toxins that are more likely to be used for evil then good when placed in the hands of a dictator is a ****ing joke.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

How so? You're still making the baseless assumption that the Iranian goverment sold these weapons directly to the insurgency. Something you keep trying to feed me without any actual evidence.

Post your sources please?

Intelligence Officials Say Weapons Responsible for Increasing U.S. Deaths in Iraq

"The signature is the same because they are exactly the same in production," says explosives expert Kevin Barry. "So it's the same make and model."

U.S. officials say roadside bomb attacks against American forces in Iraq have become much more deadly as more and more of the Iran-designed and Iran-produced bombs have been smuggled in from the country since last October.

"I think the evidence is strong that the Iranian government is making these IEDs, and the Iranian government is sending them across the border and they are killing U.S. troops once they get there," says Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism chief and an ABC News consultant. "I think it's very hard to escape the conclusion that, in all probability, the Iranian government is knowingly killing U.S. troops."

ABC News: EXCLUSIVE: Iraq Weapons -- Made in Iran?

Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militias

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2006 — U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.

This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. "There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval," says a senior official.

Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq's growing Shia militias from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran.

ABC News: EXCLUSIVE: Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia

Obviously the U.S. knew the guy we were selling dangerous chemicals to wasn't going to plant a tomato garden in his backyard adding to that Saddam was a dictator and a terrorist who had most of his country living under poverty. To even sugest that he had the interest of his people in mind while buying toxins that are more likely to be used for evil then good when placed in the hands of a dictator is a ****ing joke.

Prove it. At the time we were fostering relations in the Middle East and promoting an agenda of modernization including agricultural initiatives.

 

[Hatuey]

All those reports prove is that the weapons were made in Iran sometime during 2006. Not that they were bought by the insurgents directly from the Iranian goverment. They dont even prove Iran is supporting the insurgency.

Prove it. At the time we were fostering relations in the Middle East and promoting an agenda of modernization including agricultural initiatives.

Prove that Saddam didnt have the best interest of his people in mind when he bought the chemicals from us? Are you ****ing serious? He used them to ****ing gas them. Wake up for ****s sake.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

All those reports prove is that the weapons were made in Iran sometime during 2006. Not that they were bought by the insurgents directly from the Iranian goverment. They dont even prove Iran is supporting the insurgency.

It does prove it, they were to knew for them to have gone through the black market.

Prove that Saddam didnt have the best interest of his people in mind when he bought the chemicals from us? Are you ****ing serious? He used them to ****ing gas them. Wake up for ****s sake.

No prove that we knew what he intended to do with them.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

We all know, or we all should know that the Iranians pose a greater threat to worldwide peace (because of their nuclear capabilities) than Iraq does, and that Iran has been supplying Iraq with much of the insurgency through unprotected borders.

Lets take the onus off of George Bush's strategies of dealing with the Imajihadist of Iran for a moment, by speculating that Iran's dictator holds off pushing the nuclear button until February of 2009 when Hillary is fully ensconced as America's 44th president by occupying the suite at 1600 Penn Ave. Besides Hillary's annoitment as president--the Democrats will have secured the majority in Congress and the Senate respectively.

So I ask you Dems and liberals alike; what would be your strategy(s) (if any) in dealing with this 21st century bout with nuclear terrorism?

Iran doesnt pose more of a threat than the US..

Iran has no weapononized Uranium.
Iran has rights under thenon-proliferation treaty to develop nuclear power.
The US is denying Iran diplomatic solutions.
The US is hindering diplomatic efforts.
The hinderance of diplomatic solutions put a stop to inspections.
No inspections cause the hysteria and paranoia the US is showing now when thinking Iran is developing weapons.
If they wanted to Iran could buy weapons from North Korea.
If they wanted to NK and Iran could cooperate on a nuclear program where Iran provide the Uranium, NK enrich it and produce a bomb, or Iran get the enriched Uranium and produce the bomb themself.
Iran dont need to do the whole process if they need a nuclear bomb, they could have one in a few months with NK help.
The US seem determined to attack Iran without diplomatic effort.
The US is the only part hindering progress in the Iran case.

the US attacks countries for no reasons, or vague reasons that later is prooven to be wrong.


Why would Iran be trying to make a nuclear bomb if they can get help from NK to do enrich the Uranium for them and make the bomb themself.
Why would Iran deny inspections? They dont the US is denying them that in the fact they dont want diplomacy.

 

[Hatuey]

It does prove it, they were to knew for them to have gone through the black market.

No it doesn't. All it does is provide us with the assumptions and opinions of some unnamed goverment official who is obviously unnamed because there is no real credibility to this person's name . End of story.

No prove that we knew what he intended to do with them.

I will. As soon as you can prove the Iranian goverment is handing away weapons made in their factories to insurgents. Unless you can prove that this isn't a business based relationship where there aren't multiple players. I'd wait for all the facts to be revealed before I go chanting "War". If I were you that is.

 

[Hatuey]

the US attacks countries for no reasons, or vague reasons that later is prooven to be wrong.


Why would Iran be trying to make a nuclear bomb if they can get help from NK to do enrich the Uranium for them and make the bomb themself.
Why would Iran deny inspections? They dont the US is denying them that in the fact they dont want diplomacy.

If I remember correctly all these other countries attacked Iraq too.

United Kingdom: 45,000 invasion--7,200 current (1/07)
South Korea: 3,300 invasion--2,300 current (1/07)
Poland: 194 invasion--2,500 peak--900 current (1/07)
Australia: 2,000 invasion--1,300 current (1/07)
Romania: 890 current (1/07)
Denmark: 470 current (1/07)(deployed 7/03)
Georgia: 500 invasion--300 current (8/06)
El Salvador: 380 troops
Czech Republic: 300 peak--100 current (1/07')
Azerbaijan: 150 troops
Latvia: 136 peak--120 current (1/07)(deployed 4/04)
Mongolia: 131 troops--100 current (1/07)
Albania: 120 troops
Lithuania: 50 troops
Armenia: 46 current (1/07)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: 36 troops
Estonia: 41 current (1/07)
Macedonia: 33 troops
Kazakhstan: 29 troops
Moldova: 24 invasion--12 current (9/06)
Italy: 1,800 troops (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 11/06)
Ukraine: 1,650 troops (deployed 8/03 - withdrawn 12/05)
Netherlands : 1,345 troops (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 3/05)
Spain : 1,300 troops (withdrawn 4/04)
Japan: 600 troops (deployed 1/04 - withdrawn 7/06)
Bulgaria : 462 troops (withdrawn 4/06)
Thailand: 423 troops (withdrawn 8/04)
Honduras: 368 troops (withdrawn 5/04)
Dominican Republic: 302 troops (withdrawn 5/04)
Hungary: 300 troops (withdrawn 3/05)
Nicaragua: 230 troops (withdrawn 2/04)
Singapore: 192 troops (withdrawn 3/05)
Norway: 150 troops (withdrawn 10/05)
Portugal: 128 troops (withdrawn 2/05)
Slovakia: 103 troops (withdrawn 1/07)
New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03 - withdrawn 9/04)
Philippines: 51 troops (deployed 7/03 - withdrawn 7/04)
Tonga: 45 troops (deployed 7/04 - withdrawn 12/04)
Iceland: 2 troops (withdrawal date unknown)

Which would make all those countries as wrong as the U.S. so please if you're going to go splatter your Anti-American pro-European bullshit. Make sure half your continent isn't as involved in this war as the U.S. is.