• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Iranian Involvement in Iraq: An Act of War?

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ABC New is scheduled to run a report tonite (3/7/2006) concerning weapons made in Iran being used in Iraq. According to ABC News:

U.S. military and intelligence officials tell ABC News that they have caught shipments of deadly new bombs at the Iran-Iraq border.

They are a very nasty piece of business, capable of penetrating U.S. troops' strongest armor.

What the United States says links them to Iran are tell-tale manufacturing signatures — certain types of machine-shop welds and material indicating they are built by the same bomb factory.

"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."

U.S. intelligence officials say Iran is using the bombs as a way to drive up U.S. casualties in Iraq but without provoking a direct confrontation.
The NYT reported on 8/6/2005 that:

Many of the new, more sophisticated roadside bombs used to attack American and government forces in Iraq have been designed in Iran and shipped in from there, United States military and intelligence officials said Friday, raising the prospect of increased foreign help for Iraqi insurgents.
In October 2005, according to the BBC, Tony Blair warned Iran that Iran had been linked to bomb attacks on British troops in Iraq:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has issued a warning to Iran, saying "information" linked it to recent bomb attacks on British troops in Iraq.
He said evidence led either to Iran or its Lebanese militant allies Hezbollah, although "we can't be sure of this".

He warned Iran that there could be "no justification" for interfering in Iraq.
If the Iranian government is responsible, isn't this an act of war?
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,374
Reaction score
8,534
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
oldreliable67 said:
If the Iranian government is responsible, isn't this an act of war?
Sure. Blowing folks up is pretty warlike.
What exactly do you mean, by "an act of war"? I don't think it's a sign that Iran's ready to declare war on the US nor do I think that it necessitates that the US declare war on Iran just yet.
But, it is war-like to send bombs to kill folk.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Simon said:
What exactly do you mean, by "an act of war"?
If Richard Clarke's summary is indeed correct, then has not Iran de facto established that a state of war exists between the US and Iran? That is, a foreign country has deliberately and with malice attacked US troops?

Of course, whether or not Clarke's summary is correct and truthful is something that is only hypothesis at this point.
 

cherokee

Devil Dog
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,486
Reaction score
789
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
oldreliable67 said:
ABC New is scheduled to run a report tonite (3/7/2006) concerning weapons made in Iran being used in Iraq. According to ABC News:

The NYT reported on 8/6/2005 that:

In October 2005, according to the BBC, Tony Blair warned Iran that Iran had been linked to bomb attacks on British troops in Iraq:

If the Iranian government is responsible, isn't this an act of war?

You can bet you a$$ the Hezbollah are in Iraq.
But just like the 80's I don’t see them doing anything against them.
 

cherokee

Devil Dog
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,486
Reaction score
789
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
oldreliable67 said:
If Richard Clarke's summary is indeed correct, then has not Iran de facto established that a state of war exists between the US and Iran? That is, a foreign country has deliberately and with malice attacked US troops?

Of course, whether or not Clarke's summary is correct and truthful is something that is only hypothesis at this point.
Act of War?

October 23, 1983 Beirut, Lebanon


In May of 2003, US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth declared that the Islamic Republic of Iran was responsible for the 1983 attack, on the grounds that Iran had originally founded Hezbollah and financed the group throughout the years.
 
Last edited:

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This should be no surprise to ANYONE!

Before we went into Iraq, our special ops guys in Iraq were reporting how Iran's special Ops guys were already infiltrating in and setting up.

When we went in, we weren't JUST facing Hussein and his loyalists, we were also engaged in fighting Iranian military and insurgents funded by them!

since the war ended quite some time ago, we have been fighting IRANIAN-funded insurgents (Muslims -- Iranians, Hammas, Syrians, etc....) as well as the Iranian's highly-trained Special Ops guys! We have been watching, intercepting, and fighting supplies and troops/insurgents coming across the Syrian and iranian borders for wuite a while now!

Yes, this is a declared ACT OF WAR against the new Goverment of Iraq and its people. As we are their allies, yes, it is an act of war against US!

Who is going to make that argument, though? The Democrats don't even want us in Iraq - you think they are gonna wake up and say, "Hey, we should strike Iran for their continued support of Insurgents in attacking Iraq?" Iran is developing Nukes and is threatening both the U.S. and Israel! If we are looking for an excuse to derail that program by striking their facilities, the excuse has been here for quite some time!

The Democrats argued that we had no right to strike/attack Iraq for suspected weapons, so you think they are gonna go along with bypassing the U.N. again and attacking Iran now? :shock:

No, they want to do what the U.N. is doing - IGNORE THE OBVIOUS!

We are currently at war with Iran. They are personally responsible for the attacks upon and deaths of hundreds of American soldiers through the waeapons and insurgents that have come across its borders and used against our soldiers!

WELCOME TO THE PARTY/REALITY!
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,374
Reaction score
8,534
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
oldreliable67 said:
If Richard Clarke's summary is indeed correct, then has not Iran de facto established that a state of war exists between the US and Iran?
I don't know what exactly this means. Sure there's military violence and all that, but we're not 'at war' w/ Iran.

What are you asking?
 

cherokee

Devil Dog
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,486
Reaction score
789
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have always supported an over throw of the Iran government from the inside
but now with more and more Intel reports coming out I’m thinking its time to step in up.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Simon W. Moon said:
I don't know what exactly this means. Sure there's military violence and all that, but we're not 'at war' w/ Iran.

What are you asking?
I'm asking, at what point, what set of extant conditions, does an "AUMF" or the like, no longer suffice and Congress has to declare that a state of war exists. How far does it have to go? I'm asking; I don't know.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,374
Reaction score
8,534
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
oldreliable67 said:
I'm asking, at what point, what set of extant conditions, does an "AUMF" or the like, no longer suffice and Congress has to declare that a state of war exists. How far does it have to go? I'm asking; I don't know.
Oh, I see. When does the practical situation become undeniable and un ignorable politically? Good question.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,374
Reaction score
8,534
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Look at it the other way round.

What are the benefits for the politicians here and there for overtly changing the ostensible status quo?

When that equation changes we will be at war.

Arms dealers/defense contractors (which now include a large number of US funded 'private security' firms) will make even more money. Private security firms are the second largest contingent of foreign armed forces in the coalition. There are more hired guns in Iraq, (estimates of about 20,000) than there are members of the UK military. All last I heard, which is prob'ly eight months to a year ago, though I doubt things have changed much. No one has a complete list of all of the private security firms. Private contractors even handle sensitive tasks such as interrogations. One of the folks named, (but not investigated or charged afaik) in the Abu Ghraib scandal (the Taguba report IIRC) was a private contractor, (John Israel?)

Have you read the recent Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction's recent reports? Here's some from his comparatively brief testimony:

The Reconstruction Gap
First, however, I would like to highlight what we see as a new area of concern: we call it the Reconstruction Gap.
We define the Reconstruction Gap as the difference between the number of projects that the U.S proposed to build when it first began committing the IRRF to programs in Iraq and the number of projects that the US will ultimately complete.
The causes of the gap include dramatically increased spending on security needs, increases in costs of materials, increased costs arising from project delays, cost overruns on particular projects, multiple reprogrammings of reconstruction priorities, and the allocation of funds for sustainment.

The U.S. has met more than half of the funding needs estimated by the World Bank with the investment of almost $29 billion in U.S. appropriated funds for Iraq. As of today, only seven percent of these funds remain to be committed to programs and projects. Yet, this investment has been eroded by the need to provide security, to protect people and facilities from terrorists. By some estimates, this has taken as much as 26% of the funds, leaving less for construction labor and materials for reconstruction projects.
1/4 of $29bil goes to provide security.
Seems that creating small private armies who profit from violence is chock full of blowback potential.

But I digress ...
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Simon,

The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction's report shouldn't have surprised anyone that has been following closely. The need for increased spending on security has been talked about a good bit. It is, IMO, symptomatic of the lack of planning for the kind of 'war' in which we should have known we would be engaged. Thats easy to say in hindsight, of course.

But in reality, there was a lot of talk around the Pentagon following Thomas Barnett's strategy presentations, especially those in the months following 9/11. If you haven't read his books yet ("The Pentagon's New Map:War and Peace in the 21st Century", and "A Blueprint for Action", as a student of intelligence and strategy matters, you should. Barnett makes a pretty convincing case for the makeup of a force that would have been well-suited for the kind of war we found in Iraq. But, that wasn't the force we had available at the time.

At this point, vis a vis the Iranians, I find myself waiting for and halfway expecting a 'Pearl Harbor' kind of event. Something hugely devastating and unmistakeable in its implications. I've become 60% - 70% convinced that the mullahs don't care about mutually assured destruction - they will use nukes as soon as they think they have a sufficient number of them to accomplish their objective of "wiping Israel off the face of the map."
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
This is my read on it.

In effect, the US declared war on Iran by going to Iraq in the first place. Our presence in Iraq is a direct threat to the mullahs in Iran and they are responding to it.

Once we have completed the missions in Iraq and Afganistan, we will have the Iranians surrounded by our allies. We will also have American bases in these allied states from which we can apply pressure.

We have been able to do this without diplomatically being aggressive against Iran (Taliban and Osama in Afghanistan, Hussain and WMD in Iraq). However, Iran has always been the ultimate goal. We cannot win the "war on terror" without regime change in Iran.

Iran knows we are boxing them in and they are responding.
 

G-Man

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
73
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Progressive Conservative said:
This is my read on it.

In effect, the US declared war on Iran by going to Iraq in the first place. Our presence in Iraq is a direct threat to the mullahs in Iran and they are responding to it.

Once we have completed the missions in Iraq and Afganistan, we will have the Iranians surrounded by our allies. We will also have American bases in these allied states from which we can apply pressure.

We have been able to do this without diplomatically being aggressive against Iran (Taliban and Osama in Afghanistan, Hussain and WMD in Iraq). However, Iran has always been the ultimate goal. We cannot win the "war on terror" without regime change in Iran.

Iran knows we are boxing them in and they are responding.
'Once we have completed the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan'...I would be interested to know exactly when you think this will done. Personally I think we are looking at decades, providing we don't pull out before its completed.

'The Iranians will be surrounded by our allies' - the middle east seems to be changing all the time these days. Years ago you would have been either an Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian etc but now you seem to be a Sunni or a Shia muslim.

Religion seems to be far more important to these guys than nationality - during the Iran/Iraq war several Iraqi groups (shia groups) joined forces with the Iranians and lived in exile - now we have the Shia Iranian govt. providing assistance to Shia allies in Iraq. I don't think it would be correct to say Iran would be surrounded by 'our' allies - its far more likely to think these people will be pro-Iran. Do you think the Shia govt of Iraq would join forces to attack their shia brothers in Iran? Very doubtfull.

'Iran has always been the ultimate goal' - be serious please! First Afghanistan was the no.1 terrorist state, then we're told 'no its actually Iraq' now we're been told its actually been Iran all along! No doubt we'll be told its actually Syria or Lebanon next. Instead of just ignoring the fact why can't we just admit Saudi Arabia is the biggest sponsor of terrorism and terrorist safehaven in the middle east? It won't go away if we bury our head in the sand you know.

Also, please tell me when we can declare the 'war on terror' over? I want to know what needs to be achieved before its over. Personally I'm confused how it can ever end.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The Iranian people are not anti-American. Our issue is with the Iranian regime in power. Iran and Saudi Arabia are the nexus of all the Islamo-Terrorism going on. Iran is more dangerous as the regime is directly involved. In Saudi Arabia, the regime turns a blind eye to what their religious leaders are doing.

The influence of two democracies that are allied with the US in the middle east would bring a tremendous amount of pressure on the Iranian government. The Iranian regime is terrified of that influence and are funding much of the Iraqi resistance.

The primary reason we went to Iraq was to exert this influence on Iran (and Saudi Arabia). The WMD stuff was a bunch of crap. It always was and I hated the fact that we sold that as the reason we were going to Iraq (it was misleading... lying if you will... and Bush is paying for it).

Finally, it won't be decades to get this done. It will be less than 5 years... unless we give up or stop being aggressive. If we take a passive approach, then it could drag on forever. The Iraqi resistence doesn't have the Iraqi people behind it. If it did, different story.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,374
Reaction score
8,534
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If either of you like, I have thread about the Democratic Domino Theory you're subscribing to. If you feel up to a debate about it, here's the thread : http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=2091
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What does 'one' actually have to do for an 'official War' to be declared and seen as in efect?

I mean, Bin Laden declared 'War' on the United States in 1990. He and Al Qaeda followed that up with killing U.S. troops in the Kobar Towers, the U.S.S. Cole, and many others in 2 seperate African Embassy Bombings. No one paid it much attention. Al Qaeda then brought their self-declared war to our country by killing so many on 9/11. Yet, today the Democrats claim that the "War on Terror is a lie!"

So, if a self-professed enemy declares 'war' on you then kills hundred of your people at home and abroad over the next 15 years, IS IT REALLY A WAR IF YOU DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE IT? I mean, if Bush would have ignored Al Qaeda and all those American deaths like Clinton did, would the continued attacks on us still be considered a 'war' or not? If a tree falls in a forrest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? OK, then "If someone declares war on you and/or kills your people but you refuse to acknowledge it, is it really a war?!" :shock: :confused:
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Progressive Conservative said:
The Iranian people are not anti-American.
I guess you are right - the Iranian leader is ANTI-ANGLO SAXON! He has declared that Muslims will defeat the Anglo Saxons soon! Anglo Saxons, BTW, are you and me! He has declared that Israel has not right to exist and has said it is his goal to blow them off the gace of the earth, nuking them and beginning Armagedon in the next 2 years, that will usher in the Muslim equivalent to the Messiah! :shock:

So much for the idea of tolerance and that if we just pull out of the Middle East this country will no longer be in jeopardy! Muslim Extremists believe in converting people or killing them - there is no 'tolerance', and their goal is to rule the world! Make no mistake about it!
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,227
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Technically, Iranian weapons in the hands of Iraqi insurgents is not IMHO an 'act of war'. At best, this could probably be considered engaging in hostilities by proxy. The US has done this many times... remember US Stinger missiles shooting down Russian helicopters in Afghanistan? Although supplying the enemy of your enemy with arms in not an overt act of war, it should indeed be a wake-up call.
 

G-Man

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
73
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
easyt65 said:
What does 'one' actually have to do for an 'official War' to be declared and seen as in efect?

I mean, Bin Laden declared 'War' on the United States in 1990. He and Al Qaeda followed that up with killing U.S. troops in the Kobar Towers, the U.S.S. Cole, and many others in 2 seperate African Embassy Bombings. No one paid it much attention. Al Qaeda then brought their self-declared war to our country by killing so many on 9/11. Yet, today the Democrats claim that the "War on Terror is a lie!"

So, if a self-professed enemy declares 'war' on you then kills hundred of your people at home and abroad over the next 15 years, IS IT REALLY A WAR IF YOU DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE IT? I mean, if Bush would have ignored Al Qaeda and all those American deaths like Clinton did, would the continued attacks on us still be considered a 'war' or not? If a tree falls in a forrest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? OK, then "If someone declares war on you and/or kills your people but you refuse to acknowledge it, is it really a war?!" :shock: :confused:
I don't think I would agree with the above definition - I don't think individuals can declare a war on nations. I regard terrorism as a form of organised crime. The so called 'War on Drugs' did not require the declaration of a state of war and nor should this.

In addition I would state I regard the 'War on Terror' as a completely different entity from the 'spread of democracy and freedom'. Being free and democratic does not mean there will be no terrorism...if only it was that simple!

I can see where easy is coming from but I just don't agree with him.

Also easy, I would still like someone to tell me when this 'war' will end. I have no idea of the conditions required. If Osama is killed is that the end?
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
G-Man said:
I don't think I would agree with the above definition - I don't think individuals can declare a war on nations. I regard terrorism as a form of organised crime. The so called 'War on Drugs' did not require the declaration of a state of war and nor should this.

In addition I would state I regard the 'War on Terror' as a completely different entity from the 'spread of democracy and freedom'. Being free and democratic does not mean there will be no terrorism...if only it was that simple!

I can see where easy is coming from but I just don't agree with him.

Also easy, I would still like someone to tell me when this 'war' will end. I have no idea of the conditions required. If Osama is killed is that the end?
IMO and the opinion of many thers in the military, Terrorists are what the BIG ARMY calls the Little Army who refuses to fight via conventional means.

If I declare war n your house, that does nort make it a war. When a leader of a people/an organized group that is funded, supplied, armed, and manned by a nation or nations and declares 'war' on you then goes about waging that war, as in the Kobar towers, Cole, Embassies, 9/11, and now the fighting going on in Iraq and Afghanistan that is a war! The war may be being fought via unconventional ways, no air-to-air, but it is still war. Some Brits considered us terrorists back in the Revolutionary war because we fired from behind fences and trees instead of standing in the traditional militia columns out in the open. That tactic did not make it any less of a war. Bin Laden, just as the nutso leader of Iran, has said his goal is to defeat us. So, if we are actually brought down by 'terrorism' and somebody raises a new flag over this country, are you telling me we fell to a non-enemy in a non-war?

And Tasha, we have fought, captured, and killed Iranian civilians as well as Iranian SOLDIERS in Iraq. We had special Ops guys on the ground in Iraq just before we went in, and one of the 1st things they reported was sightings of Iranian Special Ops and Intel guys moving into Baghdad, Sommarrah, and other locations. They do NOT want fredom or the Americans in Iraq, right next door. They intended from the start to oppose us and kill as many of us as possible to ensure this endeavor fails! We monitor, and attempt to stop, weapons, troops, and supplies coming across the borders of Iran and syria daily.

As I said, we are trying to stop it, but you are talking about a LOT of miles of border, and the majority of our forces are engaged in other locations. Why don't we just stop Iran and Syria, warn them, attack them? Polititics is one reason, of course the sticky situation with Iran's nuclear situation is another. If we accused Iran of providing troops/fighters, they can just deny it, say the guys are deserters. We could provide footage to the U.N. of the border activity, etc....what good would THAT do with the U.N., you know - the Oil-For-Food Scandal mongers?! I would love to MINE the cr@p out of th borders, but there are treaties against mining, it would affect traders that cross the borders to do legit business, etc...

But do not think for a second that Iranian troops are not in Iraq! Believe me, they are. We are NOT fighting them by Proxy!
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,374
Reaction score
8,534
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
easyt65 said:
Some Brits considered us terrorists back in the Revolutionary war because we fired from behind fences and trees instead of standing in the traditional militia columns out in the open.
:lol: lol

easyt65 said:
They do NOT want fredom or the Americans in Iraq, right next door. They intended from the start to oppose us and kill as many of us as possible to ensure this endeavor fails!
Given that the largest political partieS in Iraq are Shia parties with decades long ties to Iran and represent a majority of Iraqis and thus stand to be in charge of a democratically elected representative government in Iraq, and given that Al-Sistani [an Iranian btw] has pushed for democratic reform to take place faster than the US was willing to allow it to happen, what objection do you suppose Iran has against gaining influence in Iraq via the popular polticial parties they have fostered?
Why wouldn't they favor democracy when it IS putting the people they want to be in power in Iraq in power?
 

G-Man

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
73
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
easyt65 said:
IMO and the opinion of many thers in the military, Terrorists are what the BIG ARMY calls the Little Army who refuses to fight via conventional means.

If I declare war n your house, that does nort make it a war. When a leader of a people/an organized group that is funded, supplied, armed, and manned by a nation or nations and declares 'war' on you then goes about waging that war, as in the Kobar towers, Cole, Embassies, 9/11, and now the fighting going on in Iraq and Afghanistan that is a war! The war may be being fought via unconventional ways, no air-to-air, but it is still war. Some Brits considered us terrorists back in the Revolutionary war because we fired from behind fences and trees instead of standing in the traditional militia columns out in the open. That tactic did not make it any less of a war. Bin Laden, just as the nutso leader of Iran, has said his goal is to defeat us. So, if we are actually brought down by 'terrorism' and somebody raises a new flag over this country, are you telling me we fell to a non-enemy in a non-war?

And Tasha, we have fought, captured, and killed Iranian civilians as well as Iranian SOLDIERS in Iraq. We had special Ops guys on the ground in Iraq just before we went in, and one of the 1st things they reported was sightings of Iranian Special Ops and Intel guys moving into Baghdad, Sommarrah, and other locations. They do NOT want fredom or the Americans in Iraq, right next door. They intended from the start to oppose us and kill as many of us as possible to ensure this endeavor fails! We monitor, and attempt to stop, weapons, troops, and supplies coming across the borders of Iran and syria daily.

As I said, we are trying to stop it, but you are talking about a LOT of miles of border, and the majority of our forces are engaged in other locations. Why don't we just stop Iran and Syria, warn them, attack them? Polititics is one reason, of course the sticky situation with Iran's nuclear situation is another. If we accused Iran of providing troops/fighters, they can just deny it, say the guys are deserters. We could provide footage to the U.N. of the border activity, etc....what good would THAT do with the U.N., you know - the Oil-For-Food Scandal mongers?! I would love to MINE the cr@p out of th borders, but there are treaties against mining, it would affect traders that cross the borders to do legit business, etc...

But do not think for a second that Iranian troops are not in Iraq! Believe me, they are. We are NOT fighting them by Proxy!
Well I think we're going WAY over the top if we think America will be conquered by another nation, let alone a terrorist group. That simply ain't ever gonna happen. Maybe one day, one of these lunatics will get a WMD and sent it over to the US but they will NEVER actually conquer the US by means of invading and 'raising a flag'. Not without killing every last one of us and that quite simply wouldn't be impossible.

I'm sure many Iranians will have been killed/arrested in Iraq...the Iranians give support to Iraqi Shia dissident groups which wanted to over-throw Saddam - no reason to suggest they would stop this now they are in power.

I'd be interested to know how many Saudis have been picked up or killed in Afghanistan or Iraq fighting the US. I'd wager a large sum its many times the number of Iranians arrested. But still no action against them.

Also c'mon easy.....I still want someone to tell/explain to me how/when this 'war on terrorism' will end? Will we just forever remain in a state of war or how can we consider it at an end? I'm very confused.
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
G-Man said:
Also c'mon easy.....I still want someone to tell/explain to me how/when this 'war on terrorism' will end? Will we just forever remain in a state of war or how can we consider it at an end? I'm very confused.
1st, the Iranians would love to get control of Iraq, but you mix Iranian control via a Puppet state, like Lebanon/Syria with the Democracy that currently exists in Iraq. Chalabi was exposed as an iranian puppet, even though we were backing him at 1st. score one for the good guy's Inetl in finding out before that happened. I think it is better that we let the current Iraqi cabinet work it out, and, after being ruled by Saddam for years, they don't want to be puppetted or ruled by ANYONE!

As far as the 'end of the war on terror', I am no psychic and have no crystal ball. I BELIEVE that Bin Laden declaring war on the U.S. in 1990 changed out world, not 9/11! Al Qaeda has been stalking us and killing our people for the past 15 years. 9/11 was just the 1st rael attack on our own soil! I beleive we will bring our soldiers home at some point, but thatwill not end the war! We have fanatical enemies that want this country destroyed and have already proven they will come here to keep the war going!

Iraq, although emroiled in fighting to sustain their new goverment and country, is about ready to stand and fight on its own. The bigger threat is Iran developing a nuclear weapon! Iran provided shelter and assistance to the perpetrators of 9/11 in their getting into the U.S. Anyone who would know about such an attack before hand and would aid in its execution would hand over a nuke to the same fanatics in a heartbeat if those fanatics promised to use it against this country!

When will it end? I am not sure it will end until either we or the fanatical, rabid Islamic Extremists are dead! I cetainly hope it doesn't come down to that!
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
"I guess you are right - the Iranian leader is ANTI-ANGLO SAXON! He has declared that Muslims will defeat the Anglo Saxons soon! Anglo Saxons, BTW, are you and me! He has declared that Israel has not right to exist and has said it is his goal to blow them off the gace of the earth, nuking them and beginning Armagedon in the next 2 years, that will usher in the Muslim equivalent to the Messiah!

So much for the idea of tolerance and that if we just pull out of the Middle East this country will no longer be in jeopardy! Muslim Extremists believe in converting people or killing them - there is no 'tolerance', and their goal is to rule the world! Make no mistake about it!"

The Iranian regime (and leaders) ARE anti-American, but the Iranian people are NOT. Many Iranians are sympathetic to Americans. One of the reasons we have been careful not to be direct with Iran is because we do not want to make the Iranian people anti-American. If we were too direct with Iran, then the Iranian people would support thier regime out of patriotism. The real battle here is for the hearts and minds of the Iranian people.
 
Top Bottom