oldreliable67
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
- Messages
- 4,641
- Reaction score
- 1,102
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.
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.
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.
Sure. Blowing folks up is pretty warlike.oldreliable67 said:If the Iranian government is responsible, isn't this an act of war?
Simon said:What exactly do you mean, by "an act of war"?
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?
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.
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.
I don't know what exactly this means. Sure there's military violence and all that, but we're not 'at war' w/ Iran.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?
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?
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.
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.
Progressive Conservative said:The Iranian people are not anti-American.
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:
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?
:lol: loleasyt65 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.
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?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!
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!
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?