IRAQ-IRAN Fuuuuuuuu..%*@$&&%%
pcmr
5,591 Posts
I just saw a Iraq-Iran connection segment on CNNand fuck..its WMD all over again. They are presenting pictures of mortar tails that are ''clearly from Iran'', Iran is providing amunitions for Iraqi...Anti-American..forcesWeapon sales and trading and provision is nothing new and war and can be spinned any which way, i mean that whole region is full of soviet,US weapons that have been traded any which way so anything can be said about ''providers''Furthermore they have captured a top ranking Iranian special forces officials..dangerous territoryStirring up some shit with Iranian state apparatus...getting them riled up...then..we are losing the war in Iraq because the Iraninans are providing weapons to the fledgling forces that would otherwise be vanquished...then let Iran try to get their guy back or respond to some attack and then make it into an act of war and then 
''Well we cant let them continue supplying the jihadist dissidents, we simply cannot allow this. We tried diplomatic means but they have shown no collaboration''I am not saying that the States want to attack Iran (worst tactical mistake ever) however i hate how they are dealing with them nowand this recent Iranian connection is utter bullshit that could be swallowed by a lot of citizens easily
''Well we cant let them continue supplying the jihadist dissidents, we simply cannot allow this. We tried diplomatic means but they have shown no collaboration''I am not saying that the States want to attack Iran (worst tactical mistake ever) however i hate how they are dealing with them nowand this recent Iranian connection is utter bullshit that could be swallowed by a lot of citizens easily
Comments
Send More Troops!!!
and trying to unravel all the spin and posteuring to figure out actual events is enough to make your head explode.
send bush and his fam to the front lines. if i see them all out there, i'll join up too.
These EFP (explosively-formed penetrators) are powerful enough to pierce even the best armor for our troops
''If ican do something to protect the troops i am going to do everything i can everytime to protect the troops''
This EFP bullshit like those WMD and Anthraxwarheads is just a way to dumbdown war politics. I mean these are weapons sold on the world stage used by everyone. Once you start naming and describing its just an agenda
But it sounds sexy to the average joe...they need more protection
I am simply pissed just like the re-election even when stuff is blatant people will still buy it...and the war machine well it just doesnt stop
the guardian (although without much of a ''source'') predicts that air strikes are getting ready for spring but that they will probably wait to hit as Bush leaves office
however, to be fair, this is as much of a mediaspin as the Anti Iran reports
I wish you could see the pics shown by the goverment
cheap maps and weapon ''sillos'' for days
They are now responding stronger instead of having to sing in a Freedom Choir however...
''Well is there any democrat not running for president''..this undermines what they are trying to do here with the senate capacity they have and looks like they are 'not supporting the troops'' just for political reasons making them and their message look less concrete and relevant
''I am not trying to get mixed up in any election politics I am just trying to do what is good for the troops, I beleive in finishing up the job''
These republican senators are saying ''this fractured message that we are not supporting the war that people are sending for political posturing is hurting us'' and is being viewed carefully by our enemies
''THIS IS A IRAN PROGRAM TO KILL AMAERICANS!''
''THIS IS THE MOST DANGEROUS WEAPON NOW!''
''THEY CAN PIERCE THROUGH EVEN THE TOUGHEST OF AMERICAN ARMOURS!!!''
Words everythign out clearly, slowly and loudly for the folks at home
''IRAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!''
But you see thats not the question it is nothing new..
Iran supports shiite groups everywhere..then a war breaks out (whose fault is that) so these groups start fighting and keep on getting support
are the shiites ''evil'' we came to fight them and they are fighting back..okay.. so...
see how the spins go
we should be mad at the country that supports our ''opponents''
In this ''war'' we must ''win'' because we are the good guys
oh sure, there a spin campaign going on - with a healthy amount of scapegoating - i.e "Iran is the real reason we aren't winning" etc.
but there is no doubt that there is a proxy 'hot' war going on between Iran & the US - via Shiites in Iraq, Hizbolla vs Israel, Hamas vis Israel etc etc. Israel bombs Shiite suburbs in Lebanon with US-sourced munitions, Shiite militias attack US tanks with Iranian-built explosives in Iraq.
don't get me wrong, I loathe Bush & think the whole Iraq 'adventure' was a mistake from the start - but you'd be mistaken if you think that Ahmadinejad is merely reacting to American aggression - both sides are actively expanding this conflict with an escalting tit-for-tat, 'we can't let them get away with this', 'let's build an atomic bomb', 'let's send a carrier group to the gulf' shitfest.
it actually seems Ahmadinejad & Bush have a bit in common, both are pushing their countries into a conflict that the public doesn't necessarily support & straining thier respective economies to do so...
---
Actually I would say no to part of that assumption. The Iranians are not fighting a proxy war in Iraq against the U.S.
Iran currently supports two of the three major Shiite parties the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Dawa Party which is Prime Minister Maliki's. The SCIRI was formed in Iran during the Iran-Iraq War. It's Badr Brigade militia was created by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to fight against Iraq during the war. Most of their weapons and funding come from Iran. The Dawa Party is the weakest of the three Shiite parties and doesn't have a militia, but it too was formed in Iran and has many leaders who took refuge there to escape Saddam.
Iran has also given support to Sadr's group, although Sadr is more of a nationalist and doesn't want Iran to have too much influence over Iraq.
Iran also has extensive connections with the two leading Kurdish parties in the North. The Kurds act as conduits for smuggling from Turkey into Iran. They also have extensive connections with Iranian intelligence and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, because those are the two main groups that run the smuggling operations.
Some of the holiest sites for Shiites are also found in Iraq and every year you have thousands of Iranian pilgrims traveling to and from between the two countries.
Iran is also trying to create strong economic ties with Iraq. It has announced that it will be giving a couple million in reconstruction funds, it has offered to help train and equip the Iraqi army, and more importantly it has stated that it will open some banks in a country that completely lacks that capacity.
What the U.S. has done is actually empower Iran. First, the U.S. got rid of the Taliban who were anti-Shiite in the West of Iran. Then they got rid of the greatest threat to the Iranian government in Saddam Hussein. In the U.S. sponsored elections, the parties with the strongest ties with Iraq, SCIRI and the Kurds won power and the Shiite majority was able to gain the most seats in parliament. After the December 2005 elections, the chief of Iranian intelligence in the Kurdish north gave a public speech with Kurdish officials where he said, thank you President Bush, all of our friends have won!
The Iranians may see the U.S. getting bogged down as a plus for them because it could forestall an attack on Iran, but at the same time, they would like to see a stable, although weak Iraq controlled by the Shiite majority which it has extensive ties with.
The Bush administration has been ratcheting up the anti-Iran rhetoric since Bush's speech that he will increase troops to Iraq. I think the administration honestly believes that outside forces, i.e. Iran and Al Qaeda, are creating the chaos in Iraq, and if only the U.S. could contain them, everything would work out. The fact is that the civil war in Iraq is completely self-sustaining and while those two actors are not helping, they are not the cause. (The latest National Intelligence Estimate supports this.)
Not only that, but the U.S. is in a completely hypocritical position.
1) The vast majority of attacks on U.S. forces are by Sunni insurgents and the Sunni Al Qaeda in Iraq. The Iranians arming Shiites doesn't really have any effect on U.S. casualties.
The British are the main force in the South where the majority of the Iranian backed Shiite groups are. I read an article from the summer of 2006 that claimed that 5-10 British soldiers had been killed by Iranian backed groups. That's about the extent of the threat to Coalition forces.
2) The U.S. constantly claims that weapons are flowing across the border yet has been unable to provide any evidence. For example, a British unit was placed in charge of border control over an area that the U.S. has claimed was used by Iranians to smuggle in weapons. The British reported that they had found nothing in 2006.
3) Here???s a picture of Pres. Bush meeting with Mr. Hakim, the leader of the SCIRI.
Under other circumstances you could say that he is an ???Iranian agent??? seeing as how his political party, militia, money, and weapons come from Iran. Yet here he is in the White House. For a time, the administration was thinking of creating a new governing coalition with SCIRI in the lead to oust current Prime Minister Maliki from power.
4) Here???s Pres. Bush with Iraqi Pres. Talabani, one of the main Kurdish leaders.
Talabani has extensive connections with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Iranian intelligence. His political party helps breaks sanctions against Iran and smuggles goods. Yet here he is meeting with Pres. Bush. The Kurds are considered the closest, most pro-American force in Iraq.
- National Intelligence Council, National Intelligence Estimate, "Prospects for Iraq's Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead," January 2007
I'm glad the voice of reason has spoken!
no doubt. Bush was a G-dsend for Iran. the Iranians are the real threat in the region, and because Bush has screwed everything else up he really doesn't have the leverage to properly deal with them. and they know this.
no doubt. our "moderate" Arab "allies" are all Sunni dictatorships (Egypt, the Saudis, and to a lesser extent Jordan). these guys would like nothing more than the Shiah to be subdued in Iraq and thus humbled in Iran. meanwhile the Shiah are basically the ones we've been helping. shit is twisted.
Do you collect records? I just got a copy of this nice Folkways LP by The Stoneman Family called "Old-Time Tunes From The South." It's fairly typical WV HillbillyHarmonicaBanjoAutoharp in practice, but it's got this undeniable texture to it that makes for a good listen. For fans of their track on the "Anthology of American Folk Music" box.
Don't you owe someone here $10K?????
that goes for you to google scholar.
post pics of your records or your flacid.
Cool your jets, gramps. Youll be paying be paying me those 10 g's soon enough.
I done explained the situation before, local. I am worldwide.
Not me sonny boy......you owe Mr. DB the cash.....how the hell long does it take you to buy 3,000 LP's and a digital camera anyway???
Sorry guy, I actually do research and try to find first hand sources if possible.
Here's the U.S.'s latest release on alleged Iranian arms smuggling into Iraq. It's a PDF file.
http://www.iraqslogger.com/downloads/Iran_in_Iraq__English_.pdf
Here's a breakdown of attacks on Coalition forces by a site called IraqSlogger.com that if Iran is behind the more powerful roadside bombs they are still only responsible for 5% of the Coalition casualties in Iraq.
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/1333/Context_Casualties_Attributed_to_Irans_EFPs
I just read this report from the BBC from 1/10/06
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4598972.stm
In 2006 the British claimed that a shaped charge that came from Iran killed 10 British soldiers in Southern Iraq. The British later had to drop the claim for lack of evidence, but then there was a controversy over what different parts of the UK government said.