Iran supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents?

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

I see, but do they propose something, it's not *only* about getting the boys back, the US still need a plan for Iraq and the middle east: either they get the fuck out of there for real, or they take care of the peace processes ....

[Donington2007]

China was supplying our enemy in a previous war too but we didn't attack them.

and why dont the Bush war planners just take responsibility for securing Iraq's borders? Mexicans come over our borders every day but we don't bomb Mexico for it.

F Bush!...... BOTH kinds! 

[The Dog]

China was supplying our enemy in a previous war too but we didn't attack them.

and why dont the Bush war planners just take responsibility for securing Iraq's borders? Mexicans come over our borders every day but we don't bomb Mexico for it.

F Bush!...... BOTH kinds! 

I could be wrong, but those were different times.  I would guess that the avg. person didn't know china was supplying N. Korea with arms - same with the US in afghanistan. I would guess that info came out to the public later on.  I could be wrong.

either way, if we knew or not, neither one of us (china, US, Russia) was going to start an open war with each other - the countries were simply to big.

there is also a slight difference in that the war in iraq is not a traditional war the way korea/afghanistan in the 80s was.  the US take on it is they are supplying terrorists with aid/arms.  Not saying I agree/disagree with the difference, but there is one nonetheless.  After 9-11, the world became a whole new ball game.....

[The Dog]

I see, but do they propose something, it's not *only* about getting the boys back, the US still need a plan for Iraq and the middle east: either they get the fuck out of there for real, or they take care of the peace processes ....

if they have one, i haven't heard it.  they might be apt to just let the M.E. slug it out after we leave.  i've heard a few diff suggestions, but nothing like "THIS IS OUR PLAN"

its a big criticism of the dems, one that will be played upon as we get closer to 08 for sure.  They may not have started the problem, but unfortunately they might inherit it.  a plan is needed.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

The problem with talking to Iran is "what's in it for them?"

Iran is pretty much doing what it wants anyway, so asking them to stop arming insurgents is not gonna work.
What are the consequences if they don't? Bomb them? The US is already overextended militarily and we don't really need a 3rd war. So we are not in a good spot.

[TAP]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1588810,00.html

As the Bush Administration inches closer to confronting Iran, don't expect it to produce a bona fide smoking gun. Despite the claims made at the highly secretive military briefing in Baghdad over the weekend, intelligence conclusively implicating Iran in attacks on American forces isn't there ? and never will be.

There's little doubt that the Iranians have free run of much of Iraq; are supplying arms and ammunition to Shi'a militias; and are committed to seeing the United States fail in that country. Iran already essentially owns Basra as well as several other large Shi'a towns in the south. And, unlike our own, Iranian interests in Iraq are unambiguous. In 2004, when I was in Qum, an influential Iranian cleric, Ayatollah Sanae, told me with chilling clarity: Should the situation in Iraq deteriorate to the point that the Shi'a are seriously threatened, Iran will have no choice but to step in militarily. Even, he made clear, at the risk of American retaliation.

But that does not answer this question: Are the Iranians themselves pulling the trigger, killing our troops, or are they ordering their Iraqi surrogates to do so? There are a couple of good reasons the Administration can't tell us. For one, the group the Administration named Sunday as providing weapons to the insurgents ? the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps's Quds force ? is virtually impenetrable. Secretive and disciplined, the Quds force is more a cult than anything else. Its members are all believers, meticulously selected, vetted and controlled. Another reason we'll probably never catch the Quds force red handed is that it communicates sensitive information by courier. No blogs or calling home to brag to mom about everything they're doing in Iraq for Allah and Iran.

The Quds force maintains the same discipline when comes to handling its Iraqi surrogates. It demands and gets plausible deniability. I got a glimpse of that when I was in northern Iraq in the 1990s. Iraqi Shi'a leaders under Iran's thumb would only meet me with their official Iranian minders standing by. I had the impression every word that came out of their mouths was pre-approved by Tehran.

This leaves the Administration in a quandary, especially trying to sell a confrontation with Iran to a suspicious Democratic Congress and an American public that now knows it was duped by bogus intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion.

If indeed a confrontation is in the cards, I don't see that the Administration has a choice other than to provoke an incident ? force the Iranians to fire back in the clear light of day, letting the United States invoke self defense, U.N. Article 51. Options might include arresting or assassinating the Mahdi Army leader Moqtada Al-Sadr, chasing Iranians in hot pursuit across their border, or, more bluntly, bombing a Quds Force base in Iran in the name of force protection.

In any event, don't expect Condoleezza Rice to appear in front of the U.N. with a stack of grainy satellite photographs and sketchy telephone intercepts. She's going to need something a lot more convincing, and it's doubtful she'll ever get it.

Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down.

[TAP]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1588147,00.html

The Sunnis say, "We told you so." The Shi'ites say, "Look who's talking." Iraq's leaders are divided along sectarian lines on almost every issue, big and small, so it should come as no surprise that the two sides have totally different views on the latest U.S. accusations about Iran supplying arms and know-how to Iraqi militias.

The accusations were welcomed by Sunni politicians, who have long maintained that Tehran supports Shi'a death squads and militias. "We diagnosed this problem a long time ago," Salim al-Jabouri, a prominent Sunni member of Iraq's parliament, told TIME. "It was expected that the Americans would come to the same conclusion."

But Shi'a politicians, who make up the largest block of the parliament and have close ties to Tehran, dismissed U.S. claims as propaganda by a Bush Administration seeking to deflect blame for the American military's failure to curb the growing violence in Iraq. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has maintained a studied silence; Ali al-Dabbagh, his official spokesman, told TIME the government has no comment on the latest accusations. But an official in the Prime Minister's office questioned the credibility of U.S. intelligence, pointing to recent reports of evidence-fudging at the Pentagon in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. "They need a scapegoat, so they conveniently point to their old enemy, Iran," said the official, who asked not to be named because he is not authorized to talk to the media. "But these days American intelligence is a discredited commodity. Who can believe them?"

Maliki's own Dawa Party has close ties to Iran and has in the past deflected questions about Iran's support for the Shi'a militias, instead fingering Iraq's Sunni neighbors ? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan ? for aiding terrorist groups. "We don't deny that Iran has an interest in Iraq, and that is a matter of concern," said Abu Firas al-Saedi, a senior Dawa leader. "But the real question is: 'Why are the Arab states allowing terrorists to enter Iraq through their borders, and why are they financing them?'" That sentiment was echoed by parliamentarian Falah Shansal, from the Shi'a bloc of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. "There are groups in Saudi Arabia who finance terrorism in Iraq," he said. "Why are the Americans not talking about this?"

Some Shi'a leaders acknowledge that Iran may be meddling in Iraqi affairs, but say the solution lies in diplomacy. Washington's aggressive finger-pointing, they say, can only antagonize the Iranians further, and hurt Iraq's interests. "To end the violence, Iraq needs the help of all its neighbors, and we have to be very diplomatic about how we approach them," Shansal said.

Meanwhile, Iraq's largest Shi'a party denied U.S. claims that two Iranian agents were seized at the home of the party's leader, Abdel-Azziz al-Hakim. Ridha Jawad Taki, a spokesman for Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRII), said the two were diplomats and were grabbed as they were on their way to the home of President Jalal Talabani, Hakim's neighbor. "They were invited by the President to discuss the security situation," he said. "And they were released after two days."

[TAP]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/13/pace.iran/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace appeared Tuesday to question Bush administration assertions that the Iranian government is supplying weapons to Shiite militant groups in Iraq.

"We know that the explosively formed penetrators are manufactured in Iran," Pace told Voice of America during a trip to Australia about what senior military officials call EFPs.

"What I would not say is that the Iranian government per se knows about this. It is clear that Iranians are involved and it is clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say, based on what I know, that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit," Pace said.

[guns_n_motley]

of course Iran is giving it to them!! and of course the government knows! its in their interest to support their muslim side.

We dont need invasion. this guy even though a dictator, is more like Kim Jong Il. he wants to play Big boy in town. we just need to send him a message that we are the bigger

Look how much N Korea has backed down!! threaten with a couple of cruise missiles, or even just threaten that if a nuclear missile is built we will Bomb it with a stealth. should be enough to have them back down.

The one thing these dictators dont want is to be taken out of power. all you have to do is show them your muscles per say and they will back down.

[The Dog]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1588147,00.html

The Sunnis say, "We told you so." The Shi'ites say, "Look who's talking." Iraq's leaders are divided along sectarian lines on almost every issue, big and small, so it should come as no surprise that the two sides have totally different views on the latest U.S. accusations about Iran supplying arms and know-how to Iraqi militias.

The accusations were welcomed by Sunni politicians, who have long maintained that Tehran supports Shi'a death squads and militias. "We diagnosed this problem a long time ago," Salim al-Jabouri, a prominent Sunni member of Iraq's parliament, told TIME. "It was expected that the Americans would come to the same conclusion."

But Shi'a politicians, who make up the largest block of the parliament and have close ties to Tehran, dismissed U.S. claims as propaganda by a Bush Administration seeking to deflect blame for the American military's failure to curb the growing violence in Iraq. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has maintained a studied silence; Ali al-Dabbagh, his official spokesman, told TIME the government has no comment on the latest accusations. But an official in the Prime Minister's office questioned the credibility of U.S. intelligence, pointing to recent reports of evidence-fudging at the Pentagon in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. "They need a scapegoat, so they conveniently point to their old enemy, Iran," said the official, who asked not to be named because he is not authorized to talk to the media. "But these days American intelligence is a discredited commodity. Who can believe them?"

Maliki's own Dawa Party has close ties to Iran and has in the past deflected questions about Iran's support for the Shi'a militias, instead fingering Iraq's Sunni neighbors ? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan ? for aiding terrorist groups. "We don't deny that Iran has an interest in Iraq, and that is a matter of concern," said Abu Firas al-Saedi, a senior Dawa leader. "But the real question is: 'Why are the Arab states allowing terrorists to enter Iraq through their borders, and why are they financing them?'" That sentiment was echoed by parliamentarian Falah Shansal, from the Shi'a bloc of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. "There are groups in Saudi Arabia who finance terrorism in Iraq," he said. "Why are the Americans not talking about this?"

Some Shi'a leaders acknowledge that Iran may be meddling in Iraqi affairs, but say the solution lies in diplomacy. Washington's aggressive finger-pointing, they say, can only antagonize the Iranians further, and hurt Iraq's interests. "To end the violence, Iraq needs the help of all its neighbors, and we have to be very diplomatic about how we approach them," Shansal said.

Meanwhile, Iraq's largest Shi'a party denied U.S. claims that two Iranian agents were seized at the home of the party's leader, Abdel-Azziz al-Hakim. Ridha Jawad Taki, a spokesman for Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRII), said the two were diplomats and were grabbed as they were on their way to the home of President Jalal Talabani, Hakim's neighbor. "They were invited by the President to discuss the security situation," he said. "And they were released after two days."

That is a chilling article - and if history repeats itself it makes total sense.  If there is one things americans love to do its rally around a tradgedy and then go along with the govt no questions asked.

[Donington2007]

China was supplying our enemy in a previous war too but we didn't attack them.

and why dont the Bush war planners just take responsibility for securing Iraq's borders? Mexicans come over our borders every day but we don't bomb Mexico for it.

F Bush!...... BOTH kinds! 

I could be wrong, but those were different times.  I would guess that the avg. person didn't know china was supplying N. Korea with arms - same with the US in afghanistan. I would guess that info came out to the public later on.  I could be wrong.

either way, if we knew or not, neither one of us (china, US, Russia) was going to start an open war with each other - the countries were simply to big.

there is also a slight difference in that the war in iraq is not a traditional war the way korea/afghanistan in the 80s was.  the US take on it is they are supplying terrorists with aid/arms.  Not saying I agree/disagree with the difference, but there is one nonetheless.  After 9-11, the world became a whole new ball game.....

'terrorist'?

this isnt an attack on your choice of words. and you made good points about my China statement.

but i find it hilarious that the media programed everyone into thinking that the iraqi insurgents are terrorists. how would you feel (not you but any american reading this) if canada invaded us like in south park the movie. then you and a bunch of your neighbors get together to fight the canadians and the media in canada is calling you a 'terrorist'

it's similar to calling a suicide bomber a coward. tim mcveigh was quoted in his letter to fox news channel as saying 'calling them cowards is the ultimate in Orwellian double-think.'

the u.s. media calls the iraqi insurgents terrorist and calls other suicide bombers cowards for no other reason than to make the families of their victims feel better. it's like a mental mass-drugging of a verbal anti-depressant.

edit-----shit i cant believe i came up with that. i'll have to remember that for verbal conversations off-line. 

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

what you said sounds familiar ... oh wait ...

[Donington2007]

what you said sounds familiar ... oh wait ...

whatever, i'm totally buggin' 

[The Dog]

China was supplying our enemy in a previous war too but we didn't attack them.

and why dont the Bush war planners just take responsibility for securing Iraq's borders? Mexicans come over our borders every day but we don't bomb Mexico for it.

F Bush!...... BOTH kinds! 

I could be wrong, but those were different times.  I would guess that the avg. person didn't know china was supplying N. Korea with arms - same with the US in afghanistan. I would guess that info came out to the public later on.  I could be wrong.

either way, if we knew or not, neither one of us (china, US, Russia) was going to start an open war with each other - the countries were simply to big.

there is also a slight difference in that the war in iraq is not a traditional war the way korea/afghanistan in the 80s was.  the US take on it is they are supplying terrorists with aid/arms.  Not saying I agree/disagree with the difference, but there is one nonetheless.  After 9-11, the world became a whole new ball game.....

'terrorist'?

this isnt an attack on your choice of words. and you made good points about my China statement.

but i find it hilarious that the media programed everyone into thinking that the iraqi insurgents are terrorists. how would you feel (not you but any american reading this) if canada invaded us like in south park the movie. then you and a bunch of your neighbors get together to fight the canadians and the media in canada is calling you a 'terrorist'

it's similar to calling a suicide bomber a coward. tim mcveigh was quoted in his letter to fox news channel as saying 'calling them cowards is the ultimate in Orwellian double-think.'

the u.s. media calls the iraqi insurgents terrorist and calls other suicide bombers cowards for no other reason than to make the families of their victims feel better. it's like a mental mass-drugging of a verbal anti-depressant.

edit-----shit i cant believe i came up with that. i'll have to remember that for verbal conversations off-line. 

I hear you - just what I was typing at the moment.  I usually refer to the guys with guys in iraq as "insurgents".  I don't think the discussion should be a debate on semantics (as our French friend LOVES to do haha).

I don't recall anyone calling them cowards for years.  Again, even if they were, its just semantics.  you could call them teddy bear gum drops - who cares!   I think most people realize the insurgents/terrorists/wat-evers you want to call them are deadly, smart, well organized etc...

[LeftToDecay]

Apparently Colin Powell just held a flashy powerpoint presentation at U.N, featuring 100% authentic  footage of  high  tech mobile Iranian weapon supplying trucks. Rather than mere vechicles, these are pretty much weapon factories on wheels.
They drive around Iraq tossing Ak 47s and illegeal dum dum bullets all over the place like it was nothing.

Here's a screenshot i took

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

HannaHat, you maybe can overpass semantics
some don't
and the general public, along with the head of your admnistration, is building all their strategy and opinions from this "semantics" of holy war (both sides), superiority of morals and civilisation, irrational acts ...

LeftToDecay > i stopped reading after "powerpoint" ....

What is the problem? Iran supplying weapons or the insurgents having weapons?
It would be ok if they got weapons from someone else?

[The Dog]

HannaHat, you maybe can overpass semantics
some don't
and the general public, along with the head of your admnistration, is building all their strategy and opinions from this "semantics" of holy war (both sides), superiority of morals and civilisation, irrational acts ...

LeftToDecay > i stopped reading after "powerpoint" ....

What is the problem? Iran supplying weapons or the insurgents having weapons?
It would be ok if they got weapons from someone else?

nobody is buying what Bush is selling - they can use all the words they want, the public knows better - just look at Bush's poll numbers.

if it wasn't iran giving weapons (say syria?) we'd be saying the same things about them.  i don't think this is us making stuff up - i don't have any doubts iran is supplying weapons/aid.  but until there is a big smoking gun, i don't think any military action should take place. 

[Donington2007]

nobody is buying what Bush is selling - they can use all the words they want, the public knows better - just look at Bush's poll numbers.

if it wasn't iran giving weapons (say syria?) we'd be saying the same things about them.  i don't think this is us making stuff up - i don't have any doubts iran is supplying weapons/aid.  but until there is a big smoking gun, i don't think any military action should take place. 

(this thread is doing well. does that mean we've moved past the idiocy concerning political threads in the pinned thread at the top of this forum?)

that would normally be the case. but its a fact now that the reason for invading was based on intelligence that was wrong and lied about. so should we bomb another country that is fully capable of kicking our ass in iraq and end up in a wider conflict? remember you're not hearing the news in the mid-east and all of those arab countries now know that they have a right to help iraqi's resist the occupation. just because fox news doesnt tell us this is the mind set over there doesnt mean its not a reality.

in U.S. law if a search warrant is later found in court to have been drawn up or served illegally....... the accused is set free. nothing close to that has happened as a result of the iraq blunder, which wasnt really a blunder and was deliberate anyway. 'blunder' is another word that the U.S. media sucesfuly used as a way to continue to justify whats happening in a iraq. i like 'lies' better.

i think every U.S. citizen with an immediate blood relative in Iraq should be the ones voting on whether we should bomb iran in a war that was big mistake anyway. i can guess what the result would be. and remember its still a fact that not a single congressman or woman has a child serving in iraq.

[The Dog]

nobody is buying what Bush is selling - they can use all the words they want, the public knows better - just look at Bush's poll numbers.

if it wasn't iran giving weapons (say syria?) we'd be saying the same things about them.  i don't think this is us making stuff up - i don't have any doubts iran is supplying weapons/aid.  but until there is a big smoking gun, i don't think any military action should take place. 

i think every U.S. citizen with an immediate blood relative in Iraq should be the ones voting on whether we should bomb iran in a war that was big mistake anyway. i can guess what the result would be. and remember its still a fact that not a single congressman or woman has a child serving in iraq.

I guess you don't know who Jim Webb is then?

[Donington2007]

nobody is buying what Bush is selling - they can use all the words they want, the public knows better - just look at Bush's poll numbers.

if it wasn't iran giving weapons (say syria?) we'd be saying the same things about them.  i don't think this is us making stuff up - i don't have any doubts iran is supplying weapons/aid.  but until there is a big smoking gun, i don't think any military action should take place. 

i think every U.S. citizen with an immediate blood relative in Iraq should be the ones voting on whether we should bomb iran in a war that was big mistake anyway. i can guess what the result would be. and remember its still a fact that not a single congressman or woman has a child serving in iraq.

I guess you don't know who Jim Webb is then?

no i don't.

but still, why don't you tell us how many congress men and women there are, and then tell us how many have a child serving in iraq or afghanistan. the numbers are still embarrasing because they know to keep their kids and immediate relatives out of the military. there could be no other reason because in pre-vietnam times it was the opposite.