Iranian forces crossed Iraqi border

phoenix, you not going back far enough, as i said earlier to the root causes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution#Failures_and_successes_of_other_political_forces
Policies of the American government, which helped create an image of the Shah as American "puppet" with their high profile and the 1953 subversion of the government on his behalf, but helped trigger the revolution by pressuring the Shah to liberalize, and then finally may have heightened the radicalism of the revolution by failing to read its nature accurately (particularly the goals of Khomeini), or to clearly respond to it.



a lot of the issues we are facing today are a direct result of the fight against international communism during the cold war.

Al Quida/ bin ladan
Talaban
the shah/Iranian revolution
iraq/saddam hussian

and i think this is due the the western world not looking far enough ahead. quite happy to using various nasty types to beat up on the USSR (just as the USSR did as well), but without considering what would happen once the fight was over and the funding....and leashes...came off


hell, maybe patton was right
 
Bad news

Hi MontyB
I agree with you I don't think this is a good news article. It's not showing up in other places I find my military news in.
 
Hi MontyB
I agree with you I don't think this is a good news article. It's not showing up in other places I find my military news in.

Yeah I tend to disregard news that uses tabloids as its source especially when no other news outlet independently corroborates it and there are no other reliable sources quoted in the article itself such as the MoD, lets face it " An unidentified intelligence source" could be anyone from Tony Blair to his grandmother.
 
I understand what you are saying but might you see how your first off the cuff remark is quite different than this one here? Further defining what you think to be "pointless" would eliminate any angst and although we might disagree on the merits of TWAT and Iraq in particular, there will be less heat in the discussion if more definition is provided in the commentary so as not to be construed.


sorry it's taken me ages to get back to this, actually forgot which conversation it was in lol


i would define the current iraq conflict as "pointless" because;

the initial reasons for invasion were either false, or insufficiently thought through (WMD's, connections to al Queida/9/11)

there was, and certainly is not now, any clear goal to be achieved


so now you're left with a situation where soldiers are being killed in an attempt to stabilise a country that would've been better left alone, that have no clear exit strategy, and you have given hostile forces a battle zone to engage US forces easily.

now, in saying the above, dont construe this as support for saddam, but IMO there would've been better ways to sort that little bastard.

think of all the forces in Iraq that would be better served eliminating the Taliban in Afghanistan and putting that country back on it's feet. finish one job before you start another!


hopefully that puts my POV forward a bit better, and please accept my assurances that this is directed more at the bush administration than at the troops on the ground.

it's always the boots on the ground, and the local civvies that get shafted by the mistakes that the leaders make
 
A Hellfire enema perhaps?

Where would the Profit for US Civilian Contractors be in such an action?

The only way to get many, many, many newly printed Billions out of the US Treasury and into the pipeline for Civilian Contractors is to have a War..... the Cold War died sometime ago, so, Civilian Contractors needed a new Enemy, a long lasting Enemy, an Enemy who is very expensive to Fight.


As many have discovered its far easier to simply let these posts scroll off the board than it is to argue with people who aren't listening and given time you will figure out which of the boards members are worth responding to and which aren't.

True that.
 
Last edited:
I cannot agree with Del Boy here, but that is probably because he belongs to another generation, which did not experience WW2. Long before the Iraq war, I remember a British police woman being shot by an Iranian diplomat. We let him go! One has to stop wars before they have the chance to start, but here England has always been half asleep.
 
Englander 2 - sorry, do not understand where you are coming from. what do you disagree with. I experienced WW11 very closely, as it happens, I was bombed out twice in the first year, by the jolly old Lutwaffe, andwas seperated from my parents and family at 4 years by the war.

The murderer in question had diplomatic immunity, that's why we couldn't touch him. International law you know.
 
Iranian regime is doing what the Soviets did back in 1960s to 1980s

Funding terrorists, re-arming insurgents, hurting the US interests and entering a useless mini arms race with its neighbors.

We all know the outcome!

Like we did in Afghanistan, look at that outcome.
 
So the damn Hajis in Iran capture British personnel in Iraqi Waters, but the Brits don't? I see an issue here....

We all know WTF is happening. It's not like the wool has been pulle dover our eyes. Iran is a threat. Treat the bastards as one for Christ's sake!
 
Iran's Proxy War

July 06, 2007
The Wall Street Journal
Joseph Liberman


Earlier this week, the U.S. military made public new and disturbing information about the proxy war that Iran is waging against American soldiers and our allies in Iraq.

According to Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, the U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, the Iranian government has been using the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah to train and organize Iraqi extremists, who are responsible in turn for the murder of American service members.

Gen. Bergner also revealed that the Quds Force -- a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps whose mission is to finance, arm and equip foreign Islamist terrorist movements -- has taken groups of up to 60 Iraqi insurgents at a time and brought them to three camps near Tehran, where they have received instruction in the use of mortars, rockets, improvised explosive devices and other deadly tools of guerrilla warfare that they use against our troops. Iran has also funded its Iraqi proxies generously, to the tune of $3 million a month.

Based on the interrogation of captured extremist leaders -- including a 24-year veteran of Hezbollah, apparently dispatched to Iraq by his patrons in Tehran -- Gen. Bergner also reported on Monday that the U.S. military has concluded that "the senior leadership" in Iran is aware of these terrorist activities. He said it is "hard to imagine" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei -- Iran's supreme leader -- does not know of them.

These latest revelations should be a painful wakeup call to the American people, and to the U.S. Congress. They also expand on a steady stream of public statements over the past six months by David Petraeus, the commanding general of our coalition in Iraq, as well as other senior American military and civilian officials about Iran's hostile and violent role in Iraq. In February, for instance, the U.S. military stated that forensic evidence has implicated Iran in the death of at least 170 U.S. soldiers.

Iran's actions in Iraq fit a larger pattern of expansionist, extremist behavior across the Middle East today. In addition to sponsoring insurgents in Iraq, Tehran is training, funding and equipping radical Islamist groups in Lebanon, Palestine and Afghanistan -- where the Taliban now appear to be receiving Iranian help in their war against the government of President Hamid Karzai and its NATO defenders.

While some will no doubt claim that Iran is only attacking U.S. soldiers in Iraq because they are deployed there -- and that the solution, therefore, is to withdraw them -- Iran's parallel proxy attacks against moderate Palestinians, Afghans and Lebanese directly rebut such claims.

Iran is acting aggressively and consistently to undermine moderate regimes in the Middle East, establish itself as the dominant regional power and reshape the region in its own ideological image. The involvement of Hezbollah in Iraq, just revealed by Gen. Bergner, illustrates precisely how interconnected are the different threats and challenges we face in the region. The fanatical government of Iran is the common denominator that links them together.

No responsible leader in Washington desires conflict with Iran. But every leader has a responsibility to acknowledge the evidence that the U.S. military has now put before us: The Iranian government, by its actions, has all but declared war on us and our allies in the Middle East.

America now has a solemn responsibility to utilize the instruments of our national power to convince Tehran to change its behavior, including the immediate cessation of its training and equipping extremists who are killing our troops.

Most of this work must be done by our diplomats, military and intelligence operatives in the field. But Iran's increasingly brazen behavior also presents a test of our political leadership here at home. When Congress reconvenes next week, all of us who are privileged to serve there should set aside whatever partisan or ideological differences divide us to send a clear, strong and unified message to Tehran that it must stop everything it is doing to bring about the death of American service members in Iraq.

It is of course everyone's hope that diplomacy alone can achieve this goal. Iran's activities inside Iraq were the central issue raised by the U.S. ambassador to Iraq in his historic meeting with Iranian representatives in Baghdad this May. However, as Gen. Bergner said on Monday, "There does not seem to be any follow-through on the commitments that Iran has made to work with Iraq in addressing the destabilizing security issues here." The fact is, any diplomacy with Iran is more likely to be effective if it is backed by a credible threat of force -- credible in the dual sense that we mean it, and the Iranians believe it.

Our objective here is deterrence. The fanatical regime in Tehran has concluded that it can use proxies to strike at us and our friends in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine without fear of retaliation. It is time to restore that fear, and to inject greater doubt into the decision-making of Iranian leaders about the risks they are now running.

I hope the new revelations about Iran's behavior will also temper the enthusiasm of some of those in Congress who are advocating the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Iran's purpose in sponsoring attacks on American soldiers, after all, is clear: It hopes to push the U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan, so that its proxies can then dominate these states. Tehran knows that an American retreat under fire would send an unmistakable message throughout the region that Iran is on the rise and America is on the run. That would be a disaster for the region and the U.S.

The threat posed by Iran to our soldiers' lives, our security as a nation and our allies in the Middle East is a truth that cannot be wished or waved away. It must be confronted head-on. The regime in Iran is betting that our political disunity in Washington will constrain us in responding to its attacks. For the sake of our nation's security, we must unite and prove them wrong.

Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.

link to original article
 
Back
Top