Iranian helicopters cross into Iraq

[rock45]

I have two questions. 1. if US forces were near where these (3) Iranian helicopters crossed into Iraq would we have fired at them? 2. Next question would Iraqi forces have fired at them?

Thanks

I assumed that both sides watched each others borders but I guess there are gaps in coverage or no assets were in the area of the crossing.

Iran helicopters strike Iraq Kurd villages
SULAIMANIYAH, Iraq (AFP) — Iranian helicopters attacked three Iraqi Kurdish villages in a cross-border raid on Saturday, a border guard official said, the first time Iran has used aircraft against Kurdish rebels.
There were no immediate reports of casualties.
"At 4 am (0100 GMT) they attacked with artillery the villages of Kani Saif, Jomarasi and Kara Sozi, that belong to the Panjwin district," a senior Iraqi border guard official told AFP on condition of anonymity.
"After the (initial) attacks, at 9 am three Iranian helicopters attacked these areas again," he said. "This is the first time they have used helicopters."
The official said the area was not considered a stronghold of the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK), an Iranian Kurdish separatist group that appeared to have been the target of the raid.
He said the fighters tend to operate near the village Qalat Dizah further north and that the Panjwin area has only been shelled twice in the past year, much less than areas closer to Iraqi Kurdistan's borders.
The raids came a week after 26 people were killed in a fierce gunbattle between Iranian police and Kurdish rebels near the Iraqi border, but it was not immediately clear if the events were linked.
Eighteen of those killed in the April 24 clash were Iranian policemen and eight were PJAK fighters, Iranian provincial justice chief Allahyar Malekshahi said on Saturday.
"Five people suspected of participating in this terrorist attack have been arrested and are under investigation," he said.
Western Iran, which has a sizeable Kurdish population, has seen deadly fighting in recent years between Iranian security forces and PJAK rebels operating out of rear-bases in neighbouring Iraq.
The group is closely allied with the Turkish Kurdish rebel group, the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).
Blacklisted as a terror group by the European Union and the United States, the PKK took up arms for self-rule in Turkey's Kurdish-majority southeast in 1984, triggering a conflict that has claimed some 44,000 lives.
PKK rear-bases in border districts of northern Iraq were the target of repeated attack by the Turkish and Iranian militaries in December and January and more recently in March and April.
Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey all have significant ethnic Kurdish minorities.
Under executed president Saddam Hussein's Sunni-led regime, Tehran and Baghdad fought a devastating 1980-1988 war in which around one million people died.
Relations between Baghdad and Teheran have warmed considerably since the 2003 overthrow of Saddam by US-led forces, although many of Iraq's Sunni Arabs continue to eye Iran with suspicion.


Link
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g6m-ToDsaFGVjTxLXC5jOcBK_VWQ

 

[randifur]

They were't supposed to be there I assume they would of fired warning shots, or asked them to exit the area or be killed.:camo:

 

[UnitedSomalia]

I think if Americans and British can "accidentally" cross into Iranian waters, violate Iraqi sovereignty against UN & international laws then they have no legal authority nor moral authority to complain about Some Iranian helicopters crossing over when they are the biggest violators of international boundaries.

 

[c/Commander]

I think if Americans and British can "accidentally" cross into Iranian waters, violate Iraqi sovereignty against UN & international laws then they have no legal authority nor moral authority to complain about Some Iranian helicopters crossing over when they are the biggest violators of international boundaries.

We can complain all we want to. Just like they can. The question is, which of us has the power to actually do something about our complaints? Give you a hint, it's not them.

 

[UnitedSomalia]

c/Commander-"We can complain all we want to. Just like they can. The question is, which of us has the power to actually do something about our complaints? Give you a hint, it's not them."

Well if that is what you believe then be careful about hubris. Iran is not Iraq nor is it Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada lol... This so called military superiority only seems to work on small, broken, defenseless nations; hence the reason why i said be careful about hubris. American-British military "superiority" by themselves without the support of the whole international community like Persian Gulf war lol has never worked against any nation with substantial military muscle. So continue picking on small defenseless countries because Iran has so far stood its ground and not intimidated.

 

[c/Commander]

Because we haven't really done anything to Iran. The aggressor in most incidents have been them, and we've shown remarkable restraint in not lighting them up for some of them (see British sailors, US Navy ships, etc.). Iran may be trying to be scary, but Photoshopped pictures of missile launchers and rockets just don't do it for me.

 

[UnitedSomalia]

c/Commander-"Because we haven't really done anything to Iran. The aggressor in most incidents have been them, and we've shown remarkable restraint in not lighting them up for some of them (see British sailors, US Navy ships, etc.). Iran may be trying to be scary, but Photoshopped pictures of missile launchers and rockets just don't do it for me."

The aggressor? Iran has been the one showing the most restraint, America & Britain have been trying to goad Iran into making a mistake, they have been poking Iran with a stick so Iran can react and America-Britain have excuse to start something. Let me list what the so called innocent American-British forces have done:

1) They have violated Iran's waters
2) They have sent spies and token special ops across into Iranian territory
3) They have kidnapped Iranian dignitaries with the Iranian embassy in Iraq which even Iraqi government said they were doing nothing when they were seized by the Americans and were traveling to a meeting
4) They have have imposed unilateral sanctions on Iran which were not authorized by the UN
5) They have seized Iranian cargo ships in international waters
6) They have threatened Iran with attacks
7) They have seized Iranian assets

And this is only what I can think of the top of my head, their are plenty of other acts they have committed against Iran. So for you to say Iran is the aggressor is laughable and baseless, is Iran the one that has traveled thousands of miles across the globe to come conquer foreign territory and threaten others? No, matter of fact Iran has not invaded anyone over 300 and some change years. So please if you going to make baseless accusations at least back it up, Iran has not done .0001 percent of the things the American-British alliance has done.

 

[A Can of Man]

UnitedSomalia, the US and British combined forces never had a problem with destroying any Army in the world. They can do that to just about anyone. The problem has always been winning the peace. If they chose to flatten Iran and leave, it would be done.

 

[Ice Tea]

UnitedSomalia, the US and British combined forces never had a problem with destroying any Army in the world. They can do that to just about anyone. The problem has always been winning the peace. If they chose to flatten Iran and leave, it would be done.

Precisely.

Also, Iran is developing nuclear capabilities despite being told repeatedly by pretty much everyone to cease doing so. Now, in tandem with developing these nuclear capabilities, the President of Iran declares every other week how he plans to destroy the Zionist Entity (that is, Israel). Sure, he doesn't make the connection, but what he says sounds very much like this:

"I want to destroy Israel. Also, we're developing nuclear capabilities. For peace purposes. With nothing to do with the fact that we want to destroy Israel. But no one is allowed to see any of our nuclear reactors to prove that, because we simply prefer to have sanctions rend our economy apart and being hated by a lot of folks, than show people the wonderful secrets of how these reactors are built. Nothing to do with any nuclear bombs or anything. No, no. You see, we just don't want anyone to... uhh... copy the architecture."

I have nothing against the Iranian people in general. In fact, I know that they have known economical prosperity before, and so most of them are well educated and hate their regime. However, it's the people in charge of a country that determine its course and how it should be treated, and alas, the ones leading Iran are, by any standard, fanatic madmen.

 

[UnitedSomalia]

redneck-"UnitedSomalia, the US and British combined forces never had a problem with destroying any Army in the world. They can do that to just about anyone. The problem has always been winning the peace. If they chose to flatten Iran and leave, it would be done."

redneck, this combined US and British forces that can defeat anyone you speak of weren't they the ones quivering at the site of 45,000 soviet tanks and thousands of armor racing towards the English channel, weren't these the same American's and the British forces that have stated it will take nothing but few days for the Soviets to sweep through Europe and race to the English channel?

Tell me redneck, what military force with any muscle has this American-British force ever defeated except broken down, defenseless, 3rd world countries? And please don't say ww2 because they would not have won that war if the Germans weren't drained by the Russians on the Eastern front.

Lets speak of any war since ww2 that this "unstoppable" combined American-British force has won? None, and please don't mention Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, and Grenada because they fit my description of broken down, defenseless, 3rd world country. The only meaningful wars these have fought were Vietnam and Korea and we all know how those ended lmao.... so please save me the rhetoric, chest beating and arrogance they haven't won any meaningful wars nor beat any credible enemy.

 

[c/Commander]

And where are those 45,000 Soviet tanks now? Besides on a ship hijacked by your "country"men, that is. There aren't any. There's no risk. Why? Peace through strength. You make a lot of broad generalizations with no support save "this is how it is". Try actually arguing, rather than just telling, and people might actually put some effort into their replies. You come off as a troll.

 

[UnitedSomalia]

Ice Tea-"Precisely.

Also, Iran is developing nuclear capabilities despite being told repeatedly by pretty much everyone to cease doing so. Now, in tandem with developing these nuclear capabilities, the President of Iran declares every other week how he plans to destroy the Zionist Entity (that is, Israel). Sure, he doesn't make the connection, but what he says sounds very much like this:

"I want to destroy Israel. Also, we're developing nuclear capabilities. For peace purposes. With nothing to do with the fact that we want to destroy Israel. But no one is allowed to see any of our nuclear reactors to prove that, because we simply prefer to have sanctions rend our economy apart and being hated by a lot of folks, than show people the wonderful secrets of how these reactors are built. Nothing to do with any nuclear bombs or anything. No, no. You see, we just don't want anyone to... uhh... copy the architecture."

I have nothing against the Iranian people in general. In fact, I know that they have known economical prosperity before, and so most of them are well educated and hate their regime. However, it's the people in charge of a country that determine its course and how it should be treated, and alas, the ones leading Iran are, by any standard, fanatic madmen.
Report Post Reply With Quote"


Yes Iran is developing nuclear energy, and under the NPT rules signatories are allowed to conduct enrichment and build reactors. The IAEA has stated many times that they have uncovered nothing outside of the boundaries of the NPT in Iran's nuclear industry. The West tells Iran that they must stop enriching uranium, how can you demand a country give up its rights under the NPT when enriching uranium is within the boundaries.

Even the CIA stated that Iran has not made any push toward nuclear armament, so according to the IAEA and the NPT Iran is well within its rights. Israel is the Middle East's only nuclear power, they are not a signatory to the NPT, they have invaded more neighbors than Iran has invaded the last 300 hundred years but yet they have a right to deny Iran its rights under the NPT?

How can the only nation on earth to have used nuclear weapons U.S., and the only nation in the Middle East with nuclear weapons Israel judge and point the finger at Iran a nation that has not trespassed on another nations sovereignty longer than America has been a nation? It's completely ludicrous and goes to show the double standards of the West and the trampling of a nation's rights within the IAEA and the NPT.

Also for you to say the people of Iran hate their government is another neo-con propaganda like the neo-cons have stated when they liberate Baghdad that they would be welcome with flowers lmao, how narrow minded is it for you to look from the outside, never been to Iran, don't understand Iranian culture and patriotism and claim Iranians hate their government. Iranians will prove your notions of them not wanting their government wrong once and if the American-British-Israeli axis attacks them. Iran is more democratic than any of America's so called allies in the Middle East and please don't make me start listing and go to town on this subject.

c/Commander-"And where are those 45,000 Soviet tanks now? Besides on a ship hijacked by your "country"men, that is. There aren't any. There's no risk. Why? Peace through strength. You make a lot of broad generalizations with no support save "this is how it is". Try actually arguing, rather than just telling, and people might actually put some effort into their replies. You come off as a troll."

I am not a troll, those that have intellectually debated me in the past know me, but those that begin name calling are the trolls themselves, so far I have not attacked anyone but continue your course you only discrediting yourself, I will not stoop to your level.

This is my main point and it still stand to be disproved show me a nation with substantially credible military force that is not a broken, defenseless, 3rd world country that this "unstoppable" American-British force have defeated out right. And the answer is NONE. So argue, chest beat, name call, and show your arrogance all you want but you cannot prove me wrong.

 

[A Can of Man]

Actually I was writing something longer but simply put, the US military back in Korea and Vietnam is nothing like what it is today. The sort of communications, logistics, and training of today is simply unprecedented.

The ability for the US to take down any country quickly I was referring to was both the first invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. In both cases, the US rolled back all opposition with a level of speed and relatively low casualties never before seen. It's the peace that's not being won.
Some anti-American folks over here sometimes ask whether or not South Korea could beat a US invasion of either South Korea or a combined North-South Korea. I tell them no.
First, they will blow up all our C3I facilities, knock out air fields, sink the entire navy, then proceed to blow up everything as fast as they can rearm and refuel their aircraft.
If America wanted to hang onto South Korea, that might be a different story but if the idea was to blow everything up and go home, the US would achieve those aims.
Basically that's what I'm talking about.
If the US wanted to show up, destroy a country's ability to fight and communicate, it could.
The only reason why the insurgency is given a big deal is because of the press really. They haven't got the ability to actually win the country back militarily but they can do it politically by managing to kill the odd American soldier and try to make sure as many civilians get killed during engagements as possible.

Truth is, I think the US does better against developed countries with real armies than desolate hell holes with nothing to blow up because everything's blown up anyway and that's what their people are used to.

 

[UnitedSomalia]

redneck, u simply haven't disproved my main point I laid out yet.

 

[A Can of Man]

Actually I have. But I don't think you get it.
They win the war faster than anyone else in the world but can't win the peace because of a lack of political/public will.
If there is no peace to win, it'll be a cakewalk.

The sort of offensive capability required in terms of technology to be able to advance in Korea didn't exist back in the 1950s.
In Vietnam just about every battle was won, but again politics and the public got in the way of winning. Actually, the South Vietnamese "leadership" did a fantastic job of turning the entire South Vietnamese population against them.

 

[UnitedSomalia]

redneck-"Actually I have. But I don't think you get it. They win the war faster than anyone else in the world but can't win the peace because of a lack of political/public will.
If there is no peace to win, it'll be a cakewalk.

The sort of offensive capability required in terms of technology to be able to advance in Korea didn't exist back in the 1950s.
In Vietnam just about every battle was won, but again politics and the public got in the way of winning. Actually, the South Vietnamese "leadership" did a fantastic job of turning the entire South Vietnamese population against them."

Speaking of Korea and how the technology that exists now didn't exist then but yet its funny how the U.S. and its allies retreated in the face of an enemy with even lesser technology (i.e. a Chinese peasant army).

But yea sorry to disappoint you but you did not disprove my point yet which was "when has nation with substantially credible military force that is not a broken, defenseless, 3rd world country that this "unstoppable" American-British force have defeated out right." Meaning when has this supposedly "invincible" and "unstoppable" American-British force ever defeated a credible enemy? And you haven't yet given me one credible enemy they have defeated and I have continuously stated not including Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, and Grenada. The answer is none, period. Let me know when they have the audacity to take on North Korea which has tested nuclear arms and thumbed its nose at them or the likes of Russia, China or Iran.

 

[A Can of Man]

It's because China was playing a numbers game which worked and the UN forces were playing the technology game which wasn't at a level that could advance in such a terrain against larger forces. And like I said, references to those dates aren't really relevent to the technological argument I made. Other than nuclear weapons, technology gap between the two sides wasn't as great as people think.
A bit like World War I's dillemma with the defensive capability outdoing the offensive capability by a large margin. The last two years of the Korean War were very much like the static front situation that is typically identified with World War I.
Possibly the only reason I can't *really* prove my case is because developed countries haven't really gone to war against each other. But I know what the Americans are capable of and I know what most of the rest of the world is capable of and yes, the gap is enormous.

First off, you got stuff flying at you that you can't pick up with your radar, GPS guided bombs that can enable one stealth jet carrying one bomb to do what took a whole fleet of heavy bombers carrying tens of thousands of pounds of ordinance to do (accuracy wise), unmanned aircraft that can fly about 24 hours a day picking out targets of opportunity armed with tank busting Hellfire missiles.
Even more, once NNEMP (non-nuclear electro magnetic pulse) weapons become more viable, any army going against the US will find their weapons limited to rifles and bayonets. These weapons aren't too far off and I think a prototype was used in Iraq at some point.
Yeah I'd say it'd be over.

 

[UnitedSomalia]

No the only reason you can't prove your case is not because developed nations haven't gone to war against each other but that Americ & Britain have been careful not to pick a fight against a credible enemy like North Korea, Russia, China, Iran and instead they always pick on countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada because they know for a fact they only have a chance against these small countries. Its easy to fight a nation when you have disproportionately lopsided advantage (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada) then to fight an enemy that can send you home with 50,000 body bags a day conventionally (i.e. Russia, China, North Korea, Iran).

 

[A Can of Man]

The reason why North Korea can't be touched is not because they are "developed" but because of the nature of the neighborhood. North Korea's strategy in everything runs under the assumption that they will lose in the event of open hostilities against a combined US/South Korean force. Their ace in the hole however, is their artillery and Scud missiles that can target Seoul with conventional and chemical weapons. Estimates run that in the first 24 hours, about one million South Korean civilians would be killed. If you ever visited Seoul, you'd understand why. But this is not so much a question of development, rather than geography. If you really floored the gas, you can go from Seoul to the North Korean border in about an hour. If you consider the heavily populated areas north of Seoul, it's a matter of minutes.
Also, China desires North Korea to exist as a buffer zone between itself and South Korea, Japan and the US.

Iran is safe right now because the US military is far too overstretched in Iraq and Afgahnistan so it simply doesn't have the numbers to deal with Iran. Remember Iran back in 2003 barely made the headlines. They did, but Iraq was making a lot more noise at the time. Iran's hardened stance and renewed commitment to nuclear armament came after the US got tangled up in Afghanistan and Iraq.

There is no real reason to go to war against Russia or China. And the presence of a large ballistic missile fleet in both countries changes the picture completely. This is why the missile defense shield system is so controversial. If successful, US technology would be able to trump their main advantages yet again and when the conventional forces come into play, both Russian and Chinese militaries would be defeated. The only thing going against America is the size of the military. But in such an event, PMCs would be employed and they will probably find a lot of volunteers.
For these parties, MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) changes the rules of the game completely.
Doesn't apply to what we're talking about, which is conventional warfare.

Neither North Korea or Iran have the capability of sending back 50,000 American body bags daily. Unfortunately you'll have to save this wet dream for another day.

 

[Ice Tea]

The West tells Iran that they must stop enriching uranium, how can you demand a country give up its rights under the NPT when enriching uranium is within the boundaries.

Very easily, when they also state their undying intention to destroy another country and refuse to be supervised to make sure they aren't building nuclear warheads.

Even the CIA stated that Iran has not made any push toward nuclear armament, so according to the IAEA and the NPT Iran is well within its rights. Israel is the Middle East's only nuclear power, they are not a signatory to the NPT, they have invaded more neighbors than Iran has invaded the last 300 hundred years but yet they have a right to deny Iran its rights under the NPT?

First, while the CIA is probably the best intelligence gathering organization in the world, I honestly don't know if they could actually smuggle a guy into every reactor in Iran (there are like 50) and see that everything's legit in there. I mean they probably can, but I seriously doubt they've made that much of an effort. Second, you are confusing "invaded" with "got invaded and then retaliated and pushed the invaders past their own borders." There's a difference. Third, Israel doesn't threaten to annihilate any country, Iran does. It makes a lot of sense to me that a country which states its desire to destroy another country should not have nuclear capabilities. Now I know even countries with nukes don't want to nuke anyone 'cause that could start a chain of reaction that would result in a whole lot of nukes flying around, but the Iranian President and the religious fanatics behind him honestly don't care, or worse still, don't mind.

How can the only nation on earth to have used nuclear weapons U.S., and the only nation in the Middle East with nuclear weapons Israel judge and point the finger at Iran a nation that has not trespassed on another nations sovereignty longer than America has been a nation?

Because for most of these 300 years Iran wasn't ran by fanatic zealots. Now it is. I'm not making this stuff up. Even Muslim countries, such as Egypt, agree that Iran is a threat to pretty much everyone and that it is led by fanatics.

Also for you to say the people of Iran hate their government is another neo-con propaganda like the neo-cons have stated when they liberate Baghdad that they would be welcome with flowers lmao, how narrow minded is it for you to look from the outside, never been to Iran, don't understand Iranian culture and patriotism and claim Iranians hate their government.

I may not have been in Iran, but on several occasions I have spoken to people who have lived there for many years. Persian Jews, you know. And trust me, without having to worry about being arrested, tortured and executed for high treason, they didn't so much as hesitate in telling me exactly how much they, and most Iranians (estimated at 70%), hate the regime and think the country is led by fundamentalist idiots (their words). This is backed up pretty well by these books which I've read (and highly recommend). Now, if you don't agree with former Iranians and a woman that grew up in Iran before and after the revolution, I... honestly don't know what to say.

Problem is, 70% hating the regime still leaves enough fanatics to become guerilla terrorists (like what happened in Iraq) if the government is toppled.

Iranians will prove your notions of them not wanting their government wrong once and if the American-British-Israeli axis attacks them.

After the Iranian military itself collapses (and if the US chimes in, it will collapse), if a western presence would attempt to install a puppet government we'll get the same mass guerilla warfare that happens in Iraq these days, yes. But that's simply a large minority, not the actual representation of the will of the Iranian people. But in contrast to the silent majority, the presence of these guerilla fighters will stick out greatly and their numbers will appear much larger than they actually are, so people might get the notion that the Iranians liked their old regime.

Now, I don't know any figures about how much the Iraqis liked or disliked their regime, and my knowledge of Iraq is admittedly close to nothing, but I do know that when the US troops took down that statue of Saddam when they entered Baghdad, they were asked to do it by Iraqi civillians who simply didn't have the tools to do it themselves (it was heavy, it was on a roof, and they didn't have a crane).