Skip to comments.EXCLUSIVE: Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia
Posted on 11/30/2006 8:19:10 AM PST by jmc1969
click here to read article
Iran and Syria are footing the bill, supplying the weapons and training. If we destroy, completely, these military forces and means of production...and eliminate those regimes...the insurgencies and the Jihad dies with them.
Iraq would be the home of Al Quata, funded freely by Saddam. Saddam would be financially supporting anything they wanted. His goal would be a total destruction of the US before he died of old age. If he didn't do this, the terrorists would have taken over Iraq eventually anyway.
Uh, yeah. Not that they can be expected to enforce it or anything, but the U.N.'s Charter prohibits aiding an armed insurgency against a recognized government. This would doubtless also be illegal with respect to any number of bilateral or regional accords and agreements.
"big question is what will the US do about it, publicly or otherwise?"
Bombing iran will NEVER happen.
Any analogy breaks down. The Stern gang didn't worry about civilian casualties when they blew up the King David Hotel. We didn't worry about killing innocent women and children with the fire bombing of Tokyo and Hamburg and Dresden or using the A bomb against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. War is about winning any way you can. The winners apply the rules after the war is over.
We are outdoing our reputation as a paper tiger when it comes to fighting this war.When did America become so predictable? It's like we are following a script that was written by our enemies.The politicians in Washington are being manipulated like puppets and the terrorist are holding the strings.We can't win a war when we are dancing to the beat of the enemy.
Certainly a possibility, especially if we would consider operating across those borders if needed. Bush has lost his perspective if he just views this as a question of Iraq.
Like we did to the Chinese who were supplying the North Koreans? Or the Russians who were supplying the VC?
We don't have a good track record in this regard and I don't see that changing...
ABC is just now figuring out that Iran is no saint? Welcome to hte real world ABC- we were waiting for you to catch up- now move to hte back of the line and keep your yap shut please. http://sacredscoop.com
Sorry folks, but our government isn't going to a damn thing about Iran sending weapons into Iraq. They've been doing it for well over a year and we've known about it for that long. No matter how many US soldiers are killed with Iranian weapons we won't lift a finger to actually stop it. Oh sure, we'll 'beef up border security', but we won't punish the Iranian gov't in any shape, form or fashion. We have neither the will nor the resolve.
Our government will work triple overtime seeking a politically correct, euro-safe solution that will culminate in people waving pieces of paper around... if they seek a solution at all.
Exactly, the poor track record should not be repeated. Iran is a strategic target in itself, probably more important than Iraq.
Actually they did or they would not have called in a warning before they bombed British Military Headquarters in one wing of the KD Hotel.
If your argument is that even when there is concern for civilians an important war aim must trump that concern regarding civilians you are correct.
In the West today concern for tangential civilians- often terrorist supporters- stops necessary military action in its track.
Our enemy has no such compulsion. They consider us all, civilians and uniformed, as legitimate targets.
Being moral should not mean being suicidal. Losing to barbarism is immoral.
Like Afghanistan before it, we had plenty 100% justifiable reasons to project our power to Iraq. As the world---still to this day---is wringing their hands worrying about the "unwinnable" war in Iraq, the US has been able to realize the ultimate intent of our multitheater strategy--the confrontation of Iranian (and Russian) regional power that has taunted us for almost 30 years.
Despite an colossal barrage of news stating the exact opposite, we are uniquely positioned to counter fascist rhetoric originating from Tehran. A belligerent Iran is proof positive that our pressure is working, not floundering.
The popular (and much derided) notion of the US "reaching out" to our enemies may be an incorrect reading of what's really happening. Instead, we may be setting the agenda Robert Oakley style--(to paraphrase) "America will help you steer events toward a peaceful resolution, but so help us, if you screw up your end, we'll bring this place down."
Like everything else in life there is a simple solution.
At 12:00 tomorrow, the US declares that unless Iran leaves Iraq immediately, at 17:00est tomorrow, just in time for the evening news cycle, Iran will cease to bee an oil producing nation.
Then we remove all troops from the Baghdad area and put them on the Syrian border. Then Israel mobilizes for war.
Oh, then disconnect John Boltons telephone.
Later in the evening, Quetta in Pakistan is totally leveled by stealth aircraft. Then the US denies having anything to do with the bombing.
Call it the say of settling all debts.
After we leave Iraq, there will be a short war after 2008 engulfing the entire middle east, with Iran/Iraq obtaining the allegiance of neighboring countries (except Israel of course)
There are differing opinions as to when and how the calls were placed. Innocent people died.
Being moral should not mean being suicidal. Losing to barbarism is immoral
On that we agree, and that was my point. War is about winning.
"The Iranians/Persians are the most cowardly warriors that "I have ever heard of.
Instead of fighting honorably, they hide behind terrorists, women, children, etc."
This is war. They know it and act like it, we don't. They use the most effective means available to them, regardless of what others think, we don't. That's why groups of pathetically armed madmen have the greatest military power in the world tied down without sight of victory.
And this time, immediately following the media blitz, I hope to see some serious "SHOCK & AWE"!!
That's classic Rumsfeld. But without him, can we see it through? Does anyone left in our government grasp the situation?
Bah, bah, baaah, bomb, bomb Iran...
Rich Lowry, Editor National Review
David Horowitz is synonymous with pyrotechnics. A historian and polemicist of the first order, he is paid the ultimate compliment --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Davis Hanson, Author, Ripples of Battle
An original look at those who want us to fail in the Middle East, both at home and abroad. The --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
See all Editorial Reviews
Fascinating Analysis of Leftist Goals, August 13, 2006
Reviewer: N. Sincerity - See all my reviews
A former 1960s radical, Horowitz is well-acquainted with the Leftist mindset. In this book, he strives to explain the modern alliance between left wing progressivists and radical Islamofascists. He argues that this alliance is based on a common desire to destroy Western capitalism. Leftist sympathy with Islamofascist ideas makes no sense from an intellectual point of view, given that countries ruled by radical Islamists are among the most racist, sexist, theocratic states in the world today. However, Leftists have recognized that they can benefit politically from destructive terrorist attacks on the Western world. A West under attack can be made to turn on its leaders in fear and desperation (as they did in Spain after the Madrid train bombings). Only once people reject current government structures can the Left execute its anti-capitalist revolution and build a new reality that mirrors the Leftist view of utopia. The complete and utter idealogical hypocrisy of the Islamofascist-Leftist alliance is distressing, but as Horowitz reminds us, Leftists radicals truly believe the ends justify the means.
So, all who've been killed by Iranian weapons to date were freebies?
I too believe that Al Q would have rid Iraq of Saddam if the U.S. had not. Interesting how those freaking "sheet heads" constantly change alliances. I'm SURE he was considered an infidel by AQ. He was their useful idiot in helping them and supplying them. They would have gladly beheaded him when they were finished with him. Are AQ Sunni or Shite?
Who gives a "shite?" They are all freaking nuts.
dunno, unfortunately. But wouldn't matter because, according to various influential nitwits, our strategies are determined and executed by powerful corporate interest and backroom power brokers. /haha
I trust the generals and the armed forces who, for all intents and purposes, are the only ones standing against radicalized Islamism in the streets.
I am so dumbfounded by our reactions (or lack of) to this war. This is just like all the history books describe the fall of all great historical empires. The little barbarians poke and poke and poke at the big bully, who shows great restraint, until he is finally no longer able to cope and tumbles over. We can still stop this travesty from occurring, but I doubt we have the stomach to do what needs to be done and thus we are going to end up on the trash heap of history. President Bush needs to act NOW.
Wow! That's a shocker! Wait a minute! Haven't we all been saying this for the past two years????? Doh!
Al Qaeda are mainly Sunni, just like the Baathists.
And Al AQaeda and Saddam were not enemies. As far back as 1998, bin Laden and al Zawihiri were saying that U.S. attacks on Iraq were part of the reason they declared jihad on us. Also, see Khobar Towers attack. Khobar housed the pilots doing the bombing raids over Iraq. Don't believe the lefty/MSM myth that Saddam and bin Laden hated each other.
Read the Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright (no neo-con is he0, you'l get all the history about al Qaeda you need.
Wait! Aren't we supposed to be talking to that Ringo Starr lookalike? /s
They already did.
Just click on the pic in my post above!
I said it before, and I'll say it again: Iran is the most dangerous country in the world, and has been our greatest enemy since the islamic revolution of 1979 (even though the old USSR was in existence back then)!!!!
Time for ACTION. NOW. No more talk. Talking is done.
Bomb Al-Sadr, and then even if only some of his buddies get whacked, they will have a huge funeral procession/rally.
Napalm it. Al-Sadr problem solved, and our other enemies will be very afraid.
2nd, act on the "if you are not with us, you're against us" doctrine.
Sadly, Bushes b*lls seem to be no where to be found.
At the very least we need to take out their arms manufacturing capabilities. I'm sure we know exactly where those weapons were manufactured. A few well placed MOABs should take care of that problem rather easily.
I agree with your premise, but just one point of information on the Stern gang. They did not blow up the King David Hotel, it was the Irgun. On the day of the bombing multiple calls to the hotel were made warning the occupants to get out. The British ignored the warnings.
Yes, in war, innocents suffer.
Why can't the generals greenlight taking out that smelly dirtbag Sadr. Why can't we bomb the crap out of the Iranian Iraqi border and shut down this traffic?
Leaving Iraq via Iran and Syria might not be a bad idea.
Our strategic bombers seem to be unused at the moment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.