I know history is doomed to repeat, but quite this quickly?

Look, I'm as much of a fan of practical jokes as the next man, but one really needs to be a bit more original when the first one falls so flat.

It appears the fantasy-mongers in the White House are beginning again by fabricating evidence against Iran. Why they think Iran would be arming the largely Sunni insurgency escapes me, but maybe "think" in this context is the wrong verb.

Don't you just love the new designation for roadside bombs: "Explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs)! What repressed policy wonk came up with that one? :laugh4:

Are even the die-hard apologists for Bushyworld going to buy this line?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Target Tehran: Washington sets stage for a new confrontation

By Patrick Cockburn
Published: 12 February 2007

The United States is moving closer to war with Iran by accusing the "highest levels" of the Iranian government of supplying sophisticated roadside bombs that have killed 170 US troops and wounded 620.

The allegations against Iran are similar in tone and credibility to those made four years ago by the US government about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the invasion of 2003.

Senior US defence officials in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they believed the bombs were manufactured in Iran and smuggled across the border to Shia militants in Iraq. The weapons, identified as "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs) are said to be capable of destroying an Abrams tank.

The officials speaking in Baghdad used aggressive rhetoric suggesting that Washington wants to ratchet up its confrontation with Tehran. It has not ruled out using armed force and has sent a second carrier task force to the Gulf.

"We assess that these activities are coming from senior levels of the Iranian government," said an official in Baghdad, charging that the explosive devices come from the al-Quds Brigade and noting that it answers to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader. This is the first time the US has openly accused the Iranian government of being involved in sending weapons that kill Americans to Iraq.

The allegations by senior but unnamed US officials in Baghdad and Washington are bizarre. The US has been fighting a Sunni insurgency in Iraq since 2003 that is deeply hostile to Iran.

The insurgent groups have repeatedly denounced the democratically elected Iraqi government as pawns of Iran. It is unlikely that the Sunni guerrillas have received significant quantities of military equipment from Tehran. Some 1,190 US soldiers have been killed by so-called improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But most of them consist of heavy artillery shells (often 120mm or 155mm) taken from the arsenals of the former regime and detonated by blasting caps wired to a small battery. The current is switched on either by a command wire or a simple device such as the remote control used for children's toys or to open garage doors.

Such bombs were used by guerrillas during the Irish war of independence in 1919-21 against British patrols and convoys. They were commonly used in the Second World War, when "shaped charges", similar in purpose to the EFPs of which the US is now complaining, were employed by all armies. The very name - explosive formed penetrators - may have been chosen to imply that a menacing new weapon has been developed.

At the end of last year the Baker-Hamilton report, written by a bipartisan commission of Republicans and Democrats, suggested opening talks with Iran and Syria to resolve the Iraq crisis. Instead, President Bush has taken a precisely opposite line, blaming Iran and Syria for US losses in Iraq.

In the past month Washington has arrested five Iranian officials in a long-established office in Arbil, the Kurdish capital. An Iranian diplomat was kidnapped in Baghdad, allegedly by members of an Iraqi military unit under US influence. President George Bush had earlier said that Iranians deemed to be targeting US forces could be killed, which seemed to be opening the door to assassinations.

The statements from Washington give the impression that the US has been at war with Shia militias for the past three-and-a-half years while almost all the fighting has been with the Sunni insurgents. These are often led by highly trained former officers and men from Saddam Hussein's elite military and intelligence units. During the Iran-Iraq war between 1980 and 1988, the Iraqi leader, backed by the US and the Soviet Union, was able to obtain training in advanced weapons for his forces.

The US stance on the military capabilities of Iraqis today is the exact opposite of its position in four years ago. Then President Bush and Tony Blair claimed that Iraqis were technically advanced enough to produce long-range missiles and to be close to producing a nuclear device. Washington is now saying that Iraqis are too backward to produce an effective roadside bomb and must seek Iranian help.

The White House may have decided that, in the run up to the 2008 presidential election, it would be much to its political advantage in the US to divert attention from its failure in Iraq by blaming Iran for being the hidden hand supporting its opponents.

It is likely that Shia militias have received weapons and money from Iran and possible that the Sunni insurgents have received some aid. But most Iraqi men possess weapons. Many millions of them received military training under Saddam Hussein. His well-supplied arsenals were all looted after his fall. No specialist on Iraq believes that Iran has ever been a serious promoter of the Sunni insurgency.

The evidence against Iran is even more insubstantial than the faked or mistaken evidence for Iraqi WMDs disseminated by the US and Britain in 2002 and 2003. The allegations appear to be full of exaggerations. Few Abrams tanks have been destroyed. It implies the Shias have been at war with the US while in fact they are controlled by parties which make up the Iraqi government.

Well it's not that far fetched, why would Iran allow Iraq to become stable oil-producing power again if they can help it.

Hmm, how to put this in terms that the White House will understand?

:idea2:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Boy Who Cried Wolf

There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, "Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!"

The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they found no wolf. The boy laughed at the sight of their angry faces.

"Don't cry 'wolf', shepherd boy," said the villagers, "when there's no wolf!" They went grumbling back down the hill.

Later, the boy sang out again, "Wolf! Wolf! The wolf is chasing the sheep!" To his naughty delight, he watched the villagers run up the hill to help him drive the wolf away.

When the villagers saw no wolf they sternly said, "Save your frightened song for when there is really something wrong! Don't cry 'wolf' when there is NO wolf!"

But the boy just grinned and watched them go grumbling down the hill once more.

Later, he saw a REAL wolf prowling about his flock. Alarmed, he leaped to his feet and sang out as loudly as he could, "Wolf! Wolf!"

But the villagers thought he was trying to fool them again, and so they didn't come.

At sunset, everyone wondered why the shepherd boy hadn't returned to the village with their sheep. They went up the hill to find the boy. They found him weeping.

"There really was a wolf here! The flock has scattered! I cried out, "Wolf!" Why didn't you come?"

An old man tried to comfort the boy as they walked back to the village.

"We'll help you look for the lost sheep in the morning," he said, putting his arm around the youth, "Nobody believes a liar...even when he is telling the truth!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Well it's not that far fetched, why would Iran allow Iraq to become stable oil-producing power again if they can help it.

---

Because if Iraq retains its weak Shia majority government (so neatly installed by the US invasion) its oil effectively belongs to Iran.

Iran wants a Shia puppet government in Iraq. The insurgency is Sunni, and Americans are being killed by Sunnis. The Sunnis hate Iran.

If the Sunni insurgency is being armed externally, it is by Syria and Saudi Arabian interests in a desperate attempt to counter Shia ascendancy.

Iran is certainly meddling in Iraq, but it is to arm and strengthen the Shia militias that underpin al-Maliki's government. Even then they're not going too far, as al-Sadr for one is not particularly pro-Iranian. They want pliable puppets on the border, not heavily armed jihadists.

The invasion of Iraq was a dream come true for Iranian foreign policy. They have no interest in prolonging the US occupation, for the moment the Americans leave, they have a new oil-rich province and an ancient foe neutered. This is exactly what Bush senior was told the first time round - the difference being, he listened. This is exactly what the Iraq Study Group noted, and suggested it might be a good thing for this to happen with some degree of US input by negotiating with Iran.

Everybody knows it but Shrub.

To me it seems entirely plausible that Iran could have been funding terrorists.

a) They hate America
b) They are geographically in a position to fund anti American violence and weapons.
c) Imagine you are Ahmaddinajeed (or however his name is spelt); why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

To me it seems entirely plausible that Iran could have been funding terrorists.

a) They hate America
b) They are geographically in a position to fund anti American violence and weapons.
c) Imagine you are Ahmaddinajeed (or however his name is spelt); why not?

---

Sir, your job in the White House awaits you. You may have to dumb your reasoning down a bit though. The case was made after (a). (b) and (c) may confuse the president, especially as they contain long words like "geographically"

Found a few firecrackers

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums....php?p=2302000

Excellent Fragony.

Look, there's more:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...iraqweapon.gif

This is so weak it's just appalling.

White House needs to pull the finger out and start making up convincing evidence if it wants to be believed, or at least employ authors who understand the local situation.

This is quite a good explanation of it all I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Well it's not that far fetched, why would Iran allow Iraq to become stable oil-producing power again if they can help it.

---

That is true.
As long the Americans are here and suffer losses it suits Iranian foreign policy perfectly.
Besides a democratic (Sunni or Shia) country with autonomous Kurdish region can only cause more problems to the theocratic rulers.

The same case with Northern Korean support for HR fighters in Southern Korea - as long as they are against the enemy government they are 'good guys' whatever they preach.

It is so old trick that I am suprised anyone finds it strange...:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Hmm, how to put this in terms that the White House will understand?

:idea2:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Boy Who Cried Wolf

There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, "Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!"

The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they found no wolf. The boy laughed at the sight of their angry faces.

"Don't cry 'wolf', shepherd boy," said the villagers, "when there's no wolf!" They went grumbling back down the hill.

Later, the boy sang out again, "Wolf! Wolf! The wolf is chasing the sheep!" To his naughty delight, he watched the villagers run up the hill to help him drive the wolf away.

When the villagers saw no wolf they sternly said, "Save your frightened song for when there is really something wrong! Don't cry 'wolf' when there is NO wolf!"

But the boy just grinned and watched them go grumbling down the hill once more.

Later, he saw a REAL wolf prowling about his flock. Alarmed, he leaped to his feet and sang out as loudly as he could, "Wolf! Wolf!"

But the villagers thought he was trying to fool them again, and so they didn't come.

At sunset, everyone wondered why the shepherd boy hadn't returned to the village with their sheep. They went up the hill to find the boy. They found him weeping.

"There really was a wolf here! The flock has scattered! I cried out, "Wolf!" Why didn't you come?"

An old man tried to comfort the boy as they walked back to the village.

"We'll help you look for the lost sheep in the morning," he said, putting his arm around the youth, "Nobody believes a liar...even when he is telling the truth!"

---

You're assuming that they understand parables...:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Found a few firecrackers

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums....php?p=2302000

---

What makes me really curious about those firecrackers is that Iran would give firecrackers to terrorists/freedom fighters/insurgents/guys who need anger therapy and write "recently produced by Iran, contains really bad high explosives" onto them in english.:inquisitive:

On a sidenote, the dates are xx.xx.2006, isn't it something around xx.xx.1000 or so in Islam and with Iran being an islamic state, wouldn't they use islamic dates?

"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources.
These are not assertions .
What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.''
:embarassed:

Quote:

---

Besides a democratic (Sunni or Shia) country with autonomous Kurdish region can only cause more problems to the theocratic rulers.

---

How so , the person who has most influence with Shia voters is linked to tehrans theocrats , and Sadr would not dare to oppenly oppose him or his "recommendations" on how people should democratically vote .
Likewise in the Kurdish region , Iran holds the winning cards there , it is their party and their militia that is dominant , an example of which would be the Kurdish elements in the Iraqi army refusing to deploy for the "surge:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: "action against the Shia militias .

Anyhow , damn you Banquo :thumbsdown: I was waiting for one of the bushyworld fantasy apologists to start a topic on this .

The Iranian army is about 100 times as strong as the Iraqi. Besides it will rain rockets on Israel. Next to that I think most Arabian country will stop supporting the USA.

Even Bush isn't that stupid ... I hope

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Look, I'm as much of a fan of practical jokes as the next man, but one really needs to be a bit more original when the first one falls so flat.

It appears the fantasy-mongers in the White House are beginning again by fabricating evidence against Iran. Why they think Iran would be arming the largely Sunni insurgency escapes me, but maybe "think" in this context is the wrong verb.

Don't you just love the new designation for roadside bombs: "Explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs)! What repressed policy wonk came up with that one? :laugh4:

Are even the die-hard apologists for Bushyworld going to buy this line?

---

Wow, what a horribly one-sided article. :no:
It's pretty frightening when the American MSM is giving a fairer presentation than the article you've posted.

Incidentally, no one is claiming Iran is arming Sunni insurgents- they're claiming it's Shiite militias, such as the Mahdi Army. Also, EFP isn't a new designation for the same old IEDs- EFPs are designed to penetrate the current crop of up armored HMVs and kill the occupants with fragments of the armor/shell. They're now re-armoring HMVs with more flexible armor designed to absorb the EFP without sending fragments into the cabin.

Does anyone actually believe anything that comes out of the White House (or Downing Street for that matter) these days?

I bet half the employees in said institutions dont believe most of it.

The thing that worries me is that the persons in these top jobs actually believe the daily flow of garbage that they send out into the world.

Quote:

---

Does anyone actually believe anything that comes out of the White House (or Downing Street for that matter) these days?

---

Well thats a hard one Lancelot .
Perhaps you could note the post above yours .
An sample of its wooly thinking is.....

Quote:

---

Incidentally, no one is claiming Iran is arming Sunni insurgents- they're claiming it's Shiite militias, such as the Mahdi Army.

---

.......hmmmm the mahdi army ....errrr that would be the mahdi army that is in conflict with the Badr brigades........ummmmm the badr brigades would be the ones from Iran who are were armed and trained in errrrrrr......Iran . So Iran is arming a militia that its militia is fighting to disarm .
Blimey them Iranians must be really bloody stupid , they are arming the very people that they are trying to get rid of :juggle2:
Do you think they could get a job as an advisor to Bush :laugh4:

Hey anyone notice from the photo "evidence" the items from the Diwaniyah operation ? An operation where the Coilition forces, the Iraqi army and the Badr brigades acted together against the Mahdi army .:yes:

Rambo III was on TV last night. That is the one with our beloved John Rambo in Afghanistan. I sincerely hoped that just for irony's sake God was watching it too. Or someone in the White House.

As of this one, well, fair enough. It is plausible that Iran could be arming insurgents, but then again, they will sell weapons to whoever buys them, just as everyone else. And it is hypocritical to accuse them of doing so.

Thing is, it seems like Uncle Sam has his hands full with the already occupied middle Eastern countries. Adding another one to the list would be anything but intelligent. How many more thousands of soldiers will be needed? For how long? and who will be supplying the bombs next? Syria? Pakistan? Kazakhstan?

[QUOTE=Tribesman]

Quote:

---

How so , the person who has most influence with Shia voters is linked to tehrans theocrats , and Sadr would not dare to oppenly oppose him or his "recommendations" on how people should democratically vote .

---

There are other Shia factions.

Quote:

---

Likewise in the Kurdish region , Iran holds the winning cards there , it is their party and their militia that is dominant ,

---

The same party had exactly the same power in 2003. Nothing has changed really. They try to stay away from the entire mess.

Quote:

---

Kurdish elements in the Iraqi army refusing to deploy for the "surge:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: "action against the Shia militias

---

.

I think it is more based on the older Kurdish stance towards the entire internal conflict - they do not like to move from their autonomous territory



BTW I remember reading about Iran supplying anything anti-American in Iraq as far as 2003 - so what is new in those news ?
NOTHING

Besides the assumption that Iran wants or even needs any form of lasting peace in Iraq is based on what actually ?

If it is over. Iran will only lose from that - what do they have to gain ? More active US policy ? Cheaper oil ? Some shaky belief Iraq will adopt theocratic system ?

Kick the US in Iraq without any danger to yourself - pretty obvious they would like to do so and I CAN BET THEY DO.

But as I said before it is NOTHING NEW, but obviously is used now not just for annual Iran bashing (it deserves actually).:yes:

Give you one reason I'd beleive it. Isreal. Plain and simple. Iran knows that Bush has a VERY pro-Isreal policy, and the prez of Iran is an anti-semetic lunatic. (no offence to any of his fans on this board)
Banquo, you amuse me sometimes. :)

It would be an unmitigated disaster for us to get into open warfare with Iran. It would be the one thing that could unite the entire Muslim world. Arab, Persian, Malay and Bosnian would have but one thought: the destruction of the United States. Sure, we could probably take Iran, if we had to, but there's no way we could take the entire North African coast, Nigeria and other parts of internal Africa, the Middle East, possibly Turkey, and all the Southeast Asian states. And even if it looked like we might be starting to, Russia and China aren't going to just sit back and watch us take over 1/3 of the world's land mass, including 95% of the world's oil reserves.

I could be wrong, but I sincerely hope, and actually really do believe, that the Bush administration realizes just how true my first statement is.

I think the Bush administration is trying to change the topic: from how bad things are going in Iraq (and hence why he might need to cut some deals with the new Democratic congress that will infuratiate conservatives). Get the religious right and the fiscal conservatives worried about a brewing war with Iran and they won't notice the old switcheroo where abortion is now federally funded healthcare and the tax cuts are repealed, retroactive to 2001 (OUCH!)

The White House needs to be very, very careful. It would be very easy for things to escelate well beyond what they actually intended in shorter time than they can diffuse them. They're not going to be able to do a direct face-losing mea culpa, so diplomacy will be limited, at best.

How to make history repeat itself...

Quote:

---

Give you one reason I'd beleive it. Isreal. Plain and simple. Iraq knows that Bush has a VERY pro-Isreal policy, and the prez of Iraq is an anti-semetic lunatic.

---

...all it take is a single letter .

I say we nuke them.

Washington Post's take...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100479_pf.html

The anonymity of the sources is not helping the cause, if they want to drum up support. But, hey, SLAM DUNK! ~;)

Quote:

---

Marshal Murat


I say we nuke them.

---

I thought that 'Jericho' isn't back untill the 14th :laugh4:

And this from the country supplying Iraq against Iran not so long ago. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Give you one reason I'd beleive it. Isreal. Plain and simple. Iran knows that Bush has a VERY pro-Isreal policy, and the prez of Iran is an anti-semetic lunatic. (no offence to any of his fans on this board)
Banquo, you amuse me sometimes. :)

---

Anti-semitic, yes, but a lunatic? Misguided certainly, but to be in charge of Iran and to stay in that position he must be at the very least intelligent and most probably scrupulously sane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by You

Look, I'm as much of a fan of practical jokes as the next man, but one really needs to be a bit more original when the first one falls so flat.

It appears the fantasy-mongers in the White House are beginning again by fabricating evidence against Iran. Why they think Iran would be arming the largely Sunni insurgency escapes me, but maybe "think" in this context is the wrong verb.

Don't you just love the new designation for roadside bombs: "Explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs)! What repressed policy wonk came up with that one? :laugh4:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article

Senior US defence officials in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they believed the bombs were manufactured in Iran and smuggled across the border to Shia militants in Iraq. The weapons, identified as "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs) are said to be capable of destroying an Abrams tank.

---

Shame. We expect better from you, and your presentation was poor. I'll read the rest of the thread and may revise my comment.

Note the distinct lack of smilies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

And this from the country supplying Iraq against Iran not so long ago. :laugh4:

Anti-semitic, yes, but a lunatic? Misguided certainly, but to be in charge of Iran and to stay in that position he must be at the very least intelligent and most probably scrupulously sane.

---

Your faith is endearing. :sweatdrop:

""We need the government of Iraq to assert itself and make it very clear to the government of Iran that it doesn't want outside interference".
".
Some good words there by one of the anonymous experts , unfortunately it is ironic that the person saying those words is "outside interference" himself , And the government of Iran does want his "outside interference" in Iraq because it is costing him a fortune and making him look like a pathetic fool while at the same time strengthening the mullahs .

Iran accused of supplying Iraqi Shias Militants

Here's the article on the same story in my local paper.

Quote:

---

Geoffrey S And this from the country supplying Iraq against Iran not so long ago.

---

Lets not forget the other countries involved in supplying both sides with weapons in that one, shall we.

Surely Iraq that is not stable:

a) Makes it not a threat to Iran.
b) Puts up the oil price, which makes Iran and the rest of OPEC richer.

An Iraq that is stable:

a) Is not a threat to Iran.
b) Puts up the oil price as it joins the OPEC cartel.

An Iraq that is a stable puppet state:

a) Is a threat to Iran as it may be used as an example/base of operations.
b) Pushes down the oil prices as some of the main users get it at discount prices through their companies that have unusually favourable oil contracts. Which upsets Iran and the rest of OPEC.

Iraq being a poster boy for regime change is not just bad for Iran it would be terrible for the majority of the middle east. It would be even worse if the cost of money and people was less... a cheap change would make even SA look affordable...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

Iran accused of supplying Iraqi Shias Militants

Here's the article on the same story in my local paper.

Lets not forget the other countries involved in supplying both sides with weapons in that one, shall we.

---

I suspect, if you look at sheer volume of resources, the US might be one of the largest contributors to the insurgency. IIRC 12 billion dollars are unaccounted for in the last few years, and how much of that has been skimmed off by insurgency sympathisers? Given most of the violence has come from the Sunnis whom the Iranians hate, embezzled American money may well have killed more American soldiers in total than Iranian money.

The sad thing is that even if it is true, all credibility has been lost. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Your faith is endearing. :sweatdrop:

---

For a supposedly insane person he's playing a very tidy game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

Lets not forget the other countries involved in supplying both sides with weapons in that one, shall we.

---

Never do. But those other countries aren't the ones levelling the accusations right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Shame. We expect better from you, and your presentation was poor. I'll read the rest of the thread and may revise my comment.

Note the distinct lack of smilies.

---

Shoot the messenger, Vlad? :beam:

Anyway, perhaps by now you have read my second post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

Iran is certainly meddling in Iraq, but it is to arm and strengthen the Shia militias that underpin al-Maliki's government. Even then they're not going too far, as al-Sadr for one is not particularly pro-Iranian. They want pliable puppets on the border, not heavily armed jihadists.

---

It's not (in the main) the Shia militias that are killing American troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

You're assuming that they understand parables...:inquisitive:

---

Well, they 'understand' the parable of the talents. :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Shoot the messenger, Vlad? :beam:

Anyway, perhaps by now you have read my second post:

It's not (in the main) the Shia militias that are killing American troops.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Shoot the messenger, Vlad? :beam:

Anyway, perhaps by now you have read my second post:



It's not (in the main) the Shia militias that are killing American troops.

---

No, it's that you launched into a crude attack, citing a biased source, didn't check your facts, and are ignoring history. Besides, is it a numbers game with you? “In the main”? The article, and these weapons, focus on hard targets (armor) and not open air markets. You’re suggesting that because the death toll isn’t high enough that it’s not important.

Either you didn’t read the article of you merely skimmed over it just to reinforce some malevolent, preconceived notion. Do you expect us to believe that you don’t know the difference between Shia and Sunni? I suppose you’re proud of your fine English heritage then.

Fantasy-mongers? Uninformed and trite. I suppose many of the soldiers patrolling Baghdad are also fantasy mongers. If you were paying attention this issue or had done your :idea2: research you’d know that this has been going on for a while. If you also knew your history on the “fabricated” intelligence, you’d know that it’s the same evidence used and vetted around the world and, yes, confirmed by members of the opposition party here (to include the previous administration). Gotcha politics are cheap and this is a large, seperate subject.

Trust me, there are plenty of other things that this administration deserves to be lampooned on, but this has wrong written all over it.

Crude, uninformed, and trite. Before you take offense consider this as a sign of respect and yourself as a mortally wounded victim of your own success. It’s like you’re trying to fence while high on PCP :duel: . My God, I was so traumatized that I had to read it three times to make sure I wasn't the one on drugs.

Quote:

---

If you were paying attention this issue or had done your research you’d know that this has been going on for a while.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: What bollox you cite "evidence" that is from a newpaper report about information given to them from the same source :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: the same thouroughly discredited source:oops:

Quote:

---

No, it's that you launched into a crude attack, citing a biased source, didn't check your facts, and are ignoring history.

---

Errrrrr......no , that would be an accurate description of the current adminisration Vladimir .

Quote:

---

Fantasy-mongers? Uninformed and trite. I suppose many of the soldiers patrolling Baghdad are also fantasy mongers.

---

~:doh:
No:whip: havn't you realised yet it is the muppets who sent the soldiers to Baghdad who are the fantasy mongers .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by General arguement

To me it seems entirely plausible that Iran could have been funding terrorists.

---

Oh yes!!! I forgot the old prevemptive strike theory.

Look we've some strong assumptions that you may be X so we're going to invade you just in case.

EDIT: That seems totally plausible too...

Invade no, interdict yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

Invade no, interdict yes.

---

Hasn't this passed the point of interdiction? Besides, what are they going to interdict exactly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

Invade no, interdict yes.

---

If you want to prevent the militias getting weapons, sending a few accountants out there to keep track of the money you're handing out will probably be more effective than sending an aircraft carrier to bomb Iran. Does cost effectiveness, or even plain vanilla effectiveness, not enter the calculations?

Watch out for stories linking Iran with the Nazis in days to come. They tried it last year with the yellow ribbons, but that was exposed as a fake within hours. The usual stable of neocon mouthpieces will again link Israeli security with the need for American aggression, with dissenters shouted down as anti-semites. I only hope we will be out of there by then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Iran is certainly meddling in Iraq, but it is to arm and strengthen the Shia militias that underpin al-Maliki's government. Even then they're not going too far, as al-Sadr for one is not particularly pro-Iranian. They want pliable puppets on the border, not heavily armed jihadists.

---

al-Sadr seems pretty cozy with Iran to me...

Anti-American cleric flees Iraq for Iran

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

WASHINGTON - Anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr fled
Iraq for Iran ahead of a security crackdown in Baghdad and the arrival of 21,500 U.S. troops sent by
President Bush to quell sectarian violence, a senior U.S. official said Tuesday.

Al-Sadr left his Baghdad stronghold some weeks ago, the official said, and is believed to be in Tehran, where he has family. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss U.S. monitoring activities, said fractures in al-Sadr's political and militia operations may be part of the reason for his departure. The move is not believed to be permanent, the official said.

Word of al-Sadr's departure coincides with an announcement that Iraq will close its borders with Iran and
Syria for 72 hours as part of the drive to end the violence that has threatened to divide the capital along sectarian lines.

The U.S. official said it is not clear how firmly the radical Shiite cleric is controlling his organization and the associated Mahdi Army militia from exile.

"The question for us is to what extent his organization is going to participate in the political process," the official said, referring to al-Sadr's on-again, off-again relationship with the fragile democratic government in Baghdad.

Al-Sadr's departure was reported by several television networks Tuesday.

Al-Sadr's militia is widely seen as the main threat to Iraq's unity and high on the list of targets for the Baghdad security operation.

A ragtag but highly motivated militia that fought U.S. forces twice in 2004, the Mahdi Army is blamed for much of the sectarian strife shaking Iraq since a Shiite shrine was bombed by Sunni militants a year ago. U.S. officials have for months pressed Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to move against the militia, but he has so far done little to comply, largely because he does not want to lose al-Sadr's support.

Al-Sadr rose from obscurity in the aftermath of the ouster of
Saddam Hussein to lead a movement of young, underprivileged Iraqis united by opposition to U.S. military presence as well as hunger for Shiite domination.

The cleric, who is in his mid-30s, is a master of street politics, and his young lieutenants can rally tens of thousands of protesters at short notice. Once wanted in the 2003 killing of a key cleric, al-Sadr gained much influence when his parliamentary bloc of 30 of 275 deputies was instrumental in al-Maliki's election.

Dismissed by older Shiite politicians as a dangerous upstart, al-Sadr set up the Mahdi Army militia in 2003. It is suspected of being behind the abduction and murder of thousands of Sunnis in what are known as death squad killings.

Two key members of al-Sadr's political and military organization were gunned down last week, the latest of as many as seven key figures in the al-Sadr organization killed or captured in the past two months.

The deaths and captures came after al-Maliki, also a Shiite, dropped his protection for the organization.

Shiite leaders insist that the Shiite militias flourished because the U.S. and its allies could not protect civilians. They say if the Sunni insurgents were crushed, the threat from Shiite hard-liners would go away.

Shiite politicians have long maintained that Sunni militants pose a greater threat to Iraq's stability. Thousands of Shiite civilians have been killed in bombings and suicide attacks carried out by al-Qaida in Iraq and other Sunni groups.

Thousands regularly cross the porous Iraq-Iran border, and Iran has been a popular destination for elite Shiite Iraq exiles. In Saddam's time those exiles included al-Maliki, who like other educated and politically active Shiites feared for his safety in Iraq.

Iran's hand in Iraq is not a question, its a fact. However all these sources seemed to omit the administration expressing its faith in the Iranian leadership in its efforts to stop these flow of arms. The sounds bytes of this were dropped from most news channels over here because it didn't make for exciting and controversial news.

Something else nobody wants to pony up to is Iran's long term goals with Syria and Lebanon. There were published and confirmed intelligence reports for years before the mess in Iraq about Iran's Middle East strategy. Iranian Clerics and government officials were upset with 9/11, not because of it occurring, but because of the timetable and its delivery without proper warnings (the proper warnings being debated between the camps on a regular basis, but basically shadow to forgo the substance). However, this has also resulted in an added benefit as seen in the invasion of Iraq and the turmoil and violence that not only tarnishes US diplomatic currency(not based on reality, but on the global marketing of the conflict) but they know when Iraq does stabilize itself, it will have a shia majority making their goals with Syria that much easier to obtain. The aim has been and will continue to be the destruction of Israel. Any argument to the contrary is ignorant.

The U.S. and its current administration is not saber rattling and itching for a fight with Iran. Iran knows where we stand on the important issues, there is no doubt here and Iran knows that if it came to armed conflict the war in Iran would be a very different thing than the war in Iraq. The U.S. doesn't want this and Iran doesn't want this. It flies in the face of both agendas. Of course we'll see both sides at times step out of box to earn diplomatic currency, but thats it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

al-Sadr seems pretty cozy with Iran to me...

---

Muqtada has shown that he can get cosy with anyone, even the Saudi king, when the situation calls for it.


Anyway, I wonder, did he run from the Americans or the Deraa faction of his own militia?

Quote:

---

al-Sadr seems pretty cozy with Iran to me...

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Yes it seems to you , based on a newsarticle that cites what an anonymous source beleves may be possible:inquisitive:
I take it that it seems you pretty much ignore named sources that place him in Najaf then .:yes:
I wonder which one turns out to be correct .

Interesting post there Shadehonestus , so you link the shia clerics in Iran with the wahabi al-Qaida , then claim that the damage that the fiasco in Iraq has done to America and her diplomatic credibility is not based on reality .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Interesting post there Shadehonestus , so you link the shia clerics in Iran with the wahabi al-Qaida , then claim that the damage that the fiasco in Iraq has done to America and her diplomatic credibility is not based on reality .

---

A proverb of the region says, "My brother against my brother, but both of us against our cousin."
This has been seen and played out numerous times when dealing with any threat, big or small, religious or secular in the region and especially in their dealings with the west and Israel. The damage done to American diplomatic credibility would have to be based on something new for it to be a reality, therefore a stage provided for old and well known prejudice and ethnocentric ideas (on both sides) to be seen in all its glory does not represent this. Plainly stated, was anyone surprised by the U.S. action's in the Middle East or by the reaction in the Middle East? Sure officials will state surprise, religious leaders will act affronted by the other's rhetoric, but to believe that anything in this conflict represents unknown characteristics is very odd.

Quote:

---

"My brother against my brother, but both of us against our cousin."

---

Isn't that the same "idea" that they used to link Saddam and Al-Qaida .

Quote:

---

The damage done to American diplomatic credibility would have to be based on something new for it to be a reality, therefore a stage provided for old and well known prejudice and ethnocentric ideas (on both sides) to be seen in all its glory does not represent this. Plainly stated, was anyone surprised by the U.S. action's in the Middle East or by the reaction in the Middle East?

---

Ah I see , you limit the scope of the damage to Americas credibilty to the region of the middle east . OK what about the damge it has inflicted to the credibilty wordwide , or even at home ?
You will have noticed yesterday that Republicans were challenging the Secrateary of State on the claims being made and the President himself distanced himself slightly from what the the experts had actually said .

Iran supporting the sunni militia in Iraq is not a casus belli for Bush. If it were true - which I won't speculate about - it's just another demonstration of the lunacy that the war in Iraq is. So if somebody interferes with that war - invade that country too? Quite undisciplined, like a line of infantry breaking ranks to chase horse archers...

Supplying Iraqi militia with arms isn't a casus belli for attacking Iran, since Bush didn't at all discuss the invasion of Iraq, Iran's neighbor, with Iran before carrying out the operation. The Iraq invasion has severely damaged Iran by the mass export of cheap oil from Iraq, as well as risks of the unrest spreading into Iran, as well as refugees from Iraq heading to Iran. Furthermore, Bush has worked for UN sanctions and trade embargoes against Iran. And since because of Bush's pressure and threats nobody dares to listen to Iran in the UN, I don't see how any Iranian leader could have any other options but these two:
- do nothing, wait for the Bush army to recover from the occupation war defeat in Iraq and get ready for a new assault operation, then attack Iran after fabricating evidence against Iran
- try to wear down the Bush army in Iraq and slow down the redirection of the Bush army towards Iran. Bush has made clear that once he has either won or given up in Iraq, he will try to move the Bush army to attack Iran as his next target. Supplying the militia with weapons is the only option of doing this. Given the Bush position previously to the war in Iraq, and during the war in Iraq, this wouldn't be a casus belli for Bush

Just for balance , can we hear some condemnation for the foriegn support to terrorists operating out of Iraq , Pakistan and Afghanistan who are attacking Iran ?
Or doesn't it work like that in some peoples minds when they want to condemn one party only and only want to condemn one sort of terrorist/freedom fighter ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Just for balance , can we hear some condemnation for the foriegn support to terrorists operating out of Iraq , Pakistan and Afghanistan who are attacking Iran ?

---

Sure, how naughty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Isn't that the same "idea" that they used to link Saddam and Al-Qaida

---

Hell, it's the reason we funded the lads in Afghanistan for a long time.

So someone got hold of the US military's plans for Iraq.

I'm surprised it's turned out as well as it has done really.

Even if they hadn't completely dismantled the civil service and the Iraqi army (now widely considered mistakes), a 5,000 strong garrison by the end of 2006 would be incredibly optimistic.

I realize that this "prognosis" was abandoned well before the invasion, but to think that several US generals could be so stupid to hope for this...sad.

Quote:

---

Hell, it's the reason we funded the lads in Afghanistan for a long time.

---

Errrrr. but when they used that "logic" to "prove" their case in the example I used it turned out to be bollox didn't it .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Isn't that the same "idea" that they used to link Saddam and Al-Qaida .

---

There was never a direct link purported to be between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, even though officals did meet and refuge was given at times by the Iraqi governemnt, that is a fact, even though the two groups of people were odds. The issued link was between Saddam and terrorism, that is a fact beyond reproach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Ah I see , you limit the scope of the damage to Americas credibilty to the region of the middle east . OK what about the damge it has inflicted to the credibilty wordwide , or even at home ?
You will have noticed yesterday that Republicans were challenging the Secrateary of State on the claims being made and the President himself distanced himself slightly from what the the experts had actually said .

---

No, I speak worldwide. Is there any global reaction that that cannot be understood in context and motive? If you think the reactions over the middle east are about the middle east, well you would have made a sucker in the days of swooning women. Whenever anything takes place countries line up either in the U.N. or in front of the news cameras to score points in the name of everything but that issue. To sit there and claim that those countries who expressed dissapointment at the Iraq war did and do so out of a stance of principal would demonstrate a great deal of Naïveté. The reality of those reactions has been pretty empty other than the U.S.'s distaste for french fries which lasted a week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

You will have noticed yesterday that Republicans were challenging the Secrateary of State on the claims being made and the President himself distanced himself slightly from what the the experts had actually said .

---

It's 2007 and can you guess what is just around the corner? That's right, its going to be time for all those cabinet members and aids to dust off their resume's political and professional. The issues of Iran are not shocking enough where polics only favors in the affirmative. There is going to be plenty of berth given to any such issue. Even the democratic presidential candidates can backpedal on their own previously stated views on the hill itself, even those who were privy to same intelligences as the president all along, because its an election year and its time to sow the seeds that will bring forth the fruits of votes and/or staff employment.

You will also notice that the Korean deal that came down was also hotly crticized by the President's own party as the same failed deal done by the Clinton administration. Why? RE: politics 101

Quote:

---

There was never a direct link purported to be between Saddam and Al-Qaeda,

---

Really , so George Bush didn't stand up and say in a rather big speech that they had aided trained and harboured Al-Qaida ?
Would you like that speech or would you like one from rummy or cheney where they also didn't make those claims ?:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

There was never a direct link purported to be between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, even though officals did meet and refuge was given at times by the Iraqi governemnt, that is a fact, even though the two groups of people were odds. The issued link was between Saddam and terrorism, that is a fact beyond reproach.

---

It's also a fact beyond reproach that other countries have had far stronger links with anti-US terrorism than Iraq. However, Iraq, Iran and Syria are targeted because they've said bad things about Israel, while Saudi Arabia and Pakistan remain US allies because they are guilty of far less heinous crimes, such as providing the majority of the crews, funding and training for the 9/11 attackers.

It always bedazzles me why American patriots are willing to overlook the culprits of attacks on their homeland, while justifying punitive action against countries that Israel isn't fond of. For instance, what are you currently doing about Osama Bin Laden?

Quote:

---

It always bedazzles me why American patriots are willing to overlook the culprits of attacks on their homeland, while justifying punitive action against countries that Israel isn't fond of. For instance, what are you currently doing about Osama Bin Laden?

---

:juggle2: Dodedodedo :juggle2:
It bedazzles me even more how they can forget what their leaders claimed , and forget that they had a big commitee looking at what had been claimed who decided that their claims were of the large testicular variety which were based mainly on false information fed to them by the Iranian regime .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Really , so George Bush didn't stand up and say in a rather big speech that they had aided trained and harboured Al-Qaida ?
Would you like that speech or would you like one from rummy or cheney where they also didn't make those claims?

---

The over playing of this fact was never in question by those Americans who could look at fact and not grab and hang on sond bytes, that is to what I'm referring. The real information in and out of D.C. at the time proves this out. Cheney himself admitted to overplaying this in speeches as did the white house spokesman. The fact remains that there was a relationship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

It's also a fact beyond reproach that other countries have had far stronger links with anti-US terrorism than Iraq.

---

This is without question

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

However, Iraq, Iran and Syria are targeted because they've said bad things about Israel...

---

They've done more than "say bad things" about Israel, don't lessen your points by false injections. The fact is that Iran and Syria's backing of terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah present a constant and long lasting threat. Hezbollah targets U.S. because of our support for Israel. It could be said that Hezbollah is the "best" terrorist organization in the world with Al-Qaeda being a very distant second.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

...while Saudi Arabia and Pakistan remain US allies because they are guilty of far less heinous crimes, such as providing the majority of the crews, funding and training for the 9/11 attackers.

---

Not to mention that these two countries have been a constant breeding ground for radical muslim clerics. There is a very disctinct difference here which has to be understood. The regimes in Saudi and Pakistan have both pledged to crack down on the terrorists in their midsts and have done so accordingly to a degree and they do not represent "state funded" terrorism, at least in the present. However both of their reigns are not as stable as needed to go the whole 9 yards, but they do cooperate as far as they can. We would like to see Saudi and Pakistan to be able to make the policy changes necessary to be stronger allies. The terrorist activities by Syria and Iran are of an entire different cookie, these are states directly funding terrorism and yes Iraq and Saddam directly funded terrorism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

It always bedazzles me why American patriots are willing to overlook the culprits of attacks on their homeland, while justifying punitive action against countries that Israel isn't fond of.

---

Yep, thats right, Syria beat Israel in a soccer game and they've held a grudge ever since then. I'm sorry but the stakes go far beyond "fondness."

"For instance, what are you currently doing about Osama Bin Laden?"

The CIA is currently building $20 hammers for $50,000 apiece to see what they can do.

Quote:

---

The over playing of this fact was never in question by those Americans who could look at fact and not grab and hang on sond bytes, that is to what I'm referring. The real information in and out of D.C. at the time proves this out. Cheney himself admitted to overplaying this in speeches as did the white house spokesman.

---

Hold on didn't you just say ........There was never a direct link purported to be between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, :yes: I mean come on you could at least have let me give you quotes spanning the 2002-2005 period from Bush Cheney and Rummy before you folded .~;)

Quote:

---

The fact remains that there was a relationship.

---

Errrrrr...what was it the commitee decided was the actual fact ?

They decided it was bollox didn't they , so if they decided after reviewing all the available information that it was bollox then how on earth can you still claim it remains a fact ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Hold on didn't you just say ........There was never a direct link purported to be between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, :yes: I mean come on you could at least have let me give you quotes spanning the 2002-2005 period from Bush Cheney and Rummy before you folded .~;)

---

Tell me what you define as link? I'm referring to 9/11 when i state they were overplayed, Bush retracted cheney's statements about al qaeda and Iraq cooperation on 9/11. However a relationship existed through communication, haven, and even medical treatment for al qaeda operatives. Zarqawi inside Iraq had cooperated with Al Qaeda although thought to be autonomous in targets and missions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

They decided it was bollox didn't they , so if they decided after reviewing all the available information that it was bollox then how on earth can you still claim it remains a fact ?

---

Committe? Are you talking about the Senate Armed Services Committee? They said there was a link. Are you talking about the 9/11 commission? lmao Have you read that? Have you read the public hearing minutes? Better yet did you read the minutes before you read the report? lol Did you bother to investigate the time Richard Clarke was given to the topic of Iraq? lol come on...

I'm not understanding exactly what your point or agenda is here.
Everything American is bad unless it fits your world view? If thats the case I'm afraid we disagree.

America shouldn't have gone into Iraq? Well on that point we would agree, but I believe we came about that view differently.

If your point is that our dealings with the Iraq situation should make our foreign policies and intelligences null and moot, well that sounds like somebody looking to take a stab at the U.S. given any opportunity. From what motivation I have no idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

They've done more than "say bad things" about Israel, don't lessen your points by false injections. The fact is that Iran and Syria's backing of terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah present a constant and long lasting threat. Hezbollah targets U.S. because of our support for Israel. It could be said that Hezbollah is the "best" terrorist organization in the world with Al-Qaeda being a very distant second.

---

And how does that affect US interests? As has been shown with the IRA in the past, the US has historically turned a blind eye to or even supported terrorist organisations that only attack its allies, not itself. So what's different about Hezbollah? When did Hezbollah target the US?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

Not to mention that these two countries have been a constant breeding ground for radical muslim clerics. There is a very disctinct difference here which has to be understood. The regimes in Saudi and Pakistan have both pledged to crack down on the terrorists in their midsts and have done so accordingly to a degree and they do not represent "state funded" terrorism, at least in the present. However both of their reigns are not as stable as needed to go the whole 9 yards, but they do cooperate as far as they can. We would like to see Saudi and Pakistan to be able to make the policy changes necessary to be stronger allies. The terrorist activities by Syria and Iran are of an entire different cookie, these are states directly funding terrorism and yes Iraq and Saddam directly funded terrorism.

---

And yet the Saudis continue to fund people who attack Americans (they're the main backers of the Sunnis who commit some 75-80% of the violence against US troops in Iraq), while Pakistan continues to be the leading school of radical clerics, would be terrorists, and assorted Muslim nasties. I find it baffling that Americans keep trying to excuse these two countries, while looking for any reason at all to go to war with the Clean Break targets.

Why not be honest about it and admit, you want to bomb some Muslim countries because Israel considers them a threat, while you're afraid of upsetting Saudi and Pakistan because of their oil (not to mention ties to the US ruling class) and their nukes, respectively. Come out of the closet and admit it. At least I'd respect your honesty and openness then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

Yep, thats right, Syria beat Israel in a soccer game and they've held a grudge ever since then. I'm sorry but the stakes go far beyond "fondness."

---

And how is that any business of the US? You're not committing the sin of identifying yourself with a foreign country, are you? If you are that much more concerned about the security of Israel than of the US, why don't you go and become a citizen there? It would certainly be what Washington would have recommended. Why are modern "patriotic" Americans so loathe to listen to the parting advice of Presidents Washington and Eisenhower?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

"For instance, what are you currently doing about Osama Bin Laden?"

The CIA is currently building $20 hammers for $50,000 apiece to see what they can do.

---

What does that mean in practice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

So what's different about Hezbollah? When did Hezbollah target the US?

---

The 1983 Marine Barracks bombing was carried out by Hezbollah and directly funded and approved by Iran.


The rest of your post goes on about some dark conspiracy of Israel and the U.S. wanting to kill Muslims because they are Muslims and the only ones we don't care about killing are those that have oil we want. You go on to claim some generalizations about patriotic Americans and Isolationist ideals. You also ask questions of citizens to admit for the supposed governmental dark conspiracies.

This is all very odd when all I have done is defend fact and not given any political views or patriotic stances. I grew up with many friends from around the world, all of my 5 siblings travelled throughout the middle east. The only country not visited was Iran I believe. They all travelled Europe and South America. Every year we would have new guests from all walks of life and of all religions. A small town (1200 pop) house in the north of Iowa hosted at one time quests who were Muslims, Jews and Orthodox Christian (with our family being Lutheran), just because we enjoyed each others company. I also remember joining the Marine Corps at the age of 17 with all kinds of ideas of our country and how our military might would be best put to use defending the U.S. proper, but also defending its principle by standing up for those that could not stand up for themselves due to brutal and tyrannical regimes (I was an idealist). I remember the day our unit was put on stand by to go to Kuwait because Saddam had once again violated the no fly zone and had positioned troops in the south to basically be an annoyance. I had been following the news closely and had picked up an Issue of Time where they were detailing the horrors in Rwanda. I remember saying to my fire team, "this is where we should be going." The fact we didn't go to do what we could in that region, and later on other regions, while we had a preoccupation on Iraq and partisan politics at home, not to mention a concern over what quasi allies would say, directly made the decision for me not to reenlist.

As far as the relationship between Israel and U.S. is concerned you need to look at the U.N. records and the voting record of the U.S. when concerning Israel. I do not believe there has been a member of the Security Council with a record like ours against Israel. This dates back to 1949 and arms embargo. The progression of the cold war post '62 did see our economic and military aid increase and the reasons are opaque. We voted a number of times against Israel in the UN to this day. I will admit that our language has been much milder since the al-Aqsa intifada which resulted in the most violent period for the region since all out war between Israel and their neighbors.

Now domestically speaking the language in the U.S. is very pro-Israel for the simple reason that a president could not be elected here with a stance of direct opposition to Israel. This is mainly due to the nature of many Christian faiths over here and their relationships to Israel, most notably the fundamental Christians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

And how is that any business of the US? You're not committing the sin of identifying yourself with a foreign country, are you? If you are that much more concerned about the security of Israel than of the US, why don't you go and become a citizen there?

---

I don't know, most people didn't become citizens of the U.K. or France because we opposed secular fascism. Do we need to become Israeli citizens because we oppose Islamic fascism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

As has been shown with the IRA in the past, the US has historically turned a blind eye to or even supported terrorist organizations that only attack its allies, not itself.

---

I would genuinely like you to expand on this regarding the IRA and the US, especially genuine views of anyone from GB during that period. Preferably in an open and candid manner and not inflammatory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

What does that mean in practice?

---

We won't know until we know.


P.S. I'm not of the ruling class despite having a Saudi in my house growing up and I've never received care packages of oil.

Oh I see when you say they never purported a direct link you mean well one bloke made a link but some others said that was rubbish , riggght .So now you have other links by the same people which are not links , but you come up with one link that was put forward which was true ......yep thats when they said some bloke had his leg cut off in Iraq :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: that was a bit of a bugger when they was searching for a one legged nutter who happened to have two legs:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Committe? Are you talking about the Senate Armed Services Committee? They said there was a link.

---

Ummmmmmmm .....how do the words possible ,tenuous , and of doubtful credibility strike you ?:idea2:

Quote:

---

I'm not understanding exactly what your point or agenda is here.

---

Well that is quite simple isn't it ,the topic is claims being made by the US regarding terrorism and the middle-east , the point is (in case you hadn't noticed ) that there is a big history of bullmanure regarding the credibility of Americas claims in that field .

Quote:

---

Everything American is bad unless it fits your world view? If thats the case I'm afraid we disagree.

---

Errrrrrr....thats rather pathetic isn't it , you really must try harder .

Quote:

---

America shouldn't have gone into Iraq? Well on that point we would agree, but I believe we came about that view differently.

---

Well that depends , when did you realise it was a mistake and how did you form that view ?

Quote:

---

If your point is that our dealings with the Iraq situation should make our foreign policies and intelligences null and moot, well that sounds like somebody looking to take a stab at the U.S. given any opportunity.

---

Nope , it doesn't make it null , it just makes it very questionable and worthy of very close examination , but some people have once again swallowed it without a second thought .
Who knows maybe the boy crying wolf really is under lupine threat this time , but the villagers are rightly sceptical about the cries .
There's an old saying down in Texas ...or was it Florida ...fool me once ........shame on .....ummmmm....fool me twice.......errrr we won't get fooled again:laugh4:

But hey one quick additional question regarding......

Quote:

---

It's 2007 and can you guess what is just around the corner?

---

....Bush isn't up for re-election , so that doesn't explain his backtracking on some of what the experts put forward does it .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well that depends , when did you realize it was a mistake and how did you form that view ?

---

As soon as the rhetoric for going in began to accumulate. I told a professor I worked with at the time that going in would be a terrible mistake as our goals were defined and even taking into account goals which had not yet been defined. Militarily objectives as facilitated by the strategy were not feasible in our political climate and that of Iraq. They weren't impossible, they just aren't feasible without all the problems we are seeing now. You don't go to war unless you can unleash hell on clearly defined enemies in which defeating them grants you completed objectives. In short if you don't have the moral authority to wage all out war the moral authority to go to war will take more fire than the troops on the ground.

How many coalition casualties to date? I think its close to 3128 over almost 4 years, 130 British, and 150ish belonging to the rest. D-Day casualties, one day alone, 2500 total for the allies. Over 400,000 total for WW2 concerning the U.S. alone. Iraqi civilian deaths between 60,000-80,000. Germany Civilian deaths during WW2 1.Mil, USSR, Mil, UK 68,000ish, French Indo China alone over 1,000,000. The point? See above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

But hey one quick additional question regarding..........Bush isn't up for re-election , so that doesn't explain his backtracking on some of what the experts put forward does it .

---

It doesn't matter if Bush is up for re-election. He currently represents the Republican party and his actions are going to directly reflect upon the candidates in 08 and vice versa, the noise going back and forth is going to be like a screeching AM radio with people looking to embrace and distance themselves from not only individuals but from ideas, intelligence, actions and inactions. The political animal over here when lacking backbone would put the Hydra out of Guinness' book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

The 1983 Marine Barracks bombing was carried out by Hezbollah and directly funded and approved by Iran.

---

1983? Lockerbie took place more recently than that, yet we've made up with the Libyans (even the families of the dead). You really are trolling for excuses if you look to an event more than 20 years ago to justify current policy. It's the kind of activity the old European monarchs used to indulge in to justify their interminable wars, and the kind of thing early US presidents were rightly wary of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

The rest of your post goes on about some dark conspiracy of Israel and the U.S. wanting to kill Muslims because they are Muslims and the only ones we don't care about killing are those that have oil we want. You go on to claim some generalizations about patriotic Americans and Isolationist ideals. You also ask questions of citizens to admit for the supposed governmental dark conspiracies.

---

I didn't talk of a dark US-Israeli conspiracy, I talked of the bizarre symbiosis many Americans have with Israel. You may have difficulty understanding the difference between the two, but difference there is, though you may wish to ignore it in favour of accusing people of standard political ciphers. The closest thing to a conspiracy is the Clean Breakers, and they've been open about their aims of using American power to further Israeli aims, so they're not exactly a conspiracy. Traitors they may be, but I at least respect them for their honesty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

This is all very odd when all I have done is defend fact and not given any political views or patriotic stances.

---

Selection is a political stance - that has been drummed into me through my readings on history. I've noted some of your selection, and commented on it. To claim that you are unbiased, as you do above, is disingenuous at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

I grew up with many friends from around the world, all of my 5 siblings travelled throughout the middle east. The only country not visited was Iran I believe. They all travelled Europe and South America. Every year we would have new guests from all walks of life and of all religions. A small town (1200 pop) house in the north of Iowa hosted at one time quests who were Muslims, Jews and Orthodox Christian (with our family being Lutheran), just because we enjoyed each others company. I also remember joining the Marine Corps at the age of 17 with all kinds of ideas of our country and how our military might would be best put to use defending the U.S. proper, but also defending its principle by standing up for those that could not stand up for themselves due to brutal and tyrannical regimes (I was an idealist). I remember the day our unit was put on stand by to go to Kuwait because Saddam had once again violated the no fly zone and had positioned troops in the south to basically be an annoyance. I had been following the news closely and had picked up an Issue of Time where they were detailing the horrors in Rwanda. I remember saying to my fire team, "this is where we should be going." The fact we didn't go to do what we could in that region, and later on other regions, while we had a preoccupation on Iraq and partisan politics at home, not to mention a concern over what quasi allies would say, directly made the decision for me not to reenlist.

---

Good for you. My main experience of Muslims comes from my Pakistani friends, and I have every respect for Islam. But I loathe that country for its support of extreme Islamism in countries incluing Britain, and I think, as do most experts on the matter, that Pakistan is the greatest source of Muslim terrorism in the world. The Saudis fund it, but the networks run through Pakistan. Iran and the others don't target the west, so I don't care what they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

As far as the relationship between Israel and U.S. is concerned you need to look at the U.N. records and the voting record of the U.S. when concerning Israel. I do not believe there has been a member of the Security Council with a record like ours against Israel. This dates back to 1949 and arms embargo. The progression of the cold war post '62 did see our economic and military aid increase and the reasons are opaque. We voted a number of times against Israel in the UN to this day. I will admit that our language has been much milder since the al-Aqsa intifada which resulted in the most violent period for the region since all out war between Israel and their neighbors.

Now domestically speaking the language in the U.S. is very pro-Israel for the simple reason that a president could not be elected here with a stance of direct opposition to Israel. This is mainly due to the nature of many Christian faiths over here and their relationships to Israel, most notably the fundamental Christians.

---

But many ordnary Americans, not just politicains, identify with Israel to the extent that Israeli interests automatically become American interests. Over here, we despise Tony Blair because we feel he has put the US ahead of British interests in many areas. As a British citizen, Britain comes first for me, followed perhaps by the EU as I am also an EU citizen. Other countries may come into the picture as it befits us, but certainly not to the extent that I should identify with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

I don't know, most people didn't become citizens of the U.K. or France because we opposed secular fascism. Do we need to become Israeli citizens because we oppose Islamic fascism?

---

You didn't have much of a choice in opposing secular fascism, as Germany declared war on you, not vice versa. As opposed to Britain and France, who declared war on Germany.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

I would genuinely like you to expand on this regarding the IRA and the US, especially genuine views of anyone from GB during that period. Preferably in an open and candid manner and not inflammatory.

---

Look up the history of Noraid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

We won't know until we know.

---

We do know that your President has called Osama an irrelevance. I've not seen much since that has indicated the administration has changed its mind on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus

P.S. I'm not of the ruling class despite having a Saudi in my house growing up and I've never received care packages of oil.

---

How much money does the Saudi ruling class contribute to the US ruling class? IIRC the Bin Laden family figures pretty highly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

1983? Lockerbie took place more recently than that, yet we've made up with the Libyans (even the families of the dead). You really are trolling for excuses if you look to an event more than 20 years ago to justify current policy. It's the kind of activity the old European monarchs used to indulge in to justify their interminable wars, and the kind of thing early US presidents were rightly wary of.

---

You are saying that Hezbollah has not acted in any way against the U.S. or encouraged, funded, or allied with any that have since then. Wow that is off the mark by more than a light year. How old are the grievances between Arab nations and Israel? BTW the UK signed the same mandate which called for an independant and free Jewish state in Palestine. However nobody who signed the same mandate has been as tough on Israel as the U.S.. Some have been indifferent, but thats neglectful of the issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I talked of the bizarre symbiosis many Americans have with Israel. You may have difficulty understanding the difference between the two, but difference there is, though you may wish to ignore it in favour of accusing people of standard political ciphers.

---

If thats all you asked for than this would be asked and answered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

But many ordnary Americans, not just politicains, identify with Israel to the extent that Israeli interests automatically become American interests. Over here, we despise Tony Blair because we feel he has put the US ahead of British interests in many areas. As a British citizen, Britain comes first for me, followed perhaps by the EU as I am also an EU citizen. Other countries may come into the picture as it befits us, but certainly not to the extent that I should identify with them.

---

Its those ordinary Americans who put those politicians in power, hence the power base and the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

You didn't have much of a choice in opposing secular fascism, as Germany declared war on you, not vice versa. As opposed to Britain and France, who declared war on Germany.

---

We were in a de facto state of war with Germany long before, we chose to go that path when we could have taken the advice of Washington. In fact, according to that arguement, we should have taken his advice in WWI at least there probably wouldn't have been a WW2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Look up the history of Noraid.

---

I will. Any particular writings you suggest?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

We do know that your President has called Osama an irrelevance. I've not seen much since that has indicated the administration has changed its mind on this.

---

This has been largely a political move and he has been called on it in the media repeatedly. There is another side to it, I believe, in hoping to embolden UBL and his high command.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

How much money does the Saudi ruling class contribute to the US ruling class? IIRC the Bin Laden family figures pretty highly.

---

Is there a list of U.S. Royal families with numbers available? Or is this money funneled through Saudi purchases of Heinz catsup? Which Bin Laden family? From what I've read UBL, isn't the most popular guy among Bin Ladens. Wasn't his niece or cousin going to pose for Penthouse? That apple fell from the tree and ran down the hill into the river and washed out to sea. I'm not denying that there are ties, but lets not overstate them.

Re: I know history is doomed to repeat, but quite this quickly?

I have stayed away from this question about as long as I can stand. Iraq is only an example of what this question begs.

Of course the bad guys are conspiring to hurt the coalition, and they are using the same reasons to do something that they used before. Since when did a politician stop using something that worked? Or didn't work for that matter….

The military leadership look like a bunch of nitwits, because they are political appointees for all practical purposes. The only place you will find a bigger bunch of dweebs is in the halls of Elected Government.

The original plan was a masterpiece of over optimistic thinking…well you are trying to tell the boss how good you are…and he wants to believe you…see above!
The military axiom no plan ever survives first contact with the enemy obviously applies.


There have been huge mistakes made in Iraq, mostly for political reasons and I see no end to mistakes for political reasons, no matter what political party is making those decisions.

I do think that if the coalition pulls out that it will be much worse for all parties involved…and ignoring it is not going to make it go away. It certainly is now what they claimed it was when they went in…a training ground for terrorists. The war is to western advantage only in that it keeps the terrorists somewhat concentrated in a limited locale.

There you are, another mess brought to you by (arguable) good political intentions.

My big question is, why do people keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result. (i.e. electing well intentioned jerks based on political motives) There just must be a better way.

Or maybe we should all just get an early start and bone up on Sharia.

Quote:

---

BTW the UK signed the same mandate which called for an independant and free Jewish state in Palestine. However nobody who signed the same mandate has been as tough on Israel as the U.S.. Some have been indifferent, but thats neglectful of the issues.

---

Thats not what the mandate says is it , you are talking about the mandate are you not ?
Or are you talking about the Partition resolution which Britain abstained from and Truman approved despite State Dept objections , his earleir rejection of calls for its creation and his statements that it was a silly idea that would require excessive amounts of US money and military resources for a long time to maintain such a creation .

Quote:

---

As soon as the rhetoric for going in began to accumulate. I told a professor I worked with at the time that going in would be a terrible mistake as our goals were defined and even taking into account goals which had not yet been defined. Militarily objectives as facilitated by the strategy were not feasible in our political climate and that of Iraq. They weren't impossible, they just aren't feasible without all the problems we are seeing now. You don't go to war unless you can unleash hell on clearly defined enemies in which defeating them grants you completed objectives. In short if you don't have the moral authority to wage all out war the moral authority to go to war will take more fire than the troops on the ground.

---

Good , now do you think the same about Iran .
The rhetoric , the objectives and feasability ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Good , now do you think the same about Iran .
The rhetoric , the objectives and feasability ?

---

I have stated from the beginning that war with Iran is not in the U.S.'s best interest or Iran's at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Thats not what the mandate says is it , you are talking about the mandate are you not ?
Or are you talking about the Partition resolution which Britain abstained from and Truman approved despite State Dept objections , his earleir rejection of calls for its creation and his statements that it was a silly idea that would require excessive amounts of US money and military resources for a long time to maintain such a creation .

---

No actually, I'm talking about the groundwork before when the league of nations mandate set about the creation of a jewish state in Palestine under the auspices of Britain. It wasn't until later, even after the holocaust, that Britain went against its previous word and left the U.S. holding the cup of shit known as integrity to principle.

Quote:

---

No actually, I'm talking about the groundwork before when the league of nations mandate set about the creation of a jewish state in Palestine under the auspices of Britain. It wasn't until later, even after the holocaust, that Britain went against its previous word and left the U.S. holding the cup of shit known as integrity to principle.

---

I see a pattern emerging here .
As with the earlier "purported links" you seem to change what you say you are talking about when what you have said falls apart .
So now it isn't the mandate it is the earlier stuff , now do you mean by earleir stuff Sykes/Picott or Balfour , I would guess you are on about Balfour since a variation of that letter was what went into the preamble setting up the mandate .
So Britain went against its word ?
Rather crafty words they used were the not ?
The little bit that goes...."It being clearly understood" pretty much making the apparent percieved intent worthless .
Now you could go along the path that the much missed Gawain of Orkney tries to use, that what we should look at are the early unadopted drafts of the declaration , but that is pointless since they were never adopted so cannot be viewed as a promise from the government that was reneged upon and stand only as a historical curiosity detailing the development of what became the "promise" .
Alternatively by earlier could you possibly mean from the start of the Zionist Congress ?~;)