Bush says Iran is source of Deadly Bombs

Black Dog · February 15, 2007

We have a double war going on here.
The 'war on terror' coupled with 'sectarian fighting'. You are referring the sectarian battle.

And you're trying to completely divorce one from the other.

It does not necessarily prove anything if Shiites are dominant in Baghdad. What exactly does this mean? That they side with the U.S.? Not necessarily.

What does this have to do with the discussion? You're peddling the idea that Iran is working with a Sunni organization that is trying to undermine Iranian influence in Iraq. Does it make any sense that Iran would be involved in grooming leaders for Al Qaeda in one context, and then supporrting Shiite militias against Al Qaeda (among others) in another? It does not.

It appears Iran is trying to obtain Shi'ite allegiance to dictate terms of a new scheme for the Middle East.
"If Iran can wrest Iraqi Shiites' allegiance through bribes and killings it will then have changed in its favour the regional balance while shattering the primacy of Sunni Arabs, and dictate terms of a new scheme for the Middle East with unimaginable global consequences."

Tell me something I don't know. That Iran is seeking to become the number one hegemon in the region is no secret, nor is the Iranian influence on many of the dominant Shi'a factions in Iraq. The main reason this is relevant is because it underscores the dangers inherent in attacking Iran. Currently, the U.S. is supporting the Iraqi government (which is Shiite dominated and heavily influenced by Iran) as well as the Iraqi military and police (containming elements of the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades, Iranian-backed militias). If the U.S attacks Iran, they open themselves up to a proxy counter offensive in Iraq from the same people they are currently helping. That alone is a recipe for a severe intensification of violence and U.S. casualties. On top of that, factor in the possibility of a counter strike by Iranian regulars and consider the vulnerability of the U.S.'s supply lines from Kuwait and the Gulf states (look at a map and you'll see just how narrow the supply corridor is and how closely it borders Iranian territory), and you have a recipe for a disaster. At best, we're talking about massive U.S. casualties that would neccesitate a hasty, Saigon-style evacuation . At worst, encirclement, isolation and destruction.

Figleaf · February 15, 2007

Better brush up on your Christianity there BD, there are a lot more sects and divisions than Islam.

You could brush up on your actual knowledge of the war. The only place in Iraq where there are Shi'ites that the U.S. has any presence at all is Baghdad itself. Every other place where they are stationed is a Sunni area. In Baghdad, they are propping up a Shi'ite government and largely fighting Sunnis. So if Iran really is providing weapons to their fellow Shi'ites, those weapons are likely being used to fight the insurgency, and this is just another lying excuse to start another war.

http://www.juancole.com/2007/02/nyt-falls-...an-weapons.html

We have a double war going on here.

The 'war on terror' coupled with 'sectarian fighting'. ...

So if the US pulled out, there would only be one war in Iraq. Wouldn't that be progress?

Leafless · February 15, 2007

So if the US pulled out, there would only be one war in Iraq. Wouldn't that be progress?

Understand this!

The U.S military and allies are currently trying to control sectarian fighting and are responsible for law and order in Iraq.

Iraq's do not know the definition of progress.

And it seems neither do you, if you possessed any notion of what encompasses Western interest and the pursuit for world order.

Figleaf · February 15, 2007

So if the US pulled out, there would only be one war in Iraq. Wouldn't that be progress?

Understand this!

The U.S military and allies are currently trying to control sectarian fighting and are responsible for law and order in Iraq. ...[insults deleted].

Well, do help me understand, then.

If the major sectarians sects of Iraq are each fighting eachother, and in order to halt this fighting the US is fighting against all the fighting sects, who is the US fighting FOR?

Leafless · February 16, 2007

So if the US pulled out, there would only be one war in Iraq. Wouldn't that be progress?

Understand this!

The U.S military and allies are currently trying to control sectarian fighting and are responsible for law and order in Iraq. ...[insults deleted].

Well, do help me understand, then.

If the major sectarians sects of Iraq are each fighting eachother, and in order to halt this fighting the US is fighting against all the fighting sects, who is the US fighting FOR?

The U.S. and allies as an occupying force, are fighting for Iraq's in general to restore order to sectarian violence that stems not only from a difference in sects but economics combined with power and greed.

It is like the flood gates of wealth have suddenly been swung opened and they all want it, simple as that!

BayLee · February 16, 2007

[
Understand this!

The U.S military and allies are currently trying to control sectarian fighting and are responsible for law and order in Iraq.

Iraq's do not know the definition of progress.

Its called ocupying a country who does not want you there

sharkman · February 16, 2007

By the way, I don't spend my day's in my mom's basement: I spend them in your mom.

Perhaps I am a little clueless, but what is that supposed to mean, exactly?

Yesterday I asked for evidence that the U.S. is going to attack Iran. Apparently none exists. The link that started this thread makes no such statements. I hope this isn't yet another thread started with no other purpose than to shriek about Bush. However, I'm not holding my breath.

GostHacked · February 16, 2007

Figleaf

If the major sectarians sects of Iraq are each fighting eachother, and in order to halt this fighting the US is fighting against all the fighting sects, who is the US fighting FOR?

This is an interesting question is it not?

Leafless

Iraq's do not know the definition of progress.

Apparently they do not know the definition of FREEDOM either.

The U.S military and allies are currently trying to control sectarian fighting and are responsible for law and order in Iraq. ...[insults deleted].

Hmm sectarian violence.. ahh hell with it, call it what it really is. A CIVIL WAR !!!! but [common sense deleted].

I must state that freedom and democracy and change in general comes from within. NOT from without. If Iraq wanted to change that bad, they would have done that years ago before the US went in. Saddam would have been ousted by his own people. That would have been termed a revolution. Maybe this is their revolution.

Catchme · February 16, 2007

So, it seem the Democrats are also aware of what Bush is going to try and do, again illegally and without his country's support.

Pelosi: Bush lacks authority to invade Iran
WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Bush lacks the authority to invade Iran without specific approval from Congress, a fresh challenge to the commander in chief on the eve of a symbolic vote critical of his troop buildup in Iraq.

..At the same time, she said, "I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, who is leading the effort, has said the measure may be changed to require that any troops deployed must meet formal Army readiness standards.

Murtha also said the measure may be changed to prohibit any military action against Iran without specific congressional approval.

Asked about Murtha's remarks, Pelosi said, "I fully support that." She added that she would propose it as stand-alone legislation if it is not included in the bill that provides more money for the Iraq war.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/15...q.ap/index.html

Leafless · February 16, 2007

So, it seem the Democrats are also aware of what Bush is going to try and do, again illegally and without his country's support.
Pelosi: Bush lacks authority to invade Iran
WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Bush lacks the authority to invade Iran without specific approval from Congress, a fresh challenge to the commander in chief on the eve of a symbolic vote critical of his troop buildup in Iraq.

..At the same time, she said, "I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, who is leading the effort, has said the measure may be changed to require that any troops deployed must meet formal Army readiness standards.

Murtha also said the measure may be changed to prohibit any military action against Iran without specific congressional approval.

Asked about Murtha's remarks, Pelosi said, "I fully support that." She added that she would propose it as stand-alone legislation if it is not included in the bill that provides more money for the Iraq war.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/15...q.ap/index.html

It is quite possible President Bush does not need anybody's support, but this is also controversial.

"UPDATE II: As JAO notes in Comments, the War Powers Act of 1973 -- enacted over the veto of Richard Nixon -- requires the President to obtain authorization from Congress if military forces are to be deployed for greater than 60 days, which also can be understood to mean that the President is free to deploy the military for up to 60 days without Congressional approval."

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01...ttack-iran.html

Black Dog · February 16, 2007

The U.S. and allies as an occupying force, are fighting for Iraq's in general to restore order to sectarian violence that stems not only from a difference in sects but economics combined with power and greed.
It is like the flood gates of wealth have suddenly been swung opened and they all want it, simple as that!

And this occurance was completely foreseeable. Yet the people planning this operation seemed to have had no clue about Iraq's internal dynamics, nor had they ever heard of Murphy's Law.They thought it would be a cakewalk. They were wrong then, so why should we belive them now when they say the same thing abouy Iran?

Perhaps I am a little clueless, but what is that supposed to mean, exactly?

It was addressed to Little Jerry Seinfeld.

Yesterday I asked for evidence that the U.S. is going to attack Iran. Apparently none exists. The link that started this thread makes no such statements. I hope this isn't yet another thread started with no other purpose than to shriek about Bush. However, I'm not holding my breath.

Do you think that, if the U.S. was intending to attack Iran, they'd come out and say so at this point? Gotta look for the warning signs: the sudden apperance of evidence of Iranian meddling in Iraq, the deployment of a second carrier battle group to the gulf and Patriot missile bateries (deployments which would serve no purpose in quelling the insurgency). Indeed, I would say that the "surge" could also be a warning sign, as the U.S. could be reinforcing its troops in order to prepare for an Iranian counterstrike through its Iraqi proxies.

Leafless · February 16, 2007

The U.S. and allies as an occupying force, are fighting for Iraq's in general to restore order to sectarian violence that stems not only from a difference in sects but economics combined with power and greed.
It is like the flood gates of wealth have suddenly been swung opened and they all want it, simple as that!

And this occurance was completely foreseeable. Yet the people planning this operation seemed to have had no clue about Iraq's internal dynamics, nor had they ever heard of Murphy's Law.They thought it would be a cakewalk. They were wrong then, so why should we belive them now when they say the same thing abouy Iran?

I don't think anyone suggested Iraq would be a cakewalk.

But the problems in Iraq are not solely Iraq invented, but in partial are planned problamatic scenario's induced by outside sources. i.e., Iran for instance.

IOW, could this not be a gang up on the U.S. involving all Arab nations?

But why your concern about Iran and 'weapons of mass destruction'? Why not side for common sense once in a while and acknowledge, Iran with nuclear arms would be a threat to world peace and should not be allowed to harbour these weapons of mass destruction, under any circumstances.

PolyNewbie · February 16, 2007

Even the Joint Cheifs of Staff head doesn't believe there is any evidence that supports Iran giving weapons to Iraq as a part of government policy. No one doubts it happens, but if its not gov policy its not happening on a large scale.

Black Dog · February 16, 2007

I don't think anyone suggested Iraq would be a cakewalk.

Prewar Slide Show Cast Iraq in Rosy Hues

When Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his top officers gathered in August 2002 to review an invasion plan for Iraq, it reflected a decidedly upbeat vision of what the country would look like four years after Saddam Hussein was ousted from power.
A broadly representative Iraqi government would be in place. The Iraqi Army would be working to keep the peace. And the United States would have as few as 5,000 troops in the country.

Certainly, that anyone had doubts or fears about the ease of overthrowing Saddam and turning into a democracy, those fears were not reflected in the planning.

But the problems in Iraq are not solely Iraq invented, but in partial are planned problamatic scenario's induced by outside sources. i.e., Iran for instance.

But even thouse would have been predictable. Only an idiot would think that Iran would not take an active hand in a post-Saddam Iraq.

IOW, could this not be a gang up on the U.S. involving all Arab nations?

First: Iran ain't Arab. Second: let's not forget that this whole mess started when the U.S. chose to go into Iraq. You certainly can't be surprised that other nations with interest in the region would try to work the situation to their advantage. In other words, if the U.S. is a victim, it's a victim of it's own blundering.

But why your concern about Iran and 'weapons of mass destruction'? Why not side for common sense once in a while and acknowledge, Iran with nuclear arms would be a threat to world peace and should not be allowed to harbour these weapons of mass destruction, under any circumstances.

I'm pretty sure I've explained this at length before, but I'll give you the abridged version. First: I think the threat from a nuclear Iran has been grossly overblown. Second: while I'd rather Iran (or indeed, any nation) possess nuclear weapons, I think such an outcome is likely unavoidable at this stage of the game. The proposed remedy (attacking Iran) won't solve the problem (and could in fact accelerate the danger) and will probably result in a host of other negative outcomes. I think your argument that "Iran...should not be allowed to harbour these weapons of mass destruction, under any circumstances" is predicated on the mistaken belief that "we" have any choice or say in the matter. Some actions are outside our ability to control. Th ebest that can be done is to mitigate the effects of these inevitabilities.

Leafless · February 16, 2007

Black Dog

You are defending terrorism and terrorist.

I only wish the U.S. and allies would take off the gloves and really get down to business.

B. Max · February 17, 2007

And putting the U.S. army in Iraq at even greater risk of destruction is going to help with this ...how?
Jesus, for once it would be nice to hear from someone with at least a modicum of a clue of things military strategy and who can speak in something other than empty slogans.

Well don't be looking in any mirrors. We already have the leftist military strategy as demonstrated by the dems in congress or in other words, the enemy from with in, and one can only assume they also speak for the rest of their international communist friends. For at least two years we've been hearing the leftist rants that Bush didn't put enough troops in Iraq to do the job. Now when he goes to put more troops in they try to block them. It's beyond hypocrisy and demonstrates what they've been about all along. Nothing but a bunch of treasonous traitors.

I thought we were talking about the war the Islamics have been waging on the west for years and in particular the US who they constantly claim they are going to destroy along with Israel. I'm really surprised that Bush has been sucked into another one of North Korea's games. The fact they were even ready to claim they wanted to deal, was proof they were starting to hurt. Their little blackmail scheme has bought them some more time and the ability to keep the game going. In a year or so they'll be right back at it. Threatening the US and their neighbours.

Catchme · February 17, 2007

Even the Joint Cheifs of Staff head doesn't believe there is any evidence that supports Iran giving weapons to Iraq as a part of government policy. No one doubts it happens, but if its not gov policy its not happening on a large scale.

It more than likely is not happening at all.

The government is Shia pretty much in Iraq as the Sunnis stayed home. All the evidence points to Sunnis being the major insurregncy in Iraq, they have even admitted they are and have in the last week asked for negotiations etc to commence to try and stabiize Iraq. Evidence for this has been presented here at mapleleafforums in the thread on Iraq and indeed some Iran threads.

This fear driven racist hatred againt Muslims that is being exhibited by those advocating that Iran be nuked, is incomprehensible. If peopel feel it isn't fear driven racist hatred I would like to know just how they can be apologists for the use of nuclear weapons and feel good about themselves?

BubberMiley · February 17, 2007

I don't think anyone suggested Iraq would be a cakewalk.

Then you weren't paying very close attention then either. They said it would be a "slam-dunk." Rumsfeld said "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Leafless · February 17, 2007

I don't think anyone suggested Iraq would be a cakewalk.

Then you weren't paying very close attention then either. They said it would be a "slam-dunk." Rumsfeld said "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

The invasion of Iraq was completed well within Rumsfeld estimates.

(a) The invasion started March 20, 2003 with coalition forces consisting of 40 countries.

( Baghdad fell on April 9, 2003.

(d) The invasion was successful and lasted a grand total of 42 days.

Rumsfeld had nothing to do concerning a failure of peace initiatives.

BubberMiley · February 17, 2007

Wow, that's a revision of reality the administration wouldn't even have the balls to use.

I particularly enjoyed your flip-flop from "nobody said the war in Iraq would be easy" to "it actually was easy just like they said it would be. It's the peace that's hard."

Catchme · February 17, 2007

What an amazing fete of propaganda, that was put forth about how thing in Iraq were just tickedly boo, and Rumsfeld and Bush were right on the money with their predictions and actions.! When it was/is so far from reality as not to be recognizable

scribblet · February 17, 2007

Black Dog
You are defending terrorism and terrorist.

I only wish the U.S. and allies would take off the gloves and really get down to business.

They can't, if they did they would be accused of being too brutal etc. etc. same with Afghanistan. We value life a lot more than the terrorists we are fighting, and they know it. In order to win IMO, we would have to get down to their level by bombing and killing as many people as possible with no compunction.

Catchme · February 17, 2007

Black Dog

You are defending terrorism and terrorist.

I only wish the U.S. and allies would take off the gloves and really get down to business.

They can't, if they did they would be accused of being too brutal etc. etc. same with Afghanistan. We value life a lot more than the terrorists we are fighting, and they know it. In order to win IMO, we would have to get down to their level by bombing and killing as many people as possible with no compunction.

Oh could you please prove, that "we" value life a lot more than alleged terrorists do.

The truth is the USA and their unholy coalition, has bombed and killed many many more than the alleged terrorists have with NO compunction.

Figleaf · February 17, 2007

By the way, I don't spend my day's in my mom's basement: I spend them in your mom.

No no no. That's not how you insult someone's mother. You say ...

"Sorry my reply is late, but I was delayed in the line-up to have your mother ... it's not her fault, she was swamped by the overflow business from your sister."

Presumably at this point, if your interlocutor is a french soccer player, you will be headbutted in the chest.

Leafless · February 17, 2007

Black Dog

You are defending terrorism and terrorist.

I only wish the U.S. and allies would take off the gloves and really get down to business.

They can't, if they did they would be accused of being too brutal etc. etc. same with Afghanistan. We value life a lot more than the terrorists we are fighting, and they know it. In order to win IMO, we would have to get down to their level by bombing and killing as many people as possible with no compunction.

Oh could you please prove, that "we" value life a lot more than alleged terrorists do.

The truth is the USA and their unholy coalition, has bombed and killed many many more than the alleged terrorists have with NO compunction.

Obviously, your intellectual comprehension that dictates the difference between 'good vs. evil' is nonexistent.

Besides Saddam could have avoided unnecessary bloodshed at the beginning, but declined.