Iranians fueling fight in Iraq

Iranians fueling fight in Iraq

ABC News said:
EXCLUSIVE: Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia
Hezbollah Training Also Linked to Iraq Violence

By JONATHAN KARL AND MARTIN CLANCY

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2006 — U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.

This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. "There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval," says a senior official.

Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq's growing Shia militias from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran.


Evidence is mounting, too, that the most powerful militia in Iraq, Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, is receiving training support from the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.

Two senior U.S. defense officials confirmed to ABC News earlier reports that fighters from the Mahdi army have traveled to Lebanon to receive training from Hezbollah.

While the New York Times reported that as many as 2,000 Iraqi militia fighters had received training in Lebanon, one of the senior officials said he believed the number was "closer to 1,000." Officials say a much smaller number of Hezbollah fighters have also traveled through Syria and into Iraq to provide training.

U.S. intelligence officials believe the number of Al-Sadr's Mahdi army now includes 40,000 fighters, making it an especially formidable force.
Source
That's why it's not a civil war. The Iranians are fighting us by proxy. Hopefully soon we stop this proxy BS and kick them directly in the teeth. Then and only then will the tide of this war turn.

Otherwise, most of you get to be dhimmis or dead. Your choice.
 

SaroDarksbane

Diabloii.Net Site Pal
Iran supplying the Iraqi resistance with weapons? And this is news to you? :laugh:
That's why it's not a civil war. The Iranians are fighting us by proxy.
And no one fighting us right now is an actual Iraqi? I'd like to see you prove it.

No really, I'd like to see it. Get to it.
Otherwise, most of you get to be dhimmis or dead. Your choice.
Yeah, because if we withdraw from Iraq the United States will be taken over by rabid muslim fanatics so fast.

:rolleyes:

Amusing.



 

P2blr

Diabloii.Net Member
How about this, evacuate people that are not known to be evil or whatever, bomb the place to smithereens, spend munitions money on rebuilding?
 
Does that mean the War of Northern Aggression wasn't a civil war because the British helped smuggle goods past the Union blockades and sold warships to the Confederacy? :laugh:


Oh, and Smeg? You and your party are the only ones surprised by the fact that Iran has a hand in the conflict in Iraq. The rest of us have known since before 2003 that Iran would find it's way into the conflict one way or another and eventually exercise that muscle to its own benefit in the grand scheme of things, weakening the US position relative to Iran. And they've done a pretty good job of it so far. :wink3:
 

EliManning

Diabloii.Net Member
That's why it's not a civil war. The Iranians are fighting us by proxy.
If Iran is fighting us by proxy then it is in fact the very definition of a civil war. Iranian troops are not on the ground in Iraq, there's our guys, the Iraqi security forces, and the official administration vs. some pissed off Iraqis. The civility, so to speak, of a war isn't determined by the origin or either side's arsenal, but the level of domesticity of the actual combatants. Our very own civil war is full of examples of both sides obtaining material support from outside countries, yet it is still a civil war because the actual combatants of the two sides were domestic. In fact I dare say you'd be extraordinarily hard pressed to find a single example of a civil war in the entirety of human history where neither side had material support from outside the country.

And honestly, what do you expect? Within only a couple years time we labelled Iran as part of some mysterious coallition of evil and established a heavy military presence in just about every country that shares a border with Iran. Do you expect Iran to sit there and take it? Would you sit there and take it if you were in charge in Iran? Would you want America to sit there and take it if someone labelled us as the source of the world's evil and then forcefully replaced the regimes of both Canada and Mexico?
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
This surprises you? Well, maybe now you're willing to admit the U.S. should've been in Iran instead of Iraq, since they actually do support terror and they actually are developing WMDs... kind of like I've been saying all along...

P.S. Didn't someone post a link to a site showing that less than 10% of Iraqi Insurgents are foreign?

Hopefully soon we stop this proxy BS and kick them directly in the teeth. Then and only then will the tide of this war turn.
HAHAHAHAHA. You're living in a dream world. Bush did nothing but scowl pointedly at them while they were defying calls to halt their nuclear program. They called his bluff, there's zero chance of America going into Iran. Thanks to Iraq.

Yeah, because if we withdraw from Iraq the United States will be taken over by rabid muslim fanatics so fast.
Don't you know? Every war is a matter of survival (thereby justifying all action taken in its name), even when fighting a war of aggression against a tiny enemy on the other side of the planet.



 

jimmyboy

Diabloii.Net Member
It's been known for some time now that Iranians are infiltrating Iraqi government and the Shiite clergy. This is the main reason we have not assasinated Sadr, the leading anti-US cleric. He is the only thing stopping the Iranians from taking over the Iraqi Shiites.

Smeg, you need to understand the players in Iraq. There are multiple players in addition to Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. Within each groups, there are sub-groups struggling for power. Even the Kurds are divided in half.

It's a civil war. Even our own veterans returning calls it a civil war. Just visit some of our military forums where soldiers chat. The Iraqis calls it a civil war. The only people not calling it a civil war is the administration.

But I do ackowledge Bush's views. To admit that it is civil war will mean that the US can wash its hands in an internal conflict, which is the first step in abandoning alot of Iraqi allies.

Unfortunately this may be inevitable. We're going to throw alot of friends under the bus.
 

jimmyboy

Diabloii.Net Member
BTW, forgot to add that to me Iraq is actually not looking anything like Vietnam.

Iraq is looking like Lebanon.
 
Amazing, the left calling for war in Iran. I'll remember that when we go and all of you are screaming bloody murder.
See, now it's kinda too late. The window of opportunity was ignored in favor of a rather shortsighted and poorly thought-out plan to invade Iraq in some blind assumption that we could "convert" the Middle East to democracy the same way the Jehovas Witnesses who knock on my door think they can convert me and with me my entire neighborhood.

In doing so, and more importantly in failing miserably to bring about even stability in Iraq, we've exposed our lack of omnipotence. We've shattered the notion that the US is all-powerful and unstoppable. And by doing that, we've guaranteed ourselves that any and every conflict we engage in ever again for a long time to come will meet with violent, determined opposition the likes of which we did not see in Iraq until it became clear we had run out of plans.


If we wanted to solve the problems with Iran, we would have been better off doing it through diplomacy back in 2002-2003 when the fear of a US invasion was still a legitimate one and the perception of the US force was still as an all-powerful, unstoppable one. Now? The notion of sending troops into Iran would be downright laughable if it weren't for the fact that I'm sure there's some cowboy or another at the Pentagon fully endorsing the idea. If we haven't already touched off a regional conflict in Iraq that will spread across the entire region of the Middle East and burn for many years to come, crossing the border into Iran guarantees that we will. Not to mention raising the probability very significantly that we will be targetted again at home by radical terrorists inspired by our aggression.



 

Omikron8

Diabloii.Net Member
How about this, evacuate people that are not known to be evil or whatever, bomb the place to smithereens, spend munitions money on rebuilding?
is evil just a black and white thing to you ?

or do you just equate it with anti-american ?



 

P2blr

Diabloii.Net Member
is evil just a black and white thing to you ?

or do you just equate it with anti-american ?
don't know, haven't really thought about what is evil much, and I'm quite anti-american myself.
Besides, my real idea for the war is just bomb them anyway, no evacuations no nothing, and go in and do whatever you want with the remains.



 

WildBerry

Diabloii.Net Member
That's why it's not a civil war. The Iranians are fighting us by proxy. Hopefully soon we stop this proxy BS and kick them directly in the teeth. Then and only then will the tide of this war turn.
So Finnish Civil War wasn't a civil war because a 10,000 man strong army of Jerries hit our shores in the end of it? Please.

bg1256 said:
I'm not left, by any means, but I hate our foreign policy.
Read back on him. Everyone who disagrees with Smeg = politically left = nazi = Moslem. They're all the same and he proved it. When will you people believe it [interrobang] :laugh:



 
Top