It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US accuses Iran aiding insugency

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   


The US military commander in Iraq has accused Iran of providing covert support to Shia extremists in Iraq.

Iran equips and trains Shia militia groups, Gen George Casey said, adding that its influence had risen recently.

Although the US has no evidence that Iranians were operating directly in Iraq, Gen Casey said "surrogates" regularly attacked US troops.

He also suggested that some troops were likely to leave Iraq this year, but no final decision has yet been taken.


link
link2

Putting aside Irans nuclear program you might say that Iran is playing a smart hand of cards. The government of Iran is to smart to directly get directly involved with the insurgency instead there intel agents are aiding the enemys of freedom.
The only way to slow or stop Irans aid to the Shia insurgents is military action against the insurgents supply lines . Iraqs borders also need to be sealed until future notice.

Perhaps a mixture of special forces and air power would do the trick ?
Military action against would still only be a stop gap measure unless the air raids dont let up or there is a regime change in Iraq.
The US has in effect created a domino effect in terms of military action that will be needed in order to give Iraq some chance at a democratic future.

[edit on 22-6-2006 by xpert11]




posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Iran, much like Syria, and to some extend Russia (prewar intel to Saddam ring a bell?) are very interested in distabilizing Iraq and hindering US progress there. And US cannot do a thing about it (which is a relief for most of the world).

As for securing the border- this is virtually impossible. US troops are stretched thin as it is. Also people cross the Iraq/Iran border all the time for various reasons and you cannot prevent them from doing it. US can't secure its border with Mexico, and doing the same with Iraq will be impossible.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by maloy
. And US cannot do a thing about it (which is a relief for most of the world).


Thats a pretty big blanket statement even if there arent any more regime changes are you saying that US airpower would have effect on the likes of Iran ?



As for securing the border- this is virtually impossible. US troops are stretched thin as it is. Also people cross the Iraq/Iran border all the time for various reasons and you cannot prevent them from doing it. US can't secure its border with Mexico, and doing the same with Iraq will be impossible.


Virtually impossible ?
People keep saying that there isnt a shortage of ground troops so lets see more of them put to work. Iraq dosnt have large borders so closing them shouldnt be to diffcult task after all the US has a better track record at fixing problems overseas then it dose on the home front take hurricane Katrina for example.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   


instead there intel agents are aiding the enemys of freedom.


The enemies of who's freedom?

I'm sorry, that sounds too much like a recruitment slogan for the u.s army.

"Come fight the enemies of freedom!" I think you'll find with a bit of research that it would be very easy to label the accusers in this situation as "enemies of freedom"

All this black and white when there is sooo much grey..



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Well, the borders of Iraq aren't very small, really. The US/Mexico border is 3141km, and Iraq's total borders are 3640km - (Iran 1,458 km, Jordan 181 km, Kuwait 240 km, Saudi Arabia 814 km, Syria 605 km, Turkey 352 km.) According to the CIA WorldFactbook (updated June 13, 2006.) So, it'd be tough to secure - although, of course, that'd be optimal.

What we need to do is convince Iran's gasoline suppliers (yes SUPPLIERS - they've got tons of oil, but they lack the modern technology to efficiently refine it and are importing 180,000 barrels of gasoline daily) to just cut them off. Poof! Major hit to their economy and perhaps it will make the middle-class join the students in their dissent and dissatisfication with their current regime.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by kojac
All this black and white when there is sooo much grey..


So much grey ?
While I agree that there are many grey areas in life this isnt one of them these people are brainwashed into blowing themselvs up in markets and other crowded areas.
What else would call the insurgents in Iraq they are hardly a "friend" to the Iraqi people ?


Sep

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHumana
What we need to do is convince Iran's gasoline suppliers (yes SUPPLIERS - they've got tons of oil, but they lack the modern technology to efficiently refine it and are importing 180,000 barrels of gasoline daily) to just cut them off.


Iran's petrol problems to not stem from inability to refine oil, but the fact that petrol is very cheap (around 10 cents per litre, it is very much subsidized) and the growth in demand is increasing daily with further industrialization of the country (Iran is the biggest car producer in Middle East and North Africa) as well as smuggling of petrol into neighbouring countries. The current government has taken steps to balance demand and supplies. See the below link.



Iran has ambitious plans to upgrade refineries over the next five years and lift daily gasoline output to 120 million litres.


www.tradearabia.com...


Originally posted by AlphaHumana
Poof! Major hit to their economy and perhaps it will make the middle-class join the students in their dissent and dissatisfication with their current regime.


So, what you are saying is that an external power comes and takes away the Iranian people's ability to travel freely and hurts them economically, and somehow this is going to hurt the current regime? Last time a western power attempted to hurt Iran economically in order to turn the people against the government were the British in the 1950s, against the Mossadegh government. It backfired then, resulting in Mossadegh become so popular that even today his legacy overshadows Iranian foreign policy, and if I had to guess, it will certainly backfire today.



Originally posted by xpert11
So much grey ?
While I agree that there are many grey areas in life this isnt one of them these people are brainwashed into blowing themselvs up in markets and other crowded areas.
What else would call the insurgents in Iraq they are hardly a "friend" to the Iraqi people ?


I don't remember any Shias blowing themselves up in crowded markets. Although I admit that the Shia militias aren't exactly saintly organizations that embrace humane values and ethics, they have done some good things for the communities and have not committed the acts of terrorism you attribute to them.



[edit on 23-6-2006 by Sep]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHumana
What we need to do is convince Iran's gasoline suppliers (yes SUPPLIERS - they've got tons of oil, but they lack the modern technology to efficiently refine it and are importing 180,000 barrels of gasoline daily) to just cut them off. Poof! Major hit to their economy and perhaps it will make the middle-class join the students in their dissent and dissatisfication with their current regime.


you're a bit too late for that :




news.bbc.co.uk...

Iran is to stop importing petrol from September and instead start rationing the fuel, its oil minister has said




posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Yes, I've seen and heard it but, iqonx, it hasn't happened! Yes, they speak of rationing, but they haven't. We can probably wait and see, but whether or not we want to wait and see, I believe, is what we are dealing with. Sooner or later, somebody is going to do something. It just doesn't follow that the Iranians are working on a peaceful nuclear power plant, forgive me.


[edit on 25-6-2006 by AlphaHumana]



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 06:19 AM
link   
After more than 3 years of brutal military occupation preceding an illegal invasion, with 85-97% of the Iraqi Arab population (the Kurdish north has in effect seceeded) wanting the US out now; most support attacks on US forces-and with the stuborn bush administration refusing to end the US oppresion of the Iraq..the only enemy of freedom in Iraq is the US.

Iran has the right to assist the freedom fighters in their quest for liberation and independence..and sealing the border is impossible. military options have been exhasted and it's time to forget about Iraq, the US has no legitimate interests in Iraq.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I just thaught of something which is why is America complaining about Iran allegedly arming an insurgency in Iraq when America themselves regularly arm Insurgents/guerillas/warlords and terrorists around the world in places such as Asia, Latin America, Africa and the middle east infact wearn't they just arming secular warlords against muslims in Somalia just a few weeks ago.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Iran's helping Iraqis resist our forces? That must be the 50th time I've heard that. And I mean who would of thought it would ever happen. I would have thought that Iraqis would be so busy throwing flowers at their "liberators"-liquidators that they wouldn't have time to show the troops where the mass graves are.
Then again about 60 percent of Iraqis are Shiites. And there is virtually no difference (ethnic or certainly cultural) between Iranians and Shiites.

A Game of National Sport…
Basically Iran is just helping their own people participate in the national sport. It's called "Counter Occupation" and the aim is to get the message back to the thick skulls in America (and more specifically Washington) that their forces are not wanted. So far it’s been a bit of stale mate. Whilst the Holy Team are certainly winning they seem to have under estimated the thickness of their opponent’s skulls earlier in the game. This mistake has probably cost them dearly as they are down on the lives front, then again as every Soldier is worth between 10 and 100 (all important) media points (depending on the circumstances of how they die of course) it looks like the Shiite’s; now joined by the Iranian Reserves will succeed in kicking us out and making Iraq into an Iranian style Holy State (fit for a Holy Team to celebrate in).
If only we hadn’t shot their referee (Saddam) in the beginning everything would have been alright for us, as the opposition might easily have shown at least some sense of order and decency. Instead not only have we lost hearts and minds (theirs and our own) but our actions have also caused unnecessary disruption to oil supplies across the playing field. Apparently the American referee (George Bush) is due for retirement, whilst the British one (Tony Blair) has promised to go ("at some future point"). Whilst we have heard these moral boosting promises before we have to ask whether round two will be any different; some sporting referee’s (mostly on the left side of stadium) think not as apparently both George and Tony were the best the Establishment Club had to offer to their “parliamentary administration teams”.

Don't know about you but at this rate it looks like the much feared player “Iotallah Nuclear” could sweep onto the field and claim it as his own. However there is a small chance that the Iraqi referee will recover from hospital and make an almighty comeback just in time to push the Holy Team back over the border whilst regaining the Secular territory. However at the moment the verdict doesn’t look good, apparently the doctors look set to unanimously vote later on today that the Iraqi referee should die. Will George Bush save the day in his place? “I wouldn’t count on it” said one senior Squad Commander called Donald Rumsfeld “ever since he’s heard news of his retirement George has been asleep on the job, and so am I, I'm feeling yawny… are we short of players? The crowds back home wanted me to reduce them, not send more over to places like Baghdad or Iran”.
Meanwhile the game continues…
But now the Seculars are finally out the way which teams skills do you think will lead them to victory: The offensive skills of the Occupation of The Willing; or the more defensive talents of the Holy Team of the Mudjahidin?



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jajabinks
After more than 3 years of brutal military occupation preceding an illegal invasion, with 85-97% of the Iraqi Arab population (the Kurdish north has in effect seceeded) wanting the US out now;


The Iraqi Arab population? Meaning Sunnis and Shiites? I don't know where you got that statistic, but think for a moment. Why would most of Iraq want America to leave if they know that they will face a civil war? That makes no sense. I know America isn't the greatest thing that most of them could hope for, but right now, they would have no security if America left. Genocides would no doubt happen. And a huge humanitarian crisis will result. The only way that statistic is correct is if they interviewed insurgents.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I have seen repeated surveys where Iraqis overwhelming want the US to leave, either now or on a short timetable, 97% of the Sunnis support attacking US forces and that comes from the mainstream media, gogling I can find a poll that says 1/2 of Iraqis (including Kurds) support attacks on US troops; - the Kurds and it will be an overwhealming majority..

The reason the would want the US out even if it does mean civil war is simply because they know that eventually, in the next few years the US will be forced to leave anyways, the know the US can never defeat the insurgency and that they can't even get it reduced after 3 years it's even worse.. they know that wars like this will take a toll on the US economy as we are seeing now and that support for occupying Iraq in the US is dwindling fast SO might as well get the civil war over with, better you get to the eventual end of the conflict sooner so your life can get back to normal..wars like Lebanon, Vietnam do eventually end..and most of Iraqis live in an ethnically homogenous area, so they know they will have either a militia to protect them, better a militia rule than protracted guerilla war.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Jaja do you think you can find any one of those surveys that states 97% of Iraqis want US forces to leave?



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Well I don't know about the 97% figure, but you can take a look in the recent elections, where the primary campaign promise of the winning coalition was to secure the earliest possible withdrawal of US forces. I have no doubt most of the people of Iraq are happy to be rid of Saddam (or at least were in 2003), however they'd like to see us leave ASAP as well.


bih

posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
I just thaught of something which is why is America complaining about Iran allegedly arming an insurgency in Iraq when America themselves regularly arm Insurgents/guerillas/warlords and terrorists around the world in places such as Asia, Latin America, Africa and the middle east infact wearn't they just arming secular warlords against muslims in Somalia just a few weeks ago.



I agree with you 100%
,and to iran thanks for supplying the insurgents



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join