US troops 'to target Iranians in Iraq'

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:59 AM
link   
news.ninemsn.com.au...

'US troops 'to target Iranians in Iraq''


US President George W Bush has authorised the American military to kill or capture Iranian agents active inside Iraq, The Washington Post reported, citing government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the plan.



The drums of war have started, we are now authorising the direct military action against Iranian assets/men within Iraq.

OF course there are Iranians in Iraq, its there next door neighbour for christ sake.

Will Iran take a public stance against this?
Are they going to start beating the drums of war
'' Should you attack any Iranian civilians in Iraq, we will take it as an attack on the iranian nation '' sort of deal?
I mean its fair enough, we are at war with IRAQ, and Iran are meddling.
So why not just take the definitive stance AGAINST iran, instead of beating around the bush being political?

How long is it going to be , until we start hitting supply lines originating from Iran?
Only to start hitting the origins of the supply lines....
Then before we know it, we are directly hitting Iran.........






[edit on 26-1-2007 by Agit8dChop]




posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Posted by Agit8dChop

we are at war with IRAQ



Ummm no we arent. Bush officially declared the war won and over about 3 years ago



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
The drums of war have started, we are now authorising the direct military action against Iranian assets/men within Iraq.


They're the ones initiating war by going into iraq and arming and helping the insurgents that are killing us! If they don't want us to invade and destroy them, then they could....not try to kill our soliders.


How long is it going to be , until we start hitting supply lines originating from Iran?
Only to start hitting the origins of the supply lines....
Then before we know it, we are directly hitting Iran.........


If they have supply lines and are aiding the insurgents then we should be attacking and occupying them.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by Nygdan]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
Ummm no we arent. Bush officially declared the war won and over about 3 years ago


Ummm so you think because Bush said so, the war is won and over, do you? That it would all finish?

Iraq is still under occupation. There is still a war on Iraq.


As for Iranians being targeted, Iran have every right to say that the targetting and killing of their citizens is a declaration of war.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Weve been finding Iranians dead alongside insurgents for a couple years now. This isnt new. I was surprised after the first Iranians were found we didnt declare war. Whats Iran doing sending troops in to keep up the destabilization in Iraq anyway?



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Bush is desperate and his time is running out he needs to finish his god and occurs private agenda goals finished.

Chaney is sweating also and getting very angry that his corporate agenda is not finished.

So now they are to target Iranians in Iraq, does that included invited diplomats by the prime minister of Iraq?

But how do we know that the death bodies that the military and the government will claim be Iranians are really Iranians

After all the death can not talk.

The way this administration is already showing their desperation to finish their agenda . . . brings to mind how dirty they will play to get Iran into a conflict.

After all public opinion is so low on the Bush administration and their role in the war that I will not be surprised if they use all kind of dirty tricks to finish what they started.

Think about it.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Weve been finding Iranians dead alongside insurgents for a couple years now. This isnt new.


But . . . are they fighters that has join the shiite fellow men insurgency freely and with not link to Iran government or . . . are they part of some agenda by Iran.

After all Shiite are all bind by tribal links.

Funny that the death can not talk.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist

Posted by Agit8dChop

we are at war with IRAQ



Ummm no we arent. Bush officially declared the war won and over about 3 years ago


This is exactly why liberals and the mentally challenged should have the same voting rights! Mission Completed does not mean War Won, but then again I'm not AirAmerica or Newsweek spoon feeding you that crap anyways.

It is good to hear we aren't afraid to label an Iranian as an Iranian. We should also be going after the Syrians in Iraq as well. While Im not sure this new tactic will change everything in Iraq for me it seems to simplify some of the problems out there. Whenever we can determine who is friend or foe is a good thing and to me that just means we are now even closer to victory.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by Low Orbit]

[edit on 26-1-2007 by Low Orbit]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Weve been finding Iranians dead alongside insurgents for a couple years now. This isnt new. I was surprised after the first Iranians were found we didnt declare war. Whats Iran doing sending troops in to keep up the destabilization in Iraq anyway?


First, the Iranian support of the Iraqi Shias (to the extent a number of those in the Iraqi government were in exile in Iran during Saddam's time) was because they share the same religion, and because Iran want a similar type of government in Iraq to Iran, to secure Iran's border.

Secondly, the Iranian support of the Shia militias in Iraq is to tie down US-UK forces in Iraq, to hinder them from invading Iran.

There are US forces in two bordering nations to Iran. Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran are acting for their national interests in supporting the shia militias in Iraq.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
This is exactly why liberals and the mentally challenged should have the same voting rights!


Then what do you call what Bush with all the ceremonial and propaganda media did three years ago after landing in the the carrier? In air force uniform and in a jet.


Here is a nice pic of the pompus event.

On May 1, 2003, President Bush stood underneath a “Mission Accomplished” banner and announced that “Major combat operations have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”


thinkprogress.org...

Look like mission acomplisheed has turn into mission impossible.

But . . . let blame the liberals.:Lil:



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Great post Regen and I totally agree, but, if Iran doesn't stop meddling in Iraq's affairs the US will get to put that second carrier group into action in a months time or so.

The US is sending out a signal loud and clear to Tehran, either get out of Iraq or get ready for us in Tehran! It's coming like it or not.

Marg Ill go real slow and Ill use small words so hopefully you can understand this.

War = Large War
Mission = Small War
there are many many missions in a war.
Sometimes you can lose the battle but still win the war. Bush was just stating correctly that the US won the battle/mission(not the war)

Im not sure if you understand the vocab used here Marg? do you?

[edit on 26-1-2007 by Low Orbit]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
Great post Regen and I totally agree, but, if Iran doesn't stop meddling in Iraq's affairs the US will get to put that second carrier group into action in a months time or so.

The US is sending out a signal loud and clear to Tehran, either get out of Iraq or get ready for us in Tehran! It's coming like it or not.



Thanks Low Orbit.

The last thing the US needs is an expanding of the war in Iraq into Iran.

Iran will not end it's support of the Shia Militias, for reasons I have explained.

If the US/Israel strike Iran, Iran will strike back, Simply more support for Shia Militias, even advisors, would do damage to the US in Iraq.

The Shia Militias will attack US troops more. Tensions with the Iraqi government and the US will rise.

This is, this may surprise you, a best case scenario in terms of retaliation for a strike on Iran.

Things could be a lot, lot worse.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   
If I remember correctly, all major combat operations were over with (meaning Shock and Awe style bombing runs over the country)

WAR is still going on in 2 nations lets not forget!!!

Dead Iranians, Syrians, Moroccons, Egyptians, North Africans have been found dead in the battlefiels of both Iraq and Afganistan!

Iranians are directly meddling in Iraq now a few killed on the field doesnt justify attacking Iran due to peoples free will!

But if Iranian Officals are in the country helping the insurgency then they are free game!


I just wish we can get rid of the Illegal Mexicans in this country! Suing a Radio Station because she didnt win a car because she didnt have her Social Security card aka Green Card



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I suppose it was the catchy headline…however, this is not new news.

This activity has already been going on for quite some time. Even the article posted makes claims of “over a year”, there has been plenty of time for Iran to take a stance…and has.

There has also been ample time for them to remove themselves…and have not...go figure.



mg



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Shias and Hezbollah will attack regardless of what the US does. This fact is reason enough alone to send Iran back to the stoned age. The US and friends must do whatever it takes to rid the world of Hezbollah and other terrorists and there is no way to stop the infestation of terrorism if we can't get to their hives.

As long as Iran preaches and teaches terrorism they will be on the recieving end of Ameria's last form of diplomacy, war.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit

Im not sure if you understand the vocab used here Marg? do you?

[edit on 26-1-2007 by Low Orbit]


No, can you send me a dictionary so I can understand what our government is doing in Iraq?

I am so dumb and stupid I don't get it.


Plus I am nothing more than a liberal . . . you know better than anybody how we liberals are.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Marg,
Tell us why you dont support our nations troops in Iraq and why you Liberals dont want to send 20,000 more soldiers to help out the ones there already!

Why do Liberals want a US defeated in Iraq! give me a logical answer on that!

I know some reasons you want America to look bad
Most Liberals support Terrorism (Reason Al-Qaida Celebrated Democrats victory in the house and congress)
Want to make George Bush look bad!



Other facts:

Under a Democrat President 2 nukes were dropped on Civilians!
2 Democrat Presidents were impeached one removed from office!

[edit on 26-1-2007 by KonigKaos]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by KonigKaos
Marg,
Tell us why you dont support our nations troops in Iraq and why you Liberals dont want to send 20,000 more soldiers to help out the ones there already!



Iraq belong to the Iraqis, their resources belong to Iraqis and Iraq has already a government elected supposedly by their own people.

Saddam is death and that means . . . what in the hell I we still in that country for.

You tell me.

Iraq = no WMD = not links to alqaida, so you tell me what in the heck we are doing in that country after mission is acomplished.

It has nothing to do with liberal or conservatism but rather private ridden agendas.

And yes look at Iraq it seems that policies are going peachy and taking Iran is going to make it better.

Wake up America this not about losing or winning but control, the only losers are the American people and the death of our troops in are at the mercy of agenda Riddlen politicians and war profiteers.

Americas polls and Americans voters already told their side of their choices and what they want.

Iraq on their own and US out.


Edn

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
@KonigKaos

Because we will never win, its an absolute fact. The Germans during the war tried to fight the gorillas and partisans thought the entire war and they failed miserably. The fact of the matter is army's can only win against army's and we arnt fighting any army's in Iraq.

but, and I'm sure Marg will agree that doesn't mean we don't support the troops over there, there only doing what there told to do.

I couldn't stop but wonder why on Earth the US would send 20,000 more troops to Iraq. 20 years of the UK fighting in Ireland has taught us that the only way to stop the fighting is by negotiations, sending more troops is only going to fuel the fire.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by Edn]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
Shias and Hezbollah will attack regardless of what the US does. This fact is reason enough alone to send Iran back to the stoned age.


Sending Iran back to the stone age (I presume this is what you meant, rather than give Iran a lifetime amount of Cannabis) is not reason, it's genocide. Punishing Iranians for what their government supports, and killing millions upon millions of people.

I just wish, just wish, people would for once, stop and think about what they are saying that they seem to do with ease, in advocating sending a country 'back to the stone age', as in detonating a nuclear bomb or more over a country/countries, over people/peoples, and eradicating them in a burning fire or melting skin and fusing flesh and charred bone.

Condemning People to a horrific death of extermination, people like you and me who have loved ones, who live and breathe and love, and strive.

Men, women, children and the old.

Who smile and cry and feel, and who hope for happiness in their lives as we all do.

Just think. For once. Please.



Originally posted by Low Orbit
The US and friends must do whatever it takes to rid the world of Hezbollah and other terrorists and there is no way to stop the infestation of terrorism if we can't get to their hives.


Dialogue would be start. A review of foreign policy too.


Originally posted by Low Orbit
As long as Iran preaches and teaches terrorism they will be on the recieving end of Ameria's last form of diplomacy, war.



Which of course, will solve everything and make everything alright.

Answering guns with guns leads to only more guns breaking out.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by Regensturm]





 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join