Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

US troops 'to target Iranians in Iraq'

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Like it or not, the US has a right to kill a foreign agent involved in arming the insurgency in Iraq. Just as the Iranians would have the right to kill any of our troops if we were in their country to meddle about. I dont like it, but its a fact. Dont expect Iranians not to be targets if they are in Iraq training or aiding insurgents in any way, shape, or form. Common sense folks.




posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   
What sucks is Iran is a REAL threat and should be dealt with, they actually support terror and with every inch of there being (not the people but the extremest government) want the West and the Jews Dead.

We could deal with that most likely with the support of the American people. if they didn't mess us up so bad in Iraq, we have real terror threats in this world Iraq wasn't one of them and now we are stretched so thin. I hate to say it but when history looks back, choosing this war is going to cause a huge attack on us because we didn't choose the real threats, just the easy ones an the ones that could make the most money.

We can't leave now, but we can't get into another war, and does that now give the real bad guys time to get there sh!t together?



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
Like it or not, the US has a right to kill a foreign agent involved in arming the insurgency in Iraq.


I agree, but will US target Saudi Arabia if they decide to aid Sunnis in Iraq to fight against Shiites.


Saudi Arabia has warned Washington it might provide financial aid to Iraqi Sunnis in any fighting against Shiites if the U.S. pulls its troops out of Iraq, The New York Times reported Wednesday.www.abcnews.go.com...


Even when it means only if the US leaves I wonder if perhaps they are already doing this.

Arms are coming from somewhere, even Al-qiada that is mostly Sunnis can not be overruled, but also how we know that Saudi is not supporting both, al-qaida and Sunnis in Iraq.

Iran supporting Shiites militias so also somebody is arming the Sunnis.

Both groups have something in common their targets do not discriminate between their natural enemies of the region and the foreign US forces.




[edit on 26-1-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Marg thats only if the U.S. pulls out. Otherwise, the Saudis won't do it.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Marg thats only if the U.S. pulls out. Otherwise, the Saudis won't do it.


Can we be sure of that? that they are not financing them now, can we really prove that is not happening?



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edn
@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.[edit on 26-1-2007 by Edn]


Germans fighting gorillas? Was this in an African campaign or in a zoo?

Oh, maybe you meant the Spanish word "guerilla". If so, defeat by guerillas is not an "absolute fact".

Some folks here (that would love to see a U.S. defeat at any cost) seem to want to imply that these iranians are in iraq for some legitimate purpose, perhaps to make or sell persian rugs. C'mon, everyone knows better than that. You're all being played by the iranian side of the propaganda machine, just as you accuse others of being played by the U.S. side. Both sides do this. Understand?

And the article I read specifically says that iranian diplomats will not be targeted. Of course that only means every iranian that goes to iraq will be declared a "diplomat".

[edit on 1/26/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Can we be sure of that? that they are not financing them now, can we really prove that is not happening?


Well if they were, they wouldn't be making this comment about warning the U.S. that they would finance the Sunnis if the U.S. pulls out would they?

Not to mention that many insurgents have financial means using robbery and ransom to finance their war, as well as sympathizers around the world. Not to mention that the Saudi govt. fears any Saudi citizen that sneaks into Iraq comes back to target the Saudi govt. by blowing things up which is why they been on the borders watching for any instrusion either in or out of Iraq. The Saudis would only support these insurgents if the Iranians are coming in, that shows their desperate plan to counter Iran's regional influence. As long as the U.S. is in the way, the Saudis are not going to do anything, unless the U.S. pulls out. Not to mention that relations between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia is a testy and the Saudis don't want to make the American people think they are supporting Al Qaeda (even though they deny it) as well as the Sunni insurgents.


Edn

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Dam this topic is just full of people bashing others spelling. As I pointed out its not my fault I cant get every word right. I'll be sure to try harder next time.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edn

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.[edit on 26-1-2007 by Edn]


Thats funny. I seem to recall us fighting an insurgency in Germany after WWII for quite some time. I believe they called themselves the Werevolves or something like that. Guess how we beat them? Can you guess? Huh?

BY BEING COMPLETE HARDASSES AND HAVING ZERO TOLERANCE
www.abc.net.au...

But noooooooooooooo now we have to coddle them and treat them all with dignity and respect. F that. I dont treat a man in real life with respect if he doesnt treat me with respect. Do unto others. They want to blow themselves up in crowds of women and children then we should deal with them hard-line.
No, I dont mean we blow up their women and children (I know that ones coming) but we cant keep up this idiotic slap fight like a bunch of giggling fags either.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edn
Dam this topic is just full of people bashing others spelling. As I pointed out its not my fault I cant get every word right. I'll be sure to try harder next time.


Sorry, but your use of the wrong word created a rather humorous picture - like in that Planet of the Apes movie. And this is not really a spelling issue, it's a vocabulary issue. And if not yours, whose fault would it be, teachers, education system?

Back on topic, let's not all play dumb here. The iranians are in iraq for one purpose, which is to destabilize the iraqi government and help kill Americans (OK that's 2 reasons). To pretend anything else because it supports your particular agenda is ludicrous.

I read an article yesterday that says the serial numbers on infrared triggering devices used to make the most sophisticated IED's have been traced to orders placed from iran. If true, that to me would justify the capture and killing of iranian agents in iraq.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I agree, but will US target Saudi Arabia if they decide to aid Sunnis in Iraq to fight against Shiites.

Even when it means only if the US leaves I wonder if perhaps they are already doing this.

Arms are coming from somewhere, even Al-qiada that is mostly Sunnis can not be overruled, but also how we know that Saudi is not supporting both, al-qaida and Sunnis in Iraq.

Iran supporting Shiites militias so also somebody is arming the Sunnis.

Both groups have something in common their targets do not discriminate between their natural enemies of the region and the foreign US forces.
[edit on 26-1-2007 by marg6043]


Its the global game of chess for the most valuable resource known to man, and no it isnt oil, its influence. Everyone wants a piece of the Iraq pie not only for the oil, but for influence in the region. If we caught Saudi Arabia funding Sunni militias or insurgents that were targeting US forces wed be in a pickle wouldnt we? Do we dare denouce our largest oil supplier in the ME, the lifeline of our country? I say if it does happen, we stop aid to SA in money and material, and purchase all our oil from our great neighbors to the north, makes more sense to me anyways.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   

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

And iranians working in iraq with insurgent militias that are killing american troops is an iranian declaration of war on the US.


it's genocide. Punishing Iranians for what their government supports, and killing millions upon millions of people.

War isn't genocide. If the iranian government is going to be attacking american soliders in iraq, even if through proxy, then the iranian people had better overthrow their own government if they don't want us to.


Condemning People to a horrific death of extermination,

Who said to exterminate the iranian people? Sending them 'back to the stone age' is merely hyperbole for waging a massive attack. Thats not extermination.


Men, women, children and the old.

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

Screw them. If they dont' want to die, then they'll have to make their government stop killing us.


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

Thats clearly false. War defeatd global fascism and internationalist communism. War brought the modern age into existence and spread it across the globe. Heck, the US devleoped space technology from War, and even now the iranians are talking about having a space program, by using their attack missiles. War does not only bring about more war.


marg6043
So now they are to target Iranians in Iraq, does that included invited diplomats by the prime minister of Iraq?

Clearly not. They are talking about agents of the government who are working with the armed militias, like the Revolutionary Guard Commander that they recently caught.

Bush is desperate and his time is running out he needs to finish his god and occurs private agenda goals finished.

On this I have to agree. A few years ago Bush said that Iran, Iraq, and NK are the three most evil nations on the planet, that they sponsor the sort of terrorism that lead to 911, and that they are working on WMDs that they can use nationally or sell to non-governmental terror groups.

BUT, all he did was attack Iraq. Thats nonsense. You can't say that there are three 'most evil' nations, and not attack or seriously deal with all three. Bush clearly isn't sincere in his rhetoric. AND, as pointed out by other posters, we've known about Iranian support for insurgent groups attacking americans for a while now, and its only now that we are thinking about doing something. This is because the primary motivation here for action is domestic politics. The republicans took a whumping in the '06 election, and now the administration, party loyalists all, need to drum up support for the party by '08.


After all Shiite are all bind by tribal links.

Its actually more complicated than it might appear. The Iraqi shiites are arabs, the Iranian shiites are mostly persians. The original arab sunni/shia schism was over the politics of how to determine the rightful ruler of the islamic nation. When shia islam spread into the persian lands, there was a reaction and a spread outwards of modified sects within Shia islam, such as the Ismaili sect (the so-called 'illuminati of the east'), and others.

So while our media and perceptions are looking through this at a very low resolution, and only see 'shias' and 'sunnis', there is actually a somewhat higher resolution on the ground between sects within those groups.


Even when it means only if the US leaves I wonder if perhaps they are already doing this.

There's no way that they aren't already doing this. AND, a portion of the sunni insurgents are.....old guard hussein loyalists and baathists.

If we leave iraq, we're still going to have to pick a side to support, and we're probably going to end up giving money and weapons to the very people that we just overthrew and working to re-install them.


Low Orbit
We should also be going after the Syrians in Iraq as well. While Im not sure this new tactic will change everything in Iraq

It won't change anything, because its not an actual, real, effort at resolving a problem. Its a response to a political situation in the US. We've known for a long time now that the syrians and iranians were supporting insurgents inside of Iraq. We did nothing because the administration isn't as interested in winning as it is in carefully doling out political support for itself domestically. They know that the fighting is going to be rough and unpopular, no matter what, so they sent in a minimum number of troops to be able to say 'we have done great things, beaten saddam, created elections, helped form a government' etc, during elections. Now they want to be able to say 'democrats are telling us to leave iraq, which is dangerous on its own, but now iran is moving in, and killing our troops, and we have to fight back'. Its true, sure enough, but it was true years ago.
And, yes, notice, no mention of Syria and its support for baathist militias (syria of course is also baathist), or its smuggling of iraqi generals into safe havens inside of syria, etc.

Foreign fighters also only make up a small portion of the insurgents. We shouldn't be permiting the iranians, syrians, or anyone, to aid insurgent groups, but its largely an internal iraqi uprising. Guerillas only survive because they can live amoung the people, who accept them, and give them material support.


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.


The event in reference was trying to say, 'yes! We defeated hussein, and now iraq can have a stable democracy'. That was what the adminstration, and many people, thought would happen. Remove the totalitarian nationalist oppression, and the public will say 'thank god!' and form a government. Its true that we defeated hussein, but we've failed, so far, to defeat the guerillas. So its hardly improper to point out the irony of having said 'mission accomplished' after years more of fighting.


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.

Lets just be clear though, shia groups didn't perpetrate 911. Sunni groups did. Hezbollah is not friend of the US, and it has completely destroyed the hope for independant democracy in Lebanon, but its not anywhere the same sort of threat as al-Qaida. We don't need to deal with these problems one by one, we should be able to handle things on multiple fronts at once, but lets not overhype the danger of the Shiites. Its the sunni terrorists that are crossing into the western world to carry out terror attacks. The shiite terror groups are, at least, attacking us when we invade their countries or attack their neighbhors. Neither is acceptable, but lets not pretend that the Shias are the main threat.


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

THey've been doing this for over 50 years. Our government isn't all that concerned with Iran. We even supplied them with weapons. We haul out the threat of Iran when it serves our political purposes.

If they really beleived Iran was a serious threat, then they would've invaded it already, at least since the fall of communism. Iran isn't the soviet union, we don't need to play a geo-political game to outmaneuvre and contain it, we only did that with the USSR beause it could've wiped us out with their nukes.
We havent' dealt directly with iran, because the various governments have never considered it that much of a global threat, and this includes both Bushs.



konigKoas
2 Democrat Presidents were impeached one removed from office

Er, who?
The only President who ever had to leave office over the possibility of impeachment was Nixon.


Please stop bringing race into, as a Natural Born Citizen of the United States im sick of it!!!

Did you fail to notice that Marg is ALSO a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE USA???!!

Drop this ridiculous issue of grammar. Its irrelveant.


deltaboy
Marg thats only if the U.S. pulls out.

This really isn't much of an 'if' question anymore. Once bush leaves office, the democrats are going to start the pullout. Even if they don't want to, and are shills, (which, being politicians, they are), they're still going to do it, because their domestic political support is conditional upon it. We are leaving iraq.


Otherwise, the Saudis won't do it.

The saudis aren't stupid, they know that they need to give their faction weapons, money, and training now, or else they'll be in a weak position once the US does leave. They are doing it right now, aiding the very groups that are killing our soldiers and engaging in the very sectarian violence that has lead to our failure in the country.

Well if they were, they wouldn't be making this comment about warning the U.S. that they would finance the Sunnis if the U.S. pulls out would they?

Its politics. Even in the US the media has noted 'hey, now theres a big 'arc' of shiite groups wrapping right around the middle east, gosh, aint' that interesting'. Once we leave, we are going to be saying that we need to support the central government, purged of shia militias, and 'thank god for our friends the saudis who have been valiantly equiping these people for years'. They not actually warning our government, they don't warn us through newspaper reports.

Not to mention that many insurgents have financial means using robbery and ransom to finance their war,

That hardly means that the saudis aren't financing and equiping sunni militias. The saudis are the richest country in the region, you think that they are sitting on their hands unsure of what to do? Of course not. They fight wars with money.


We do have the right to counter any Iranian agents that are in Iraq. Its similar to spy v. spy thing.

Its pointless. Iran is not the USSR, the War on Terror is not a Cold War. If Iran is attacking us abroad, then destroy them.
Besides, we clearly have already lost at that game with the Iranians. They were able to get their agent, Chalabi, to feed us information that not only lead us to attack Iraq, the one block to their dominating the region, but to nearly but Chalabi in as teh head of Iraq, AND at the same time, that information, beign false, lead to the collapse of US public support for the war in iraq AND the greater war on terror.
So lets try not to play a game of global chess with them, the persians INVENTED chess, we're too incompetent to beat them. We need to stick to checkers (attack us, we bomb this city, now king me).

This tactic the Iranians are using is similar to Iranians using Hezbollah for its agenda.

And, of course, its nothing more than the US's own tactic of using terror groups and death squads to support US interests in regions across the globe. Heck, the Iranians probably learned it from us when we were selling them arms and then using the money to prop up drug lords in south america and using them to destabilize left leaning regimes throughout the region.

Or they learned it when we supported a military coup to overthrow their own democratically elected government and install the Shah as emperor in Iran.


shifttrio
We can't leave now, but we can't get into another war

Indeed. Check and mate, eh?

Edn
The Germans during the war tried to fight the gorillas and partisans thought the entire war and they failed miserably.

What are you talking about? The french resistance NEVER succeded in forcing the germans out. It was, at best, able to muck up some of their operations.
I don't know where this idea that guerillas are invincible has come from, but it seems so popular. Perhaps its because the US had to leave Vietnam, that so many americans think that once a guerilla war starts, its over.
Thats just plain silly. Insurgencies are often defeated, they just can't be fought using the same tactics and strategy as conventional warfare. THe US in Iraq right now is like the British during the Revolution (aka, the american insurrection), they are using traditional tactics to fight a new enemy and meeting with little success.


Regensturm
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.

Indeed. Its quite smart of the Iranians to do so. At the same time, they're engaging in war with the United States. If we invade Iran, there really can't be any question of it being 'illegal', like with the Iraq invasion, or 'unprovoked' like the afghanistan invasion. They have gone to war with us. They haven't announced it, but that'd be a stupid thing to do.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   
The world is a much safer place with Nygdan nowhere near the halls of power. I sleep better at night knowing that.


[edit on 26-1-2007 by grover]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
But noooooooooooooo now we have to coddle them and treat them all with dignity and respect. F that. I dont treat a man in real life with respect if he doesnt treat me with respect. Do unto others.


Just FYI, that "Do unto others" saying is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

It's not "do unto others as they have done unto you... "

In other words, treat them like you want to be treated, not like they have treated you.
The saying doesn't apply to what you're trying to say.

I'm afraid you're right, Agit8dChop. This is just another step in our war in the Middle East. We're asking for whatever we get.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I can't wait till we target Iranians in Iran...

It won't come soon enough for me.

Then possibly there will be an end to all of the terror in the middle east once Iran has been taken out of the game.

Just think no Iran and no Hammas terror in Lebanon and no homicide bombers in Isreal.

With Iran out of the picture there could be a true peace in the middle east in our life time.

Like I said I can't wait till the Mullahs are gone in Iran.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Errrrr excuse me for asking, but just how the hell do you tell an Iranian from an Iraqi, no it is not the start of a joke, but how would you know when aiming your catapult, rifle or laser guided bomb know what or who you are hitting is an Iranian ???

Do the spec ops go in and infiltrate the targets luggage to check what passport they carry, do the intended targets get shown the latest pin up from Iran just to gauge their response, whooaa means they are not Iranian and whoooooaaaaaaaaa means they are !!!

Sorry if some of you regard this post as taking the p*ss but I just want to know how you can tell who are and who are not Iranians when they are in Iraq.

Wolfie



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I personally think Iran have just as much a right to be in Iraq as the Americans Do.


Being we are there, illegially occupying, They have a right to be helping their region defend against the foreign invaders.

Its only because its 'YOUR' country occupying that your labeling them the enemy.

IE - hitler.

Hitler labeled poland the enemy, and eveantually the PEOPLE thought poland were the enemy.
But history has proven who the enemy was.
And history will prove it right again.

The USA if it takes on IRAN, will fail.
I dont want it to, but it will.
you cannot illegially invade occupy then spread over a region expecting there to EVER be peace in that area.
Until you kill every last person of that land, there will always be someone prepared to defend their home, or help their neighbour do the same.

It would be the same ANYWhere on the planet, for GW To expect Iraqi's to just lay down and let us implement our designated way of life on them is ludicrous.
For the people, to believe that doing so is morally right in ANY Aspect is seriously confused.

Why dont people understand this.

'' Iraq is not Americas LAND to be dictating on ''
'' Iraq is not American PEOPLE to be TOLD how to live ''
'' IRAN is not America's Neighbour to be TOLD how to behave ''
'' IRAQ is never going to allow AMERICA to rest, until every american is OUT!!!''

Believing we can subdue this insurgency, then limit the influence Iran has is severe stupidity.

honestly guys, If ANY nation on this planet invaded the USA, and enforced its way of life on you... would you EVER be able to accept it?
WAKEUP!



[edit on 26-1-2007 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   


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.


Concrete proof please. The conjecture you provided is not enough evidence to carry out the actions permitted as we speak.

It's nonsense that nobody can provide substantial evidence that Iran is arming Militias; it's almost a cop out really from putting the real blame on America for it's blunder.

Luxifero



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Despite the fact that the war in Iraq is illegal and that preemptive warfare is a disturbingly barbaric concept, we created this calamity and we will be held responsible for stabilizing the region.

It is understood that Iran and Syria are suppling the insurgency, but are there others? If Saudi Arabia is supplying the Sunni insurgency then they are at fault as surely as Iran is.

It is also a possibility that the U.S. itself is covertly aiding insurgents in order to maintain conflict; it could be a method to incite a conflict with the state of Iran. Although it could be argued that the U.S. would be better off if Iraq was stable as we will establish 14 'enduring' bases there, in this position Iran could be contained. But what if containment isn't enough for those in power?

In a full scale war with Iran, it is possible that we would be facing 15,665,725 Iranian troops (CIA Factbook). That number may also be bolstered through support by Iranian aligned nations and NGOs.

How many of you are of eligible age for the draft? I am. How many of you have sons, daughters, nephews, and nieces of draft age? If we go to war with Iran there must be a draft.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Iran has no business being in Iraq. Although we were supposed to be going after Osama Bin Ladin after "911" occured, but also chose to go to Iraq because of reasons only certain groups of people know. But we are in Iraq and are stuck there. Iran is up to no good and need to be dealt with. Their World Enemy #1 and if found in Iraq will be killed.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join