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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
2 Democrat Presidents were impeached one removed from office
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.
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
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
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
We can't leave now, but we can't get into another war
Indeed. Check and mate, eh?
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
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.
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.