US troops 'to target Iranians in Iraq'

14 of the 18 provinces in Iraq are pretty sedate, so most all of the news you hear about are in the 4 that aren't. From my experience in Iraq, the average Iraqis while not necessarily welcoming us with open arms, don't like the insurgents either. It's not a matter of average Iraqis believing that their Army and Police are traitors. Iraqis are volunteering in droves despite threats and intimidation, because they want a stable Iraq. Most Iraqis do want us to leave, but not just yet. 2/3 of the population risked their safety to vote in the elections. When I was over there, we saw Iraqi neighborhood watch types executing insurgents on sight, because they were tired of the insurgents firing mortars/rockets from their neighborhood and then receiving counter battery fire from the US. Our tips lines had high volume too, with folks ratting out insurgents, and locations of weapons caches. It's not as one sided as you make it out, with us hated more than the insurgents. Of course the insurgents hate us, but that skews the perceptions. Most Iraqis just want stability and a job, so they can take care of themselves and their families. The insurgents know this and do everything they can to throw a monkey wrench in this plan. Some are idealogues, some are former Iraqi intel and SF, some are Ba'athists, some are the criminals that Saddam released(in fact many are just common thugs), some are foreigners. There's no monolithic group that all insurgents fall under, and they all have their own agendas in addition to getting us to quit.

GT100FV, thank you for your input, it is very valuable and needs to be heard.

More importantly, thank you for your service.

[edit on 1/26/2007 by Togetic]

You're welcome. It's just frustrating when the media sensationalizes the situation as being utter chaos, when there are many positive things happening that never get reported. Ultimately it's going to take a political solution, but the government needs our help until it can provide the necessary security. Of course they need to get a move on in that regard, but we owe it to them to not just leave them flapping in the wind.

Iran Military Information, Source: CIA World Factbook

Military branches:
Islamic Republic of Iran Regular Forces (Artesh): Ground Forces, Navy, Air Force (Niruye Havayi Jomhuriye Islamiye Iran; includes air defense); Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (Sepah-e Pasdaran-e Enqelab-e Eslami, IRGC): Ground Forces, Navy, Air Force, Qods Force (special operations), and Basij Force (Popular Mobilization Army); Law Enforcement Forces (2006)

Military service age and obligation:
18 years of age for compulsory military service; 16 years of age for volunteers; soldiers as young as 9 were recruited extensively during the Iran-Iraq War; conscript service obligation - 18 months (2004)

Manpower available for military service:
males age 18-49: 18,319,545
females age 18-49: 17,541,037 (2005 est.)

Manpower fit for military service:
males age 18-49: 15,665,725
females age 18-49: 15,005,597 (2005 est.)

Manpower reaching military service age annually:
males age 18-49: 862,056
females age 18-49: 808,044 (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
3.3% (2003 est.)

[edit on 27-1-2007 by wingman77]

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

Yes, you’re right. But does this low-fi war of assymetrical warfare need to become more? Or just a low-fi war? Because if it gets bigger, and the US attack Iran, the Shia factor of the insurgency in Iraq will grow. The Iraqi government’s tension with the US will increase.

Originally posted by Nygdan
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.

War is genocide if it’s discriminate as people who declare sending people ‘back to the stone age’ want it to be.

Originally posted by Nygdan
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.

‘back to the stone age’ is regarded as hyperbole for either a nuclear attack, or mass carpet bombing, that is genocide and extermination.

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

There are changes underway in Iran. Ahmadinejad was elected as a protest by the Iranian people at the moderates for not going far enough in their reforms, and for his promise of social welfare and health reforms.

Iranian students recently protested against Ahmadinejad for the way he speaks to the outside world.

Iranian women are beginning to see equal oppurtunities in education.

Attack Iran, and 20 odd years of progress will be reversed, destroyed. The people will unite against their government.

Threatening Iranians with death if they don’t overthrow their government is vulgar. Many Iranians do not care about politics, and just want to get through life, those that do, particularly the young, want change. Threatening them with death if they don’t overthrow their government will not encourage, it will discourage, for it is a horrible threat. They will unite behind their government because of the threat of war.

Originally posted by Nygdan
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.

War did not defeat global fascism. World War One encouraged it. Fascist and communist regimes popped up through the mid to late 70’s in Latin America and elsewhere.

The US did develop space technology from war, with the help of Nazi scientists.

War brings about more wars. People said after WW1 that it was the war to end all wars. They were wrong.

World War One led to World War Two, which led to The Cold War and the proxy wars, which led to where we are today.

Originally posted by Nygdan
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.

It is a matter of whom when to war with whom first. Unamed Iranian officials have been saying for a while that US ‘feet’ are on the ground in Iran.

The Iranians could say the war started with that.

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
Actually the Title is new as in the news came out today that Bush has publicly authorized the killing if Iranian Agents plotting Attacks on the US and Allies. Sure they may have done it but the real story is here that Bush it making sure Iran knows it and that why it news.

I imagine the title would be more…”original” than “new”….I suppose if one needs to read in the newspaper that it is raining to see if it is now truly/publicly raining…this would be news…most of us just look out the windows.

I would imagine around the time Abu Mustafa al-Sheibani was listed as a target, the SCIRI (Iranian backed) Badr Corps began firing-up and the British were tracking Iranian movements, finding Iranian arms/shaped charges all within Iran in the south etc. etc. etc.…all around 2005…going form here would be a good place to start looking for the “targeting of Iranians agents” /operatives within Iraq...no?

Or was there a hint with the public December 2006 arrests of Iranians, formation of the special operations task force 16 or was it the presidents State of the Union Address that gave it away…

Btw…Imo, Iran knows already when there operatives are killed or captured…

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
You both blindly follow your agendas with out looking at what is really going on TODAY.

Oh! the irony….


Mg

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
If Iranians of foreign nationals are ASSISTING the insurgency I have the feeling there probably welcomed, or even invited to join the struggle.

Where as the US Decided to intervene on its own merrits.

LOL stupid logic. There are more than a few Iraqi's who welcome the US presence. So I guess the US can't be invaders either Look up the word ' hypocracy ', now tell me if it describes you

What a twat.

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL stupid logic. There are more than a few Iraqi's who welcome the US presence. So I guess the US can't be invaders either

Look up the word ' hypocracy ', now tell me if it describes you

What a twat.

I see that today we are in an insulting mode, darn an I though that I was special I am so jealous now.

Anyway Shiite militias will no doubt will welcome any Iranian fighters that happen to be Shiites to help with their cause in Iraq no only against the Sunnis but also the US forces.

That bring the issue of . . . like Agit8dChop they are welcome in Iraq.


[edit on 27-1-2007 by marg6043]

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL stupid logic. There are more than a few Iraqi's who welcome the US presence. So I guess the US can't be invaders either

Look up the word ' hypocracy ', now tell me if it describes you

What a twat.

I see that today we are in an insulting mode, darn an I though that I was special I am so jealous now.

Anyway Shiite militias will no doubt will welcome any Iranian fighters that happen to be Shiites to helot with their cause in Iraq no only against the Sunnis but also the US forces.

That bring the issue of . . . like Agit8dChop they are welcome in Iraq.

AS as I have already said, there are plenty of Iraqi's who want the Americans there as well, they don't want to be tortured, maimed or killd by Iranian funded death squads, so by your logic and his, the AMericans are welcome there as well.
Logic is logic after all, right Marg

[edit on 27-1-2007 by rogue1]

AS as I have already said, there are plenty of Iraqi's who want the Americans there as well, they don't want to be tortured, maimed or killd by Iranian funded death squads, so by your logic and his, the AMericans are welcome there as well.

I'm not sure why Iranians would fund death squads in Iraq to begin with nor am I sure where you're deriving this information from.

Luxifero

Originally posted by Luxifero

AS as I have already said, there are plenty of Iraqi's who want the Americans there as well, they don't want to be tortured, maimed or killd by Iranian funded death squads, so by your logic and his, the AMericans are welcome there as well.

I'm not sure why Iranians would fund death squads in Iraq to begin with nor am I sure where you're deriving this information from.

Luxifero

Quite simple really. The Iranians support teh Ahiite militia's such as the Mahdi Army. The MAhdi Army runs death squads. I can't make it any simpler, you do keep informed about the events in Iraq don't you ?

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Luxifero

AS as I have already said, there are plenty of Iraqi's who want the Americans there as well, they don't want to be tortured, maimed or killd by Iranian funded death squads, so by your logic and his, the AMericans are welcome there as well.

I'm not sure why Iranians would fund death squads in Iraq to begin with nor am I sure where you're deriving this information from.

Luxifero

Quite simple really. The Iranians support teh Ahiite militia's such as the Mahdi Army. The MAhdi Army runs death squads. I can't make it any simpler, you do keep informed about the events in Iraq don't you ?

It is accepted by most throughout the world that Iranians are infiltrating Iraq and helping the insurgents. Reuters has reported on this, as I recall. That is a very reputable European news service. While I do not have direct evidence that they are part of any death squads, their presence undermines the Iraqi government, and that seems to be an objectively Bad Thing.

As much as I disagree with Luxifero, I hope that rogue1 can scale down his rhetoric a little. There is no reason to belittle anyone.

Originally posted by Regensturm

Originally posted by Nygdan
Thats clearly false. War defeated 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.

War did not defeat global fascism. World War One encouraged it. Fascist and communist regimes popped up through the mid to late 70’s in Latin America and elsewhere.

The US did develop space technology from war, with the help of Nazi scientists.

War brings about more wars. People said after WW1 that it was the war to end all wars. They were wrong.

World War One led to World War Two, which led to The Cold War and the proxy wars, which led to where we are today.

This is interesting logic. However, if wars are spiraling as you say, what do we do about it? And, more importantly, assuming that everyone embraces peace and, say, disarms, how do you deal with someone who later on decides to take up arms?

I am unsure of the soundness of this logic. Was World War II an inevitable result of World War I? It seems as though the global depression, the haphazard splitting of German land, and the League of Nations were more causes of it than WWI.

WWII was a major factor in the Cold War, but the escalations in the war cannot necessarily be related to WWII.

Further, has the Cold War led to the War on Terrorism? Perhaps so; it bred an underculture of people used as pawns during the Cold War. However, after the end of the Cold War, we entered an era of relative peace.

I am not saying that I disagree totally with your statement, but the factors are more complicated than any of us realize.

Originally posted by Nygdan
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.

It is a matter of whom when to war with whom first. Unamed Iranian officials have been saying for a while that US ‘feet’ are on the ground in Iran.

The Iranians could say the war started with that.

I feel as though you would demand proof of Iranian involvement in Iraq if the US were to go into Iran on that basis. Therefore, I would hope that you would demand equally compelling proof from the Iranians before they went into Iraq. I have not seen any, and there does not seem to be independent evidence corroborating the Iranians' claims.

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
If Iranians of foreign nationals are ASSISTING the insurgency I have the feeling there probably welcomed, or even invited to join the struggle.

Where as the US Decided to intervene on its own merrits.

LOL stupid logic. There are more than a few Iraqi's who welcome the US presence. So I guess the US can't be invaders either

Look up the word ' hypocracy ', now tell me if it describes you

What a twat.

sigh, how can a debate go from being civil to having immature comments made simply because people dont agree.

Really mate, grow up, debate nicely or dont bother... that sort of post isnt nessecary.

And yes, The US ARE occupiers.
Iraq as a whole DOESNT want us there, they DIDNT want us there.
We militarily INVADED and kicked out there government took control and started dictating.

We are still there, builing bases and sucking there resources.

Where as they are obviously accepting foreign militia to tackle us, because they aide them, they hide them.. they welcome there assistance.

or is this to complex for you to understand?

break away from the fake US policy.

Originally posted by Togetic

This is interesting logic. However, if wars are spiraling as you say, what do we do about it? And, more importantly, assuming that everyone embraces peace and, say, disarms, how do you deal with someone who later on decides to take up arms?

Well, it could be answered that why would that someone need to arm when everyone else is disarmed.

It would be imperiative to look at why that someone would take up arms, and see if talks can be the way to resolve it.

Originally posted by Togetic
I am unsure of the soundness of this logic. Was World War II an inevitable result of World War I? It seems as though the global depression, the haphazard splitting of German land, and the League of Nations were more causes of it than WWI.

There was a depression in Germany, which, together with the sense by Germans of injustice because of the harsh penalties imposed upon them by the Allies in the wake of WW1 which humiliated them, led Hitler to rise so easily through the ranks, pulling at the nationalistic heartstrings of the Germans, speaking of the injustices brought upon them, and playing on the German's anger of a sense of being wronged to an extent that led him to wage war upon Europe by taking back what he said was Germany's lost in WW1 and waging war upon those who Hitler felt had wrong Germany in WW1.

Originally posted by Togetic
WWII was a major factor in the Cold War, but the escalations in the war cannot necessarily be related to WWII.

The geographical and geopolitical positionings of the US and USSR would not have been if there had been no World War Two.

The Soviet influence into Eastern Europe for example, would not have been there if the Eastern Front theatre of World Two had not extended to there, where the Soviets began to enter Eastern European countries to push the Germans back towards Germany, and ultimately, Berlin.

The same with the US influence in Western Europe, when the Western Front theatre of World War Two extended to there in 1944.

Originally posted by Togetic
Further, has the Cold War led to the War on Terrorism? Perhaps so; it bred an underculture of people used as pawns during the Cold War.

We need only look at the origins of Bin Laden, the idea of 'al qaeda', the Taleban, and the anger of Muslims in general for what they see as injustice for your answer.

Originally posted by Togetic
However, after the end of the Cold War, we entered an era of relative peace.

Not really, we had The Balkans, Somalia, Chechnya, Israel-Palestine, Rwanda and other wars which continued or sprung up after being 'tied down' or encouraged by The Cold War.

Originally posted by Togetic
I am not saying that I disagree totally with your statement, but the factors are more complicated than any of us realize.

I agree, there was localised issues in such conflicts past, present, and with a doomsaying knowledge, future.

But each global conflict between powers has created the pawns, the resentment, more wars and pawns, resentment, and more wars.

Originally posted by Regensturm

Originally posted by Togetic

This is interesting logic. However, if wars are spiraling as you say, what do we do about it? And, more importantly, assuming that everyone embraces peace and, say, disarms, how do you deal with someone who later on decides to take up arms?

Well, it could be answered that why would that someone need to arm when everyone else is disarmed.

It would be imperiative to look at why that someone would take up arms, and see if talks can be the way to resolve it.

The assumption that if there were no weapons there would be no war is illogical. First, someone not satisfied with their lot in life could create weapons. Someone in the mists of time had to do it to get the ball rolling. Secondly, this seems to be a misunderstanding of human nature. Violence is there; it is not going away. Is there then an imperitive for some sort of defense against someone who would threaten you? It that not just, not fair?

With regard to the second point, the question begs: is there ever a point where talks fail? Further, you seem to assume that any bargaining will be in good faith. This is a naive assumption. Talks can be entered into for the purposes of stalling, political posturing, probing another country's weaknesses, and a whole bunch of other reasons not related to securing peace.

Further, the reason someone wants to arm and perhaps possibly go to war is an important thing to understand. However, even if you understand it, does that necessarily mean that you can bring about peace? What if a country is led by a madman who wants global domination by his religion, and he would rather die than see that goal unfulfilled? Is that man ever going to be appeased by negotiated concessions that allow co-existence? The principal question in your scheme is: when does talking become futile? Would you sit by and let someone who has said that they want to kill you arm themselves? Would you talk, or would you disarm them by choice?

The desire for peace is a noble one. But we live in an imperfect world, and the approach you seem to be espousing is precisely the one Neville Chamberlain took in appeasing Hitler, and is precisely one of the major actions that allowed Hitler to move into France.

I agree, talks can be used to maniuplate a situation and stal.
MUCH like Iran are doing right now.
Today /28-1-07 I read on a russia news source that Iran has stated they are prepared to return to talks , and are willing to allow UN inspectors in again.
Obviously its a ploy, UN Will have to talk, have to negotiate, Iran will stall ask for weeks to decide, and then they'll of gained 1-2 months, through false hope.

BUT IRAQ...

SADDAM requested direct dialouge with bush and co.
Bush and CO REFUSED to talk to them.

HAD we of talked, we would of realised the WMD / TERRORIST issue was bunk, this is why bush didnt allow the talks to happen.

Talks can be used for the wrong purpose I agree,

But when the OFfensive/Attacking nation REFUSES To talk to the far inferior, suppposid ' evil enemy ' it makes that point MUTE.

It was in iraqs best intentions to talk.
but talks would of damaged the US's position, on waging an illegial war.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
SADDAM requested direct dialouge with bush and co.
Bush and CO REFUSED to talk to them.

HAD we of talked, we would of realised the WMD / TERRORIST issue was bunk, this is why bush didnt allow the talks to happen.

Talks can be used for the wrong purpose I agree,

But when the OFfensive/Attacking nation REFUSES To talk to the far inferior, suppposid ' evil enemy ' it makes that point MUTE.

It was in iraqs best intentions to talk.
but talks would of damaged the US's position, on waging an illegial war.

However, this is much like the Iranians. Iraq had a 12 year history of ignoring UN resolutions and stalling to avoid further sanctions. There was also a pattern of letting the inspectors in and stalling so that the government could move around their plants. They were using the same tactics as the Iranians.

Further, how could UN diplomacy have fixed the problem in Iraq if so many member-states and UN employees had a hand in the Oil-for-Food scandal? How could they effectively manage the situation if they had an interest that would not be served by disarming Iraq and ending the Oil-for-Food program?

The question, then, is how long should we have humored them? Was there ever a time with Iraq to stop talking? Is 12 years long enough?

Iraq opened itself up to full inspections.
Iraq ASKED to talk directly with its accuser.

The LEAST we could of done, was listen when the inspectors said 'we found nothing' and accept when the iraqis said ' we have nothing, so lets talk '

I dont call that humouring, I call that avoiding a unnessecary war, which has resulted in hunderds of thousands of innocent DEAD!

Everyone was in on the oil for food scandal, But that doesnt mean the UN was wrong.
The UN process
- made inspections occur ** Which found nothing
- Brought Saddam to talk to the Americans ** which bush refused to do

To Me, the UN Succeeded, but the US didnt care, and was going in regardless.

Yes the UN is dead, and yes the UN was curropt. But in this particular case the UN Worked, its the US that ruined any chance of peace.

I agree Agit8dChop, the policy of tagging countries evil, when once they were friends is very typical of our government.

Refusing to listen to what the other side has to say before engaging into unprovoked war is nothing more that bullying and show of supremacy.

However, it seems that is widely accepted by the rest of the world as you can see.

Or are just agendas that are already been set and have to be executed, even with ill results as we have seen in Iraq.