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.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Fox anchor Jaime Colby asserted, “The Brits think we overestimate the threat of Iran in this particular case. Are they right or wrong?” Bolton — who has previously claimed that the “mullahs in Iran” want a Democratic president in 2008 — responded:
I think they’re dead wrong on this. I think this is a case where the use of military force against a training camp to show the Iranians we’re not going to tolerate this is really the most prudent thing to do. Then the ball would be in Iran’s court to draw the appropriate lesson to stop harming our troops.
There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I never really liked John Bolton and I certainly think he's overstepping by making this statement.
Originally posted by Keyhole
He's probably not overstepping due to the fact that he's Bush & Co.'s puppet on a string.
Bush and Tricky Dick want this war before they leave office. I just hope it doesn't happen. And if Bush leaves office without attacking Iran, if Clinton or McCain are elected president, they're sure to do it for him! (Birds of a feather ...)
Originally posted by jsobecky
If there is solid intelligence that Iran is training and arming forces to attack coalition and Iraqi forces in Iraq, what should be done about it?
An Iraqi delegation in Iran has confronted Iranian security officials with evidence that Tehran is providing support for Shi'ite militias battling Iraqi government forces, an Iraqi official said on Friday.
"They presented a list of names, training camps and cells linked to Iran," Haidar al-Ibadi, a member of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Dawa party, told Reuters.
The U.S. military said this week that "very, very significant" amounts of Iranian weaponry had been found in Basra and Baghdad during the offensive. Some of those arms were made in 2008, a senior U.S. military official said on Friday.
Originally posted by Keyhole
They say they have the proof. (Yeah, like they said they had WMD)
I still believe, if Iran IS smuggling arms into Iraq, a better tactic than just attacking a training camp across a sovereign countries border would be to vigorously patrol the border to try to stop the influx of arms and militia.
We have UA (unmanned aircraft) that can patrol the border day and night!
Capture a few hundred Iranians crossing the border (if they are!) and a bunch of arms, and SHOW the proof to the WORLD and Iran!
Originally posted by Keyhole
I still believe, if Iran IS smuggling arms into Iraq, a better tactic than just attacking a training camp across a sovereign countries border would be to vigorously patrol the border to try to stop the influx of arms and militia.
We have UA (unmanned aircraft) that can patrol the border day and night!
Capture a few hundred Iranians crossing the border (if they are!) and a bunch of arms, and SHOW the proof to the WORLD and Iran!
[edit on 5/6/2008 by Keyhole]
Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Originally posted by Keyhole
They say they have the proof. (Yeah, like they said they had WMD)
Precisely.
Originally posted by The Nighthawk
I think you're on the right track with this, but remember, most Americans wouldn't know Iranians from Iraqis from Saudis.
Originally posted by The Nighthawk
The questions people should be asking here:
Why is this info coming from Pentagon sources connected directly with right-wing institutions and the Bush Administration?
Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Why does the Pentagon have people on its payroll to spread this propaganda?
Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Why would Iran, who by all accounts is developing a nice, cozy relationship with the new Iraqi government, jeopardize that by arming insurgents to discredit and topple that government when they have a unique opportunity to create one of the strongest alliances in the Middle East?
Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Where are these supposed weapons and fighters really coming from?
Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Even if they are Iranians, does that automatically mean the Iranian government is behind it? If a group of gang-bangers went on a crime spree in Canada should the Canadian government be allowed to blame the US government for sanctioning such an action?
Originally posted by The Nighthawk
And why, oh why, does anyone in America still believe one single damn word that comes from our military/industrial/intelligence complex, especially when the source of this info is the very group that stands to benefit the most from another war?
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
However, can proxy war justify total warfare?
The US supplied arms to the Afghani mujahideen to use against Soviet troops. If the Soviets had taken this as an act of war, I doubt any of us would be alive right now.
Originally posted by 44soulslayer
I doubt a strike on Iran would accomplish much more than creating more terrorists within the region.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Originally posted by The Nighthawk
The questions people should be asking here:
Why is this info coming from Pentagon sources connected directly with right-wing institutions and the Bush Administration?
Uhh, it came directly from the Iraqi gov't.
Baghdad doubts U.S. weapons claims on Iran
UPI
Published: May 6, 2008 at 6:50 PM
BAGHDAD, May 6 (UPI) -- The Iraqi government disputes U.S. allegations that Iran is stoking the sectarian violence there with money, weapons and paramilitary training.
U.S. officials said they have uncovered materials from rockets fired at the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad that bear markings of Iranian weapons manufacturers but have yet to produce any concrete physical evidence, Time magazine reported.
Those allegations and lack of evidence prompted Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh to tell reporters at a news conference Sunday Baghdad would handle the matter itself.
"We need our own government documentation of this interference, not from the Americans, not from the media," he said.
U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Patrick Driscoll said Baghdad needed to take appropriate action "based on their interpretation of the facts" regarding the U.S. allegations.
"If it turns out there is hard evidence," Dabbagh said, "the government will deal with it."