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.

 

'Iranian surrogates' preparing attack on US troops

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Thats it exactly! Some kind of sick joke!
The iranis have the right to do whatever we are doing in the ME, or we dont have the right to do it either!
Get real! The US is into world domination up to its neck!(in over its head is more like it)
Nobody in their right mind believes that the US is being altruistic in any of its overseas adventures.
Everything the US does is solely for the benefit of the US!
The leadership of america is drunk with its own power and is living in a different world than the rest of us.
History has a way of turning evey civilisation into dust sooner or later....what do you think will be said about US attempts to dominate the entire world in the future, when the US is but a shell of its former self?\
The resources and the money to keep this egotistical farce going are fast running out.
I am reminded of the lottery winners who manage to blow a lifetimes worth of money in a short period and are left with nothing but memories of a good time......
The US is squandering its cash, its people, and its good will throughout the world for some half baked neo-con dream of ruling the entire world.
If iran chooses to fight the US by proxy in iraq, i am sure they believe its better than fighting on theoir own streets this same enemy.
Any country would do the same thing when confronted with a war in its neighbours backyard.
It is simply a matter of survival for them.
And we have fought hundreds of engagements by the same type of proxxys in the past.




posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakes51

There has been a war by proxy going on between Iran and the US for quite awhile.



A war by proxy, so is it legitimate that the US military are in Iraq, but not Iranian forces? I don't think so. Even GW has admitted there were no WMD's but that is by the by, since the US military is there now and not really looking for an excuse to get out, even though the dodgy WMD mandate has passed the sell by date. Here we have then are two non- Arabic forces in Iraq and both seem to be there to help Iraq's people!!

[edit on 14-7-2010 by smurfy]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
[edit on 14-7-2010 by smurfy]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by Jakes51
 


Iran doesn't need to play a proxy war in Iraq, nor in Afghanistan.



It seems they were playing something at the height of the insurgency? How did those sophisticated armor piercing shells get into the hands of the insurgency? Who trained the Shia death squads who killed thousands and almost brought the country to Civil War? Everything falls in the lap of the Iranian Quds Force. There is evidence from multiple sources which links Iranian to some of the violence that has plagued the country since the 2003 invasion.

Maybe the policy has changed slightly since US forces were on the streets daily? However, the element is still in country and ready to strike when ordered by their leaders in Tehran. The reason I called it a proxy war is because Iran used insurgents and sectarian strife to bloody the nose of US forces during the war. In that sense, it was a military engagement through covert means and intermediaries. The US is doing the same in Iran with Sunni and Kurdish opposition groups.


Originally posted by oozyism
Your conclusions are false because you have refused to take in to account many facts on the ground.

First, the Iraqi government is already allied with Iran, second Iran helped get rid of Taliban, hence the Norther Alliance was supported by Iran and Russia all that time.

Third, Taliban was against Iran.

Fourth, Pakistan is playing a proxy war against the US, not Iran:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Fifth, Iran has much to gain from a stable Iraq, with government which is not hostile to Iran. The current government is not hostile against Iran, and is pushing for more trade, and more co-operation between the two countries.

ETC, ETC.

Pakistan is the target, not Iran.


I have not refused to take into account elements on the ground in Iraq. However, I maintain the stance that Iran is out for Iran when it comes to dealing with its neighbor to the north. Some of the seemingly good gestures may have sinister undertones attached to them? To be fair, the United States is just as guilty.

You are correct to a certain degree that Iran holds sway in Iraq. However, in terms of alliance, if there is one; it is shaky or almost non-existent. The government is in turmoil after the Sunni backed, Iraqiya Party, defeated the Shia backed parties for seats in the Parliamentary Elections last March. Leaders from both blocks have yet to work out an agreement on whom is to govern. Iraqiya leader, Ayad Allawi, and Shia leader, Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki have only met face to face recently to set up dialogue between the two party factions. The government is in gridlock and nothing is getting done. Moreover, Ayad Allawi is accepting nothing less than the post of Prime Minister after his party winning more seats than Shia parties. Iranian agents could be behind some of the political assassinations taking place within Iraq as well?

In regards to Afghanistan and Iran's opposition to the Taliban? Indirectly, Iran was inline with US policy during the Afghan/Soviet War.



. . .Their plans sometimes coincided with U.S. interests, as when they supported Afghans fighting the Soviet Union in the 1980s . . .

articles.latimes.com...

During that period, Iran was about as opposed to a significant build-up of Soviet Forces on their doorstep and in Central Asia as the United States was. You are correct that Iran was involved in defeating the Taliban and that should have put them in good stead with the US.



Even before U.S. forces entered Afghanistan, Iran backed the Northern Alliance, a loose coalition of warlords and militias from the Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara minorities. The alliance fought the ruling Taliban, a regime dominated by majority Pashtuns that imposed a harsh Sunni Islamic government.

Current and former U.S. troops and officials confirm Iranians were present with the Northern Alliance as U.S. forces organized the rebels in 2001. They say U.S. forces had no interaction with the Iranians. They deny the Iranians made meaningful contributions on the battlefield.

www.usatoday.com...

However, before 9-11, things were different and that was before the US tried to influence Iran's internal affairs regarding their nuclear program. The United States and their allies have be going out of their way to make things difficult for the Iranian government and in that environment, enemy of my enemy is my friend. I would not be surprised if the Quds Force was to some degree training and arming the Taliban to fight US Forces. Tehran wants the US out of Muslim countries and will do business with anyone they see working towards that end. It could be Sunni or Shia groups with Iraq being an example and now possibly Afghanistan?

You also mention Pakistani intelligence (ISI). As far as I am concerned, they are about as sly as a den of vipers. They are only in for themselves and are notorious for playing both sides of a conflict. I would not be surprised in the least if some of the destabilization taking place in Afghanistan is attributed to them? As for more cooperation with the Iraqi government, and I see Iran making an effort to do so. However, I find a problem when they make attempts to influence the government directly or indirectly, and their alleged insistence on fanning the flames of sectarian violence when things happen that are against their long-term goals.



[edit on 17-7-2010 by Jakes51]



new topics

top topics
 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join