. . . by anyone or any politician on Iran is contained in this one simple headline from today's Los Angeles Times:
U.S. can't prove Iran link to Iraq strife
Same goes for the nuke program. So Hillary and Edwards: shut up with your 'all options are on the table' talk. Bush has nothing and that's what he needs to be told.
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the
Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 48
In the meantime, Congress postulates and postures in the hope that we will think they actually give a s**t. They continue to stand by and look the other way while this administration abuses the electorate. We are reduced to hoping that what goes around comes around for the spineless, cowardly, enabling handmaidens on both sides of the aisle.
Daniel,
For a fleeting second both before and after 9/11, many of us believed that Bush wouldn't or couldn't possibly go after Iraq either. So much for evidence, and common sense and decency and adherence to law, huh? Oh yeah, add competence to the list.
Oh boy here we go again.....Nice to talk to you by the way....
First off to quote the LA Times is about as believable as Quoting the NY Times. You and I both know that their slant is VERY Liberal, to say the least. This is really a one sided article and arguement.
Let's bring both sides to the table before we start this debate. Like you usually do.
Again, "debate and "de bait" are excuses for assessing all the facts at hand, engaging the brain, and accepting reality.
I've been over here a couple of months now, and I've learned more about this country than a year's worth of watching CNN. I've sat in mission briefs with Colonels, talked with village elders, had tea with Shieks, played with the kids. And I agree with the President. We need more troops and we need to take greater action.
There are 3 major factions here. The Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. The Shiites are in the majority, but Saddam was a Sunni, so he kept the Shiites in check. Everyone hates the Kurds, who are Christian and in the vast minority. The Kurds received the brunt of Saddam's murderous tyranny. Now that Saddam is gone, the Shiites have taken control of Baghdad. The largely peaceful Sunnis are now the victims of radical Shiites terrorism. So the young Sunni men, who can no longer go to work and support their families, do what all young men would do. They join the Sunni militia and battle the Shiites. And thus the country sits on the brink of civil war.
But this war is between them. They largely do not concern themselves with the U.S. troops. The insurgents who battle the Coalition Forces are from outside the country. And the biggest problem down here isn't the insurgents. Its the politicians. The local politicians. Even though the country is controlled by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, downtown Baghdad is controlled by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The Shiites follow al-Sadr and thus the Prime Minister does what al-Sadr says. Think of it as if a warlord controlled New York and blackmailed the President into diplomatic immunity.
When 1st Cav (mainly 2/5 Cav) came here in 2004, they took downtown Baghdad (known as Sadr City) by force. It cost many lives, but after a year, we held an iron grip on the largest insurgent breeding ground in Iraq. The insurgents were afraid of the Horse People, and rightfully so. But when 1st Cav left, al-Sadr influenced the Prime Minister to kick out the Coalition forces from that area of Baghdad. He said the Iraqi military forces could hold the city. But all that happened was al-Sadr regained control of his city, and it is now a heavily guarded fortress. A place where insurgents and terrorists can train and stockpile arms. And we cannot go back in becuase the Prime Minister won't let us. Our hands are tied.
So where does al-Sadr get his backing? From Iran and Syria. Iran supplies him with money and Syria supplies the terrorists. The insurgents that battle the Coalition Forces are from Syria, Somalia and dozens of other places outside of Iraq. Iraq is literally a terrorist breeding ground. They have terrorist and sniper schools here. Why not? They train by teaching them to attack the military forces here. And they have an endless supply of these training tools. They have factories in Sadr City to build bombs. Both Iran and Syria have openly proclaimed their number one goal in life is to destroy the great Western Devil and the little Western Devil (America and Britain). Iran wants to control Iraq to further this purpose. Al-Sadr will get to "run" the country and live like a king, but in reality Iran will pull the puppet strings. Iran will have access to thousands of radical @#$%es who will do whatever al-Sadr tells them to. And Iraq will be used as a breeding ground for terrorism. Terrorism that will be targeted directly at America and Britain. The Iraq Study Group advised we should let Iran and Syria help with rebuilding? Bravo to President Bush for striking that idea down and vowing to keep those two countries out of Iraq.
So how do the Iraqi people feel about everything? Of course they don't want the Americans here. But they would far rather have us here than the Iranians. My platoon visited an average Sunni village on a patrol a few days ago. Their only source of income was to farm, as they could not go to the city to work for fear of violence. Many of the young men had already run off to join the militia for no other reason than to feed their families. They had no school or hospital near them and the community was dying. The village elder's granddaughter was very sick and I was able to treat her. Afterwards he invited me and my Platoon Leader to sit in his house and have tea with him, and we talked about the situation.
The people want peace. The Shiites kill the Sunnis because al-Sadr tells them to do so. The Sunnis fight back because they have no choice. They are glad Saddam is dead (Sunni or not), but do not want to replace him with another dictator in a politician's clothes (which is what al-Sadr will become). And they especially don't want Iran in charge. Many innocent Iraqis will die if this happens. These are the words that came out of the elder's mouth:
"We do not want America here, and America does not want to be here. But you cannot leave because the militias control the country. America must use the might of its giant army and sweep through, root out and destroy the militias. Then Iraq can be free and you can leave."
What appears to have happened within our diplomatic community, is that the Prime Minister finally realizes that his days are numbered. If al-Sadr remains, he will be kicked to the curb. So hopefully he is about to allow us to reenter Sadr City, root out and destroy the enemy. A dramatic troop increase will allow us to do this. And the Horse People are back and ready to finish what they started over 2 years ago.
If we leave now, it will be a failure for democracy. Iran will control Iraq and the end result will be more terrorist attacks on America. The American people don't want soldiers dying over here, but its better than American civilians dying over there. Do NOT forget 9/11. They will do it again. The moment we loosen our grip on the noose, they will do it again. And the only way to root out the evil here is to stop beating around the bush, increase troops and destroy the insurgents once and for all. The Iraqi government cannot do this on their own. The Iraqi security forces are inadequate for this task. We are the only ones who can stop al-Sadr.
Feel free to share this with whomever you want -- a soldier's opinion about the war.
SPC "Doc"
2/5 Cav, 1st CB
The Bush himself is also doing his "aren't I cute, loveable and forgivable and will try harder" routine with Congress, because he wants another $130 billion [we are told--who knows how much it really is] for Iraq. Pelosi, like a good little bipartisan, says, "Let's make no mistake -- the choice is bipartisanship or stalemate. We have to work together." And, so they do -- and so they will while the Senate does its own version debating non-binding resolutions.
I say, "stalemate" the hell out of the insane bastards, but what do I know -- I'm just one person with one vote.
I seldom come to a Sean-Paul article without common sense or the other side of the story...Debate is debate especially when I speak to his topics. Not De-bait....As a matter of fact Missy please name me 3 MAJOR conservative newspapers in this country right now....
Tell congress the media is all liberal -- it's all the media's fault. Some of them will believe and agree with you; some won't. And, vote.
I'm not saying I agree with the Bush doctrine. If you read my comments in the past you will see I am far from being a "Neo-con" Bush advocate. All I'm saying is research...SERIOUSLY AND DEEPLY, research what the fuck is going on over there and the reasons for it and behind it.
A lot of times you can't tell a book by it's cover and you can't assume everything you're being told in the predominately Liberal media is the truth. I'm not saying I am right or the conservative public is right, but there are two sides and you have to look at both....
And, the Shi'a Iranians are not supporting Sunni Wahhabist insurgents. Why? They hate each others guts.
Look, you can believe what you want to believe and call the LAT and NTY and the WaPo liberal rags all you want. It doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence this time with regards to Iran, just like there were no WMD in Iraq. If you want to fall for the same lies twice, hey, more power to you. But it's not reality.
3 major conservative papers in the US? That's easy. Pittburgh Gazette. New York Observer and the Washington Post. Next? How about major conservative magazines? The National Review. The Weekly Standard. The American Conservative. The National Interest. There are others. How about Conservative book publishers? Regnery. How about conservative TV networks: Fox. How about Conservative radio? The entire AM dial, except for the almost out of business Air America.
And all we have that is verifiably liberal is The Nation, the American Prospect and on a good day, the New York Times. That hardly stacks up to the arsenal of conservative think-tanks, foundations, magazines, newspapers, and radio stations.
Face it: the bias conservatives have against the mainstream media is an intellectual bias, not a political one.
Anyway, I appreciate hearing from someone who is there getting some of this first hand. It's like trying to put together a puzzle for me, and I appreciate any new tidbit of insight to work with.
The bombings? The killings? The propaganda? Who's fault is that really? Who invaded Iraq without a single good reason? Who started the war under false pretenses? Who started the war without really understanding what they were unleashing in the Middle East? Who started the war without a plan for the aftermath? We did?
Are you going to sit around while we do the same thing to Iran? Look, I've given you the evidence. You've denied it, because of some partisan fantasy on your part. Fine. But don't drag the rest of the nation into another war because you can't see past some phantom-partisanship that keeps you from looking at the facts rationally. There is no evidence for Iranian support. There were no WMDs. There was no link between Saddam and Osama. There is no link between the Sunni insurgents who are killing OUR soldiers and who are supported financially by Saudi Arabia and the Shi'a Iranians.
Bomb, bomb, bomb as in light and swift with no danger to ourselves. Rumsfeld's dream come true, finally. And, refine a new generation of technology while we're at it; and, of course Congress is going to nod their heads yes and agree that we'll all pay for it because, after all, not to do so would be putting our troops in harm's way. Also, good practice for North Korea.
The only question is, who in Congress has NOT bought into this fantasy.
It has been recognized by most for several years that an attack on Iran would strengthen Iran's position and, worse , could inflame many other nations and spread wars from Afghanistan and Pakistan in the east to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon et al in the west.
Iran has been willing to deal with the US for years, but it won't be bullied. It offered many concessions to do so, including recognition of Israell, cutting ties to Hizbollah etc, which we refused to respond to. Now Iran is in a much stronger position and we will have to pay more to deal with Iran.
If Cheney is insane enough and Bush so deluded as to want to attack Iran, it will be a disaster . Iraq is a debacle that we are risking making worse already by our current actions.
For an eloquent warning read SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITEE TESTIMONY -- ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI on gather.
This is too funny. First off who reads the NY Observer? People here in NYC don't even know it exists! Second off I figure you've mistaken the Washington Post for the Washington Times...
"cutting ties to Hizbollah etc"
C'mon. Hizbollah is just a wing of the Iranian Revolutionary guard. Without Iran they wouldn't exist.
The Shia have been shooting at us, with help from the Iranians. Many of the ied's that have been killing our troops are of Iranian design and laid by shia militia men, many of whom have been trained by the Iranians. In addition our troops have been ambushed and killed by Shia as well as Sunni's. The one thing the extremists of both sects agree on is that the US is an enemy. Not the only one, but a common one.
Hezbollah a wing of the IRGC? Please.
And your assertion that Hezbollah wouldn't exist without Iran? Well, they would certainly be less effective, but non-existent? Hardly. Just ask a Lebanese Shi'a that receive health and schooling and other aspects of welfare how they feel about Hezbollah?
And this: There is literally no proof for this. The Washington Post and the Los Angelese Times both did long investigations on this and although they have found Iranian small arms they found no proof that Iranians were giving IED technology to the Shi'a.
Finally, just to show you how misguided this is, the Shi'a are our allies. Maliki? Shi'a. The previous prime minister: Iyad Allawi? Shi'a. Jafaari? Shi'a. DAWA and SCIRI are our allies as well. The only one who is not our ally is the Sadr Army who are funded by Iran, are more than likely an Iranian cats paw in Iraq but we have not fought the Sadr army, there has been no American-Sadrist conflict since 2004.
Care to try again?
Maliki made the deal with Sadr out of convenience to get elected PM for he really belongs to the established Shia groups who are against Sadr's following. The thought that Maliki will let Sadr be diminished by the Americans is irrational.
Sadr is the most popular leader in Iraq now, mainly because he's always made it clear he wanted the Americans out, while the other Shia were willing to go along with the electing of a government arranged by the Americans.
He has a common aim with most Sunnis. If the Americans go after him, he is more likely to get support from some of Sunni groups than from Iran. Imagine closing the southern supply and exit route to the Americans, which a Shia uprising could do. Logisticians have for a year: the Americans would be trapped, airlift could supply 25% of what would be required to keep it able to operate. The Sunnis and Shiites could wipe it out together . They would ally to do so.
The Pentagon illusion that airpower could defend the troops is hubris. In Iraq, there are many days when airpower is useless because of the weather. The Pentagon and White House have not only degraded the army, they may yet manage to destroy.it on the ground .
As to the Shi'a shutting down the southern supply route. Well, yeah, that's inarguable, as I have noted many times before and as you cogently note here as well. Life for American forces will get very ugly very fast if that happens. You are absolutely correct that airpower can't resupply our army in Iraq. Air superiority or not.
Wow, you must be on the extreme left if you really believe the above.
"Hezbollah a wing of the IRGC? Please."
How naive are you. Who created them, who supplies them with money, arms and training? IN fact many believe that Hezbollah started a war this past summer with Israel to take some of the heat off the Iranian nuclear program.
"Just ask a Lebanese Shi'a
that receive health and schooling and other aspects of welfare how they feel
about Hezbollah?"
It's a very smart strategy for them to replace the Lebanese government in southern Lebanon. I wonder if you'd think it was a good idea for other countries to give up part of their sovereign territory to a terrorist group so that the group could indoctrinate the local population in their brand of Islamic fascism...
"There is literally no proof for this. The Washington Post and the Los Angelese
Times"
Ah the left wing media has done an investigation. There are ton's done by others that show, training arms, money supplied by the Iranians. Including the shaped charges that Hezbollah use's in Lebanon that somehow has appeared in Iraq as well...
"Finally, just to show you how misguided this is, the Shi'a are our allies. "
There you go with generalizations again. Some are, some aren't, as you've admitted yourself. "The only one who is not our ally is the
Sadr Army who are funded by Iran,"
However others would disagree with you…
"Specifically, it supports, trains, and finances militias like the Badr Brigade, the armed wing of one of Iraq's most religious Shiite parties whose base is in southern Iraq. "The Qods Force is to the Shiite militias as al-Qaeda in Iraq is to the Sunni insurgent groups," writes Rick Francona, a retired military intelligence official and former U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel, on MSNBC.com. Some experts estimate as many as thirty thousand Iranian operatives may be in Iraq."
Do you seriously think that the Iranians are not trying to influence, on many levels, what's going on in Iraq? Are you really that naive?
"What is the Badr Brigade?
It is the Iranian-trained wing of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the most powerful Shiite party in Iraq. The organization was built by Iraqi Shiite defectors and soldiers captured by Iran during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. Its members were funded, trained, and equipped by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. During the U.S.-led-occupation government's crackdown on militia groups in 2003, the 10,000-strong militia changed its name from the Badr Brigade to the Badr Organization of Reconstruction and Development and pledged to disarm. The group, however, has remained armed, and today operates mainly in Shiite-controlled southern Iraq, where a number of regional governments are dominated by SCIRI representatives. SCIRI openly advocates the creation of a separate, Shiite-run region comprising nine oil-rich provinces in southern Iraq. Badr fighters have repeatedly clashed with British forces in Basra and Mahdi Army forces in the region. "
Regarding Moqtada, you may have accurate sources on his support from Iranian elments. It is true to say, I think , that the etablishment mullahs , as Khamenei, who has Iran's foreign policy dossier were inclined to avoid him for some time after the invasion. They didn't want a civil war and his politics didn't accord with theirs. Of course, the younger elements like Ahmadinejad have their cliques, especially military ones in Iran , and still are Khomeini revolutionaries. They may not operate always under control of Rafsanjani, Khameni et al. And Ayatollah Yazdi is a zealot who opposes the more moderate ones.
I do think Moqtada has grown in popularity beyond his original base, as Sistani has declined in influence since the bombing of Samarra, which many Iraqis blame on the Americans or their agents. Moqtada's control of the Mahdi militias has decreased as they have grown in size and number.
I don't doubt Moqtada has his links in Iran. Hizbollah's Nasrallah and Moqtada were fellow students of both Khomeini and Sistani in Iraq.
I know you and your neo-con buddies have it hard on for the Iranians because you are afraid for Israel. But Israel has a second strike capability. They can take care of themselves in this matter. Aren't two wars enough for you?
As to Hezbollah in Lebanon: Hezbollah is almost 40% Shi'a. Don't you believe in democracy? If they have the votes don't they deserve to run the country? Aren't you into promoting democracy? Or is this like Palestine where it's ok for the Arabs to vote as long as they vote for who you want them to vote for?
And as to the Badr Brigades. You can cite all the facts that you like but they are currently our allies in Iraq. That doesn't mean I like it. But my dislike doesn't make it any less untrue.
I know you and your left wing buddies are apologists for anyone that's against the US!
"This conversation is about whether Iran and Iranian agents are actively harming American soldiers."
More sources then not say are saying they are. Unfortunitely it seems to me that you wouldn't have a problem with that.
"As to Hezbollah in Lebanon: Hezbollah is almost 40% Shi'a. "
I assume you mean Lebanon is 40% Shia. I believe it was 15-20% 20 years ago. Hezbollah policy has been to encourage families to have the biggest families possible in order to change the demographics of the country.
"Or is this like Palestine where it's ok for the Arabs to vote as long as they vote for who you want them to vote for? "
They can vote for whoever they want to. However we're not obligated to provide support and money for them and their government. We should cut off all their aid since their Government is in favor of destroying their closest neighbor. And despite what you may believe we are still giving them money. I'm tired of paying these terrorists. Let Iran give them more money.
"And as to the Badr Brigades. You can cite all the facts that you like "
Love it. Yes I am citing facts. Please don't let them get in the way of your opinion!
As to the Badr Brigades: yes you are citing facts. But it still doesn't change the fact that they are our allies today. That's reality not my opinion. George W. Bush had a member of the Badr brigades as a guest in the White House several weeks ago.
That's Bush, shaking hands with an Iranian funder terrorist, by your definition.
As to Hezbollah: yeah, so they are having more babies than the Maronites and the Sunnis. What are you going to do now, tell them they cannot have babies? Laughable.
Re: Palestinians: who's the 'we' you're talking about?
And this: Is a slander and you owe me an apology for insinuating that I am a traitor to my country.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020607R.shtml
BTN,
Are the Provincial Reconstructions Teams promoting the ABC's of birth control?
The Heaven sent Najaf battle: civilians are always most apt to get it the neck; and the more apt to dissent re occupation, the more apt a target -- whether from hair trigger finger or outright calculation.
In a floor statement, debating the validity of "debate" on Iraq, Senator Hatch referred to Baghdad as a civil war, then quickly modified it to "chaos." I guess so, either way. How depressing and disgusting -- it will bite them all in the ass eventually but we, the civilians, will get it in the neck first.
As for your comments SP I think this one says it all...
"As to the Badr Brigades: yes you are citing facts."
"As to Hezbollah: yeah, so they are having more babies than the Maronites and the Sunnis. What are you going to do now, tell them they cannot have babies? Laughable."
Perhaps you need to reread what I said. It's a strategy of theirs. They can do what they want but I don't keep my head in the sand as some others here do. It seems your recent interest in this region of the world has not enabled you to make historical observations...
Here is my comment one more time.
"I assume you mean Lebanon is 40% Shia. I believe it was 15-20% 20 years ago. Hezbollah policy has been to encourage families to have the biggest families possible in order to change the demographics of the country."
Annahar daily published the results of its "census":
Total: 4.855 million (3.8 million residents, 1 million expatriates)
Sectarian distribution:
-All Christians: 35.33%
-Shiaa Muslims: 29.06%
-Sunni Muslims: 29.05%
-Druze: 5.38%
-Other: 1.18%
(Maronites make up 19.47%,
Greek Orthodox make up 6.85%,
Catholics make up 4.55%,
and Armenian Orthodox make up 2.27% of the total population)
http://www.annaharonline.com/
How accurate? I have seen Shia estimated as 40% , even 54%
Of course it's a strategy of the Lebanese Shi'a to outbreed the rest of the minorities. But what are you going to do, sterilize them? Like I said, laughable.
Of course, my recent interest in the area, as opposed to the deep study of it and ignorance of others, does lead me astray at times, this I do confess. Ooops.
But I'm happy that I can admit error and not be like president Bush who is locked in a bad decision because he's too arrogant to admit he made a mistake. You know, there is ignorant, and then there is stupid.
Excuse me for not commenting on one of your points. However this is not a discussion about whose hand Bush shakes. Rabin shooked Arafats hand yet Rabin, and I, still considered him a terrorist. Bush has shaken Putins hand, and I believe Putin is still as evil as he was when he headed up the KGB. The only conclusion I can draw from Bush's meeting with Al Hakim is that he's doing what people like you advocate, talking and trying to influence people who may not have the same interests as us. I seem to remember that you're all in favor of us talking to Iran. If we do do you think we're legitimizing them and their policies? Seems like you're more then a little guilty of having double standard.
Same thing happened with the Soviets, same thing happened with China. We can take the Acheson approach with Iran, i.e. refusing to shake Zhou En-lai's hand, or we can take the Nixon approach and try to open the country up. I happen to have been to Iran so I'm speaking from a bit of personal experience, albeit 'recent' in your view. Meeting with the mad mullahs and calling their bluff is that which they fear most. What they hope for is the status quo so they can have a domestic reason to oppress their people. But you would already know that with your long experience of the region, right?
And for the record I have no problem with us talking to Iran. However I won't put my head in the sand as you have as to their role in Iraq. Perhaps the evidence displayed today will change your view, though somehow I doubt it...
Never heard the term sock puppet before. But for the record I'm not. I'm only posting under one name and I had no idea this site even existed until fairly recently. In addition I do plan on posting articles here as soon as I have time. You'll be the first I let know. Maybe even one of the many that are being writen as we speak about Iran's hand in suppling weapons that are killing Americans in Iraq. After all since they were succesfull in driving us out of Lebanon in the early 80's they believe we're a bunch of cowards....
Yes and it's a very good point. Using the US as an excuse to oppress their people is a common ploy used throught out the region. However it's usually the Israelis/Jews who suffer the most from being made the scapegoat for all that is wrong in the Arab (and Iranian) world.
Typical double speak. So if thats the case why did you seek to draw the conclusion you did by posting a picture of Bush shaking Al Hakims hand?
As to your final comment. You haven't been to Iran so that excuses you from not understanding how right I am. I forgive you. I'm just glad your not a policy maker, otherwise we'd be fighting four wars instead of the three we're already in.