There is a breaking news story just airing as we speak regarding last week's attack that saw four of our soldiers kidnapped and brutally murdered. We are claiming to have proof that those involved in that raid were not Iraqi but rather Iranian. There is precious little information at the moment to say where this information is coming from, whether it's an authoritative source, etc.
This bothers me because if it's true, it indicates an almost criminal stupidity and lack of judgment on the part of those ordering this attack. On the other hand, if we're manufacturing this as an excuse then it's equally scary because it means another war.
I am going to go and listen for further news.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 26
After all the lies ,I'd go with this explanation Carolyn.
The only encouraging thing I am seeing at the moment is a sort of positive negative. In other words, there's not much we could do if this proved to be 100% true. We don't have the troops to invade yet another country. Further, given our dependence on imported oil, we cannot risk antagonizing another oil producing country.
From my perspective, this has al-Sadr written all over it. He's known to have strong ties to Iran as does al-Maliki. The Karbala incident went off too smoothly to be the work of some bunch of disorganized militia. They got through the checkpoints too smoothly, and they knew exactly where the Americans in the compound were. The Iraqis meeting with them were unharmed.
Mr. Bush may try to take us into another war, but I don't think he will be able to given the mood of congress. That being said, however, I wouldn't put it past his form of messianic delusions to try some sort of "gotcha" attack anyway. Really makes me nervous.
" Are the Iranians Out for Revenge?"
It seems we live in "interesting" times in the Chinese curse sense of that word.
Anyone surprised by Iranian forces in Iraq, is rather naive.
I don't debate that Iran has been interfering from the beginning. That's not exactly a state secret. However, you don't solve political differences by only talking to your friends. Mr. Bush has proven this repeatedly over the past six years.
No it didn't. It died because it was IDIOTIC ! ! ! !
Something new is not in the Bush playbook.
So you suggest, as tactics on the ground change nearly moment by moment.
Listening to others at this point in the war would mean acknowledging that he had screwed up
So what, Bush has admitted mistakes, big deal. Apparently you're the only one that didn't get the memo.
his pig-headed delusion that he's the savior of the Arab world
Or perhaps you need to give up your pig headed delusion "Bush thinks" he's the "savior fo the Arab world." How could you possibly know what "delusions" haunt GW Bush ??? It's ridiculous to even say such things.
you don't solve political differences by only talking to your friends.
That's right, you also mercilessly CRUSH your enemies.
Mr. Bush has proven this repeatedly over the past six years.
Yes he has, thankfully......
Oh, by the way, excuse me for assuming you were surprised Iranian forces were in Iraq- and quite possibly doubted the news account you mentioned above. But when you post things like this---
This bothers me because if it's true, it indicates an almost criminal stupidity and lack of judgment on the part of those ordering this attack.
You do like to toss around that word "criminal" rather freely, don't you.
Your final line of the article seems to make it quite clear you're more than ready to believe the worst of GW Bush. You know, the one that started the "criminal war."
I should be frankly amazed that you actually consider Mr. Bush's refusal to listen to his own commanders on the ground except when they are saying what he agrees with to be a good thing, or that listening only to your friends in general is a good thing. Should be. I'm not. I probably should be amazed that there are still people out there who can accept the sunshine being blown up their backsides by this administration. Again should be but not.
I'm sure you regard the Iranians who ordered the attack (if indeed they did) to be highly intelligent and so on, or you appear to believe this since you have stated clearly you don't believe such an attack to be almost criminally stupid given the tendency of our beloved leader to pick wars at the drop of a hat. I admit being surprised that Iranian military may have seen fit to cross the border and take part in a raid. That's a stupid move even for the Iranian President, who is on the whole almost as dim as ours.
I fault Mr. Bush for going into a war without a clear plan for victory. I fault him for refusing to deal with the insurgency when it occurred. I fault him for refusing to deal with the sectarian violence when it started. I fault him for not listening to much wiser people than he is who told him that the miracle he anticipated was not going to occur. I fault him for not having some sort of milestones and benchmarks to measure progress, and for refusing to change a failed course even when he was finally forced to admit what he was doing wasn't working. He is the Commander in Chief. Obviously a failed war effort rests squarely on his shoulders, just as credit for a successful one would have.
I have never stated that Iranians were not supplying advice and arms to the Iraqis nor have I ever said that surprised me. What surprised me is this ill conceived raid into Iraq by what appears to be either commandos or others of that ilk with the cooperation of the Iraqi military. If the intelligence proves true, a big if I admit, it leaves the door open for another of Mr. Bush's crazy wars. We don't have the troops, the equipment, or the money for another huge war. I sincerely doubt that Mr. Bush can persuade congress to further neglect domestic issues in favor of yet another war.
Someone should tell Mr. Bush that it's not enough to declare war. You need to actually intend to win it without having to count on miracles and divine intervention. That requires a real plan. Then again, I suppose his friends wouldn't tell him, and we all know he doesn't listen to experts.
Oh really ??? Does this sound familiar???
I'm an old-time anti-war protester from the 60s. I have met almost nobody from then or now who hates the United States. We love this country and we love our freedoms. What we didn't love was what we considered a criminal war abroad being waged for all the wrong reasons.
you actually consider Mr. Bush's refusal to listen to his own commanders on the ground except when they are saying what he agrees with to be a good thing, or that listening only to your friends in general is a good thing
First of all, what you've said is a mischaracterization of the facts. Secondly, I never said such a thing. I don't see the world in "good" or "bad" terms. I leave that type of emotional silliness to the touchy feely progressive types like you.
sunshine being blown up their backsides
Yet another demonstration for your proclivity to use colorful words when you indulge in pure fantasy. Once again I am forced to assume what such words mean, however I am guessing it means, simply, your usual message, "Bush is a liar."
This is a fantasy held by only a select few rabid democrat fringe kooks, like you.
you appear to believe this
Well, once again, it appears to YOU.
you don't believe such an attack to be almost criminally stupid given the tendency of our beloved leader to pick wars at the drop of a hat
No I don't-- it very well could be a "war" is just what the Iranians desire. The argument could certainly be made they are "looking for a fight." Their lustful nuclear ambitions make such things self evident.
I admit being surprised that Iranian military may have seen fit to cross the border and take part in a raid. That's a stupid move even for the Iranian President
There is nothing "stupid" about any country pursuing what they believe is in their "self interest." This is precisely why Iran is so dangerous.
I fault Mr. Bush for going into a war without a clear plan for victory.
Do you also then fault the Congress for authorizing action, ostensibly "without a plan?" The idea that a plan didn't exist, is absurd. The plan may have been "wrong" in your opinion, and even in mine, that doesn't mean a plan didn't exist. A plan DID exist, whether you acknowledge it or not.
I fault him for refusing to deal with the sectarian violence when it started.
Well, what you really mean is you fault him for not dealing with it, in a manner equal to your ability to see the ostensible "answers" from the luxury of hindsight.
Once again, you simply say something and assume it is "true" when it isn't. Bush DID deal with it, the mere insertion of troops is an indication Bush dealt with it in a very direct way. You simply would like to suggest "there were mistakes." No one denies this, not even Bush. He was dealing with it based on the best of his knowledge and abilities. Now, call him stupid.
I fault him for not listening to much wiser people than he is who told him that the miracle he anticipated was not going to occur.
He did listen to them, he simply rejected their counsel. He decided to listen to other "wiser people" instead. You might think this was a mistake, but that doesn't negate the process, and the broad input from all corners leading up to the war. He did listen, you just didn't like the conclusions he came to based on the input.
I fault him for not having some sort of milestones and benchmarks to measure progress, and for refusing to change a failed course even when he was finally forced to admit what he was doing wasn't working.
He did have benchmarks, you simply refuse to recognize them. There has been the creation of an interim constitution, an interim government. There has been the creation and establishment of a new democratic, freely elected government over the course of several elections. There have been countless battles won and lost, with EACH AND EVERY BATTLE a "benchmark" in this war.
What you really mean is, Bush isn't meeting your arbitrary time table for an "acceptable" war.
Obviously a failed war effort rests squarely on his shoulders
Obviously. However it is little more than arrogance run amok to label the events in Iraq as a "failure" at this juncture. Impatient progressive types like you, always insist tomorrow arrive today. Just because things don't occur on a timetable you find "reasonable" doesn't mean it's a "failure." Yet another red herring.
I have never stated that Iranians were not supplying advice and arms to the Iraqis nor have I ever said that surprised me.
You have however, DOUBTED THE VERACITY of such reports, and then even suggested it could be that evil, nefarious Bush and Co, dreaming up yet another excuse to *gasp* INVADE IRAN ! ! ! ! !
Mr. Bush's crazy wars
You mean like the one Congress authorized in Iraq ????
We don't have the troops, the equipment, or the money for another huge war.
Just plain silly. We didn't have the war machine required to go to war for WWII either, but we ramped up rather quickly. How ???? By going into some of the worst debt this country has ever seen (over 100% of GDP,) making today's total accumulated debt look like peanuts (about 39% of GDP.) (I notice you haven't commented on THAT thread yet *snicker*)
I sincerely doubt that Mr. Bush can persuade congress to further neglect domestic issues in favor of yet another war.
Bush has been pushing "domestic issues" since the day he hit office. Yet more colorful hyperbole, without substance.
it's not enough to declare war. You need to actually intend to win it without having to count on miracles and divine intervention.
Precisely why Bush is intent on victory, even as the Congress, and yes, even the Country, shrinks from your own, stated "truth."
That requires a real plan.
Once again, what you mean by "real" is something YOU find appropriate. Bush has a plan, even if you don't agree with it.
we all know he doesn't listen to experts
We ???? Define "we" -- will you ???? Yet more wild rhetoric, empty of content.
I cannot argue with your idealization of Mr. Bush. There is no way you'll ever admit that he has ever made a mistake. You don't win a war by holding an election. You win a war by setting up a stable government, restoring law and order to the streets of the cities, and peace to the countryside. You don't pretend a growing insurgency is actually "on its last legs" and that it's going to go away in three months or so.
Benchmarks and milestones denote a real plan. Please list Mr. Bush's benchmarks and milestones toward restoring peace, building the economy, restoring law and order, and quelling the insurgency or ridding the country of sectarian militias. I am all ears.
Victory is an easy word to say. Defining what it means in concrete terms is less easy and less achievable. In the end this is simply a disagreement. One of us will turn out to be right. It will be interesting to see which of us it is.
And yet I admit it freely. He continues to make mistakes even today. The surge should be more like 75,000 troops. Reduce those in Korea, reduce those in Germany and the rest of NATO, reduce them in Japan. Bush's main mistakes have been not being aggressive enough, not allowing a broader set of "rules of engagement."
Mistakes are aplenty, it's called "human endeavor." All human endeavor entails "mistakes."
You don't win a war by holding an election. You win a war by setting up a stable government, restoring law and order to the streets of the cities, and peace to the countryside.
Precisely what the Iraqis are doing, taking over control, standing up, so we can stand down.
You don't pretend a growing insurgency is actually "on its last legs" and that it's going to go away in three months or so.
Would Bush be sending in more troops if he "believed" such things??? Your empty accusations grow rather old.
Please list Mr. Bush's benchmarks and milestones toward restoring peace, building the economy, restoring law and order, and quelling the insurgency or ridding the country of sectarian militias.
Those "benchmarks" are no longer in Bush's control. Despite repeated claims from the left, the Iraq government isn't a "puppet" government, and they make their own decisions. It isn't our job to "restore peace." We have willingly taken on the job of helping the Iraqis bring that vision to fruition, but it isn't our job, as it isn't our country, ditto for building the economy (which by the way is booming) and restoring law and order .
Defining what it means in concrete terms is less easy and less achievable.
It has been defined, you just don't like the definition--- a "victory" or an "end game" for the USA, is when we are requested to leave by the Iraqi government, because they feel comfortable taking over complete responsibility for their own country.
That's it. I'm sorry it seems too simplistic to you, but things don't have to be as complex as you make them out to be.
One of us will turn out to be right. It will be interesting to see which of us it is.
The problem is, by using words like "failure in Iraq" you have already defined how things have "turn(ed) out." I'm afraid we'll bother probably have long forgotten about gather, long before we know "which of us it is."
The whole we'll stand down when they stand up is a slogan. A plan is how they are going to do it and when.
jJack? That quote about the insurgency being on it's last legs and will be gone inside of three months is a quote from the Vice President of the United States. It's not my idea. He said it well over a year ago.
Actually the benchmarks are within Mr. Bush's control. He tells the Iraqi government they have to show progress or we will withdraw. It's up to them to decide to stand up, as you put it. They've had four years to train an army that still doesn't show up to battles half the time. There is a strong suspicion among American Intelligence sources that they cooperated with whoever murdered those five servicemen last week.
Victory is a goal it's not a definition. My definition of victory would definitely differ from yours. Mine would be that there was law and order on the streets of the cities with few if any suicide bombings, there would be a restoration of the infrastructure and the economy would be re-establishing itself. The militias would be disbanded. The foreign fighters gone or on the run, and the sectarian groups would be talking together as civilized human beings.
By using the term failure in Iraq I have done nothing but define how I see it as present. And if it takes as long as you say, then we have indeed failed.
No kidding. Big deal.
Actually the benchmarks are within Mr. Bush's control.
Actually, no they aren't.
up to them to decide to stand up
Yes, just as I said.
Victory is a goal it's not a definition.
And the definition of a victory is when the Iraqis have control.
My definition of victory would definitely differ from yours.
Obviously, although I would suggest to you, Utopia has never existed in the history of mankind and isn't about to materalize NOW, just because you think it should.
Mine would be that there was law and order on the streets of the cities with few if any suicide bombings, there would be a restoration of the infrastructure and the economy would be re-establishing itself. The militias would be disbanded. The foreign fighters gone or on the run, and the sectarian groups would be talking together as civilized human beings.
That isn't any different from what I said, Iraqis able to take care of themselves. So you agree with me on what victory means afterall. Interesting.
By using the term failure in Iraq I have done nothing but define how I see it as present.
Not to mention demonstrating very clearly, you place arbitrary time tables on events you don't understand.
And if it takes as long as you say, then we have indeed failed.
Then we failed in Europe and Japan after WWII as well, by YOUR definition.
There are things we just shouldn't be told no matter how much we want to know.
OH NO ! ! ! ! ! don't tell that to the Carolyn types of the world ! ! ! ! ! !
And no. I don't have any right to tell you how to act. I do, however, have the right to determine what I will respond to.
I can certainly make an educated guess based on your ridiculous posts *ROFL*
you've decided to degenerate this discussion to insults and name calling
I didn't "decide" anything, I was simply responding to your childish name caling and insults.
I'll deal with others and ignore you.
In short, you can't refute anything I say, so you will ignore the facts and speak only to those drones that agree with you.