BF2S Forums The Truth About These "New" IED's in Iraq

ATG wrote:

Bottom line; the evidence supporting an attack against Iran is a shadow of that used to justify attack Iraq.

To suggest that Iran is behind these explosive devices is simply stupid. These are primitive, crude devices that can be made in any basic metal shop, the knowledge of these devices is more than a century old.

Will somebody please point out that this crap about Iran is all complete bullshit? They may be trouble makers, but the very worst thing we could do would be do attack them.
So what if they have nukes and so what if they use  them, I guess.

A mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv will not signal the end of the world. Maybe it would be for the Iranians.

imortal wrote:

ATG wrote:

Bottom line; the evidence supporting an attack against Iran is a shadow of that used to justify attack Iraq.

To suggest that Iran is behind these explosive devices is simply stupid. These are primitive, crude devices that can be made in any basic metal shop, the knowledge of these devices is more than a century old.

Will somebody please point out that this crap about Iran is all complete bullshit? They may be trouble makers, but the very worst thing we could do would be do attack them.
So what if they have nukes and so what if they use  them, I guess.

A mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv will not signal the end of the world. Maybe it would be for the Iranians.

Stick to what you know.  Iranians have been in the mix in Iraq since at least 2003.  I do not have to search any internet sites; I was there.  They had three parts to their penetration:  They sent agents across to become Imams in Iraqi Shia mosques.  You find an imam in his early 20's?  He has an Iranian passport.  There was also the BADR corps; this is a paramilitary group of Shia Iraqis being trained and equiped by the Iranian military.  The 4ID took control of the area they were training in and forced them to guve up their weapons and disband in May 2003.  The third part was political; they supported and funded several Shia politicians trying to be elected into their goverment.

The units in Iraq have been finding Iranian personnel in Iraq fighting since the beginning; we even captured some way back then.

Also, what could possibly be dangerous about a nation having nuclear weapons who see them not as a deterrent, as the US and the Soviets did, but as a tool to wage holy war; to convert the infedel or cleanse them in holy fire.  What could be the danger in allowing a group of people to have nuclear weapons when they not only claim, but actually BELIEVE, that if they caused the entire world to burn in a nuclear war, that they would win their holy war.  They count the destruction of the entire world as a win.  Sure, no problem with that.

Hurricane wrote:

The conclusion of the OP confuses me, but that might be my insomnia taking effect.

التعريفات wrote:

k

Des.Kmal wrote:

lol...

imortal wrote:

ATG wrote:

Bottom line; the evidence supporting an attack against Iran is a shadow of that used to justify attack Iraq.

To suggest that Iran is behind these explosive devices is simply stupid. These are primitive, crude devices that can be made in any basic metal shop, the knowledge of these devices is more than a century old.

Will somebody please point out that this crap about Iran is all complete bullshit? They may be trouble makers, but the very worst thing we could do would be do attack them.
So what if they have nukes and so what if they use  them, I guess.

A mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv will not signal the end of the world. Maybe it would be for the Iranians.

Stick to what you know.  Iranians have been in the mix in Iraq since at least 2003.  I do not have to search any internet sites; I was there.  They had three parts to their penetration:  They sent agents across to become Imams in Iraqi Shia mosques.  You find an imam in his early 20's?  He has an Iranian passport.  There was also the BADR corps; this is a paramilitary group of Shia Iraqis being trained and equiped by the Iranian military.  The 4ID took control of the area they were training in and forced them to guve up their weapons and disband in May 2003.  The third part was political; they supported and funded several Shia politicians trying to be elected into their goverment.

The units in Iraq have been finding Iranian personnel in Iraq fighting since the beginning; we even captured some way back then.

Also, what could possibly be dangerous about a nation having nuclear weapons who see them not as a deterrent, as the US and the Soviets did, but as a tool to wage holy war; to convert the infedel or cleanse them in holy fire.  What could be the danger in allowing a group of people to have nuclear weapons when they not only claim, but actually BELIEVE, that if they caused the entire world to burn in a nuclear war, that they would win their holy war.  They count the destruction of the entire world as a win.  Sure, no problem with that.

Kmarion wrote:

The President, Vice president, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of the State all come out and told the world we are not planning to attack Iran numerous times. But put yourself in a soldiers position also. Your brothers and sisters are getting killed on a regular basis by weapons that can be directly sourced by to the Qods. Your nation, for fear of a warmongering label, has acknowledged this and still comes out and says we are not going to take steps to stop the suppliers from distributing to the enemy. That's gotta suck. I'm not saying attack Iran at all, and if you think that you have a severe case of the all or nothing syndrome.

mcgid1 wrote:

The purpose of the report was to show that these weapons were coming out of Iran based on serial numbers and tooling marks, both of which could be used to trace a weapons origin.

Whether or not the report is completely factual, I don't know.  It wouldn't suprise me at all if the Iranians were involved, at least in small part, with the insurgency in Iraq, but again, I don't really know.

Last edited by ATG (2007-02-14 20:36:35)

Kmarion wrote:

Sacrifice Israel for permission?..lol

ATG wrote:

China and Russia are also involved in Iraq, just [i] as we were involved in Afganistan against the Russians. They are watching us blow our wad in Iraq, watching the American people be divided and preparing for war against us.

ATG wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ATG I think you have your Somalia history is out of order http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N48/somalia.48w.html . Also you haven't told me why all the major decision makers are telling us we are not planning a war with Iran. They did not do this when they were preparing for Iraq. Surely you see the difference there.

Sir, Bush Senior deployed Marine in Somalia before Clinton was elected. "Operation Restore Hope ", I think.
Whatever Clinton did was a sorry attempt to finish it.

But, they are saying we are planning it, just in not so many words.
They are laying the ground work for military action against Iran with bullshit accusations about Iranian "super IEDs" and Iranian supplied sniper rifles and blah de fricken blah.

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:

Right, the first article very clearly indicates that it concerns China's plan for an invasion of Taiwan, and that nuclear conflict with the USA would be used to keep the strongest Taiwanese sympathizer out of the war, rather than a direct attack. That would be followed by economic concessions to keep US public opinion south of the hate level. This is a hypothetical scenario in which the attack on the USA is itself a bluff.

The second article is in reference to negotiations about a disarmament treaty being proposed for space, in which Russia and China both oppose the US view that no treaty is necessary.

Now maybe you've typed words into the Google News filter and just hoped whatever spam it threw back at you would justify your case, but neither do, one is hypothetical, and the other in no way relates to the threat of war, by either nation, against the USA.

I know there is evidence out there that may support your case, but you haven't come up with any, and until you can, it's not really worth debating. But for the record, I'll quickly outline my view.

Neither Russia nor China has the capability or desire to attack the USA or it's NATO allies. Russia lacks the technology and material to launch an attack on anything other than Eastern Europe, which is a huge and complicated zone to move through, and China lacks the force projection capability, outside it's own borders.

Last edited by ATG (2007-02-14 21:50:37)