Glad to here your one of the Americans Ahmadinejad was talking about the other day. He said he had faith that the good people of America would not allow an attack. ATG, friend of Ahmadinejad, who would have thought!!
I just believe disposing of Ahmadinejad is a job better left for the Iranians.JahManRed wrote:
Glad to here your one of the Americans Ahmadinejad was talking about the other day. He said he had faith that the good people of America would not allow an attack. ATG, friend of Ahmadinejad, who would have thought!!
I actually have a profound hatred for that man.
Its about choosing battles carefully.
+1 for a Neo-con becoming a little more discerning when it comes to barrages of propaganda. There is no doubt that Iranians have some hand in the violence in Iraq but to start baselessly alluding to the fact that:
a) The Iranian government is involved and,
b) Military action against Iran is in the best interests of Americans,
is a one way ticket to more middle eastern anarchy.
+1 General Peter Pace also.
a) The Iranian government is involved and,
b) Military action against Iran is in the best interests of Americans,
is a one way ticket to more middle eastern anarchy.
+1 General Peter Pace also.
Ahmadinejad is coming under allot of pressure over internal issue and could be on his way out. Tomatoes, could be his down fall. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/st … 05,00.htmlATG wrote:
I just believe disposing of Ahmadinejad is a job better left for the Iranians.JahManRed wrote:
Glad to here your one of the Americans Ahmadinejad was talking about the other day. He said he had faith that the good people of America would not allow an attack. ATG, friend of Ahmadinejad, who would have thought!!
I actually have a profound hatred for that man.
Its about choosing battles carefully.
That may be the straw that breaks the proverbial back.JahManRed wrote:
Ahmadinejad is coming under allot of pressure over internal issue and could be on his way out. Tomatoes, could be his down fall. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/st … 05,00.htmlATG wrote:
I just believe disposing of Ahmadinejad is a job better left for the Iranians.JahManRed wrote:
Glad to here your one of the Americans Ahmadinejad was talking about the other day. He said he had faith that the good people of America would not allow an attack. ATG, friend of Ahmadinejad, who would have thought!!
I actually have a profound hatred for that man.
Its about choosing battles carefully.
But, he's but a pawn, we need to incite the people to get rid of the Ayatolla.
You have to consider that is not in the interests of the Ayatollahs or the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to have a stable, secure democracy right on the Iranian border. It is definitely in the interests of the complicated Iranian ruling authorities to keep Iraq a failure, despite all the effort, troops and money that the west have poured into it. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the Iranians have, as unofficially as possible, made moves that will help keep Iraq the quagmire it is.
Consider the method of deploying say, fifty sergeants from the Iranian army or special forces across the border. Take into account that standard procedures would make them virtually untracebale (filing numbers off weaponry, issuing with them civilian clothes and backstories from parts of Iraq) and imagine how effective they could be with the population of young muslim men that bay for the blood of the westerners within their country, or their Shi'a or Sunni opponents. The zeal of fanaticism can be made very effective when given proper training. A man with an rpg is dangerous, a man with an rpg who knows where the weak point on a blackhawk or humvees armor is deadly.
Iran borders Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkemenistan, Azerbaijan and Turkey, but the nation is 90% Shi'a, so it is natural that some of the population would support intervention on behalf of their fellow muslims, especially after the decades of Baathist and Sunni domination.
The United States realises that any attack on Iran would be a grave mistake. International condemnation, despite Iran's nuclear program, would be broad and unyielding. The only possible option would be bombing strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities or leadership targets, conventional attack or invasion would be impossible at this time. Therefore it is in the interests of the West that diplomatic pressure is brought to bear, in the hope that it may eventually bear fruit, as it has done with North Korea. While keeping Iran out of Iraq may be difficult, stopping Iranian nuclear development may still be possible.
Consider the method of deploying say, fifty sergeants from the Iranian army or special forces across the border. Take into account that standard procedures would make them virtually untracebale (filing numbers off weaponry, issuing with them civilian clothes and backstories from parts of Iraq) and imagine how effective they could be with the population of young muslim men that bay for the blood of the westerners within their country, or their Shi'a or Sunni opponents. The zeal of fanaticism can be made very effective when given proper training. A man with an rpg is dangerous, a man with an rpg who knows where the weak point on a blackhawk or humvees armor is deadly.
Iran borders Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkemenistan, Azerbaijan and Turkey, but the nation is 90% Shi'a, so it is natural that some of the population would support intervention on behalf of their fellow muslims, especially after the decades of Baathist and Sunni domination.
The United States realises that any attack on Iran would be a grave mistake. International condemnation, despite Iran's nuclear program, would be broad and unyielding. The only possible option would be bombing strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities or leadership targets, conventional attack or invasion would be impossible at this time. Therefore it is in the interests of the West that diplomatic pressure is brought to bear, in the hope that it may eventually bear fruit, as it has done with North Korea. While keeping Iran out of Iraq may be difficult, stopping Iranian nuclear development may still be possible.
While the technologies may be old they still work. What was good for US troops before were that the insurgents were untrained and had very few specialist. Now it is changing in the past few weeks we have had several serious escalations:
A convoy of 5-7 white Chevy SUV's were allowed onto a joint US Army and Iraqi facility. The men appeared light skinned and were discribed as either Western or Iranian skin coloration. They killed one US service member and kidnapped four more, all of which died shortly afterward. Their uniforms were and materials were taken from them. This suggests a high level of organization, resources, and training on the assault teams part. This is so many levels above any of the insurgents have been able to carry out that it is in and of itself alarming.
7-9 Helicopters have been downed with Soviet and Russian shoulder launched rockets. While SA-7's have been in use for a while, the newer and more leathal versions with much better trained crewmen have suddenly started appearing with frightening frequency.
The new IEDs being employeed in Iraq may have been around for a while in the world, but the concepts are still not an easy one to come to by yourself as many of the militias and insurgents have been. This sudden "upgrade" coupled with the other two deveploments all at once points more and more at Iran.
Oh and not to mention the Iraqi Prime Minister addressing both Iran and the US and telling them that his country would not be a proxy war for the two of them.
A convoy of 5-7 white Chevy SUV's were allowed onto a joint US Army and Iraqi facility. The men appeared light skinned and were discribed as either Western or Iranian skin coloration. They killed one US service member and kidnapped four more, all of which died shortly afterward. Their uniforms were and materials were taken from them. This suggests a high level of organization, resources, and training on the assault teams part. This is so many levels above any of the insurgents have been able to carry out that it is in and of itself alarming.
7-9 Helicopters have been downed with Soviet and Russian shoulder launched rockets. While SA-7's have been in use for a while, the newer and more leathal versions with much better trained crewmen have suddenly started appearing with frightening frequency.
The new IEDs being employeed in Iraq may have been around for a while in the world, but the concepts are still not an easy one to come to by yourself as many of the militias and insurgents have been. This sudden "upgrade" coupled with the other two deveploments all at once points more and more at Iran.
Oh and not to mention the Iraqi Prime Minister addressing both Iran and the US and telling them that his country would not be a proxy war for the two of them.
As ATG said, the downfall of Amendijablowjob should ultimately be left to the Iranian people as a whole. There really is nothing the USA can do. . . We could bomb the assholes into oblivion, but all that does it make more people mad! If we have learned anything, its be measured with our responses, and an attack would not be a measured response to Iran.
They are looking for us to attack them, they want to pick a fight! I say we should attack if more shit goes down. . . However, as it stands now, attacking Iran is just not an option that is in the best interest of the USA. The best move now seems to be getting Iran to disarm through mass international pressure, tackling this problem solo is NOT a recipe for success!! If they snub the international community, then all options are on the table. . .but we must build a group of nations to be on our side first!
They are looking for us to attack them, they want to pick a fight! I say we should attack if more shit goes down. . . However, as it stands now, attacking Iran is just not an option that is in the best interest of the USA. The best move now seems to be getting Iran to disarm through mass international pressure, tackling this problem solo is NOT a recipe for success!! If they snub the international community, then all options are on the table. . .but we must build a group of nations to be on our side first!
Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-02-18 07:36:12)
But what does that have to do with the price of fish?ATG wrote:
That may be the straw that breaks the proverbial back.JahManRed wrote:
Ahmadinejad is coming under allot of pressure over internal issue and could be on his way out. Tomatoes, could be his down fall. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/st … 05,00.htmlATG wrote:
I just believe disposing of Ahmadinejad is a job better left for the Iranians.
I actually have a profound hatred for that man.
Its about choosing battles carefully.
But, he's but a pawn, we need to incite the people to get rid of the Ayatolla.
Sorry, couldn't help it .
ATG, the last American President in charge of a three front war WAS a liberal. He was known as FDR. Not saying that liberals today would be good candidates for the job, just pointing out that someone's political affiliation doesn't necessarily make them bad or good at running a conflict. Just look at Bush here.ATG wrote:
lol, I think I just typed all of this into the report button; whoops!They are, but who cares? ( sarcasm )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.
Jesus, we should kill the Iranians in Iraq, seal the border and waste anything trying to cross it.
It is not worth it, to attack them at this time.
China and Russia are also involved in Iraq, just as we were involved in Afganistan against the Russians. ( don't ask me for a link, its something unsaid and unpublished, but its also a no brainer.) They are watching us blow our wad in Iraq, watching the American people be divided and preparing for war against us.
It would be different if I thought we would fight to win, but we don't and my confidence in the Bush Admin is zero.
Besides, just like daddy in Somolia, he will leave this war for the next president to deal with, and that person may be HILLARY CLINTON.
You want a Liberal in charge of a three front war?
You would have to be crazy.