BF2S Forums U.S. prepares to release evidence of Iran’s role in Iraq

i'm sure they will present whatever they think will justify the Spring offensive they say they are not planning..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2010087,00.html

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2007-02-10 13:10:16)

Its rather comical really....prior to this we have a vast amount of allegations of their involvement and we get caught along the Carrot and stick game...and their proof of their involvement is their STATEMENT THAT they are giving high grade explosives. The funny thing is that this is the same intelligence community that has for some reason systematically failed on some pretty heavy situations and now we have to rely on their unanimous push for a justification of aggression towards Iran.

*someone pinch me I'm reliving 2003*

the 78% or 11 people that have voted yes have fallen for the old US gov rope a dope again.

Use your brain people. No evidence has been presented yet you think they are involved? Why?

Plenty of evidence has been provided that Israel has nuclear weapons but the right says "no they dont, where's the evidence"

Anyone can write a headline in a newspaper "iran linked with weapons" and use the line "its been reported than Iran..." That is the piss weak way out for news services. They can intimate that Iran has weapons but when anyone challenges to prove evidence they just say "we were only saying it has been reported".

BN wrote:

the 78% or 11 people that have voted yes have fallen for the old US gov rope a dope again.

Use your brain people. No evidence has been presented yet you think they are involved? Why?

Because I am making a judgement on the evidence that I have avialable to me, example is that serial numbers on weapons found in Iraq match those owned by Iran.

BN wrote:

Plenty of evidence has been provided that Israel has nuclear weapons but the right says "no they dont, where's the evidence"

I really dont think anyone says that, the Israelies deny it but they are the only ones that come to mind, I have not seen a forum member on here deny it. Personaly I have no clue where you are getting that, and unless you can give me some information that proves otherwise I dont believe it(excluding morons who would say that of course).

BN wrote:

Anyone can write a headline in a newspaper "iran linked with weapons" and use the line "its been reported than Iran..." That is the piss weak way out for news services. They can intimate that Iran has weapons but when anyone challenges to prove evidence they just say "we were only saying it has been reported".

Not the right usage of "intimate", also, news services do that all the time, they do the same thing about how Israel is planning attacks on Iran(an example would be the story that Israel is planing to use low-yield bunker buster nuclear weapons against Iran's facilities). I dont believe anything without a valid source, and in my opinion, generals over in Iraq come under the category of "valid".

ATG wrote:

If Bush does like his daddy did in Somalia and leave a fresh entanglement for the next president, and a fucking big one like Iraq, it may take a decade for Republican voters to forgive politicians.

* edit Iraq, Iran whats the difference.

The difference is "o" and "p"

Kmarion wrote:

We have not had a direct poll to get everyones opinion on this.

http://i9.tinypic.com/4hthunb.jpg
^{Artillery shells that were used to make a car bomb lay gathered
by Iraqi police near the scene of a car bomb blast in central Baghdad,
Iraq, Saturday, Feb. 10, 2007. Serial numbers and other markings on
bombs suggest that Iranians are linked to deadly explosives used by Iraqi militants}

One thing is for sure, the evidence better be solid.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070210/ap_ … telligence
After weeks of preparation and revisions, U.S. officials are preparing to detail evidence supporting administration's claims of Iran's meddlesome and deadly activities. A briefing was scheduled Sunday in Baghdad.

I know there are some here who think this is a prelude to war despite the fact Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Gates all have said numerous times that they are not planning military actions. Why would Iran support Civil war in Iraq if the evidence does indeed show this? We know they would like to see a Shia majority but at what risk do they assert influence?

ONE BIG CONSPIRACY THEORY

You bleeding heart conservatives and your wacky conspiracies! god bless you.

Reciprocity wrote:

yes, just like Syria, Saudi Arabia, and every other country in the region.

Saudi Arabia , your sure about that?

Kmarion wrote:

U.S. officials are preparing to detail evidence supporting administration's claims of Iran's meddlesome and deadly activities. A briefing was scheduled Sunday in Baghdad.

Oh the hilarity of a group of United Staters gathering evidence about someone meddling in Iraq

just because there is a build up of naval and air type forces in the gulf waters, and other areas. doesnt automatically mean the miltary is going to strike iran..the media blows shit up so bad.

it could be mere exercises that are just getting some special attention

or even more likely the iraq "build up" that has been put forth, this is probably part of the 20,000 more troops thing..just some arnt on the ground!

IG-Calibre wrote:

i'm sure they will present whatever they think will justify the Spring offensive they say they are not planning..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2010087,00.html

I'm sure the Pentagon has plans to attack the UK, Italy, Spain, and every other nation on the planet, too.  That doesn't mean they're going to happen.  The Pentagon hires thousands of people to sit around and consider war scenarios.  I'd bet nearly all of them are waaaaaaay out in left field.  Stuff like, "what would America do if the UK attacked us?" has probably already been decided.  That's because our military is extremely good at taking specific objectives and accomplishing them.  If an extremely unlikely scenario ends up coming true, we want to be prepared for it so we don't waste time figuring out what our response needs to be.  Just because "a source at the Pentagon" confirms that we have plans doesn't mean we're seriously considering them.

I don't get it... so It's not okay for Iran to support what it considers its interests in the region with military and strategic aid but it is okay for America to do exactly the same thing?

America at the moment are fighting a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq, they (along with Israel) have been supporting one side of the Palestinian struggle in the recent civil conflict with military equipment and have launched air strikes on villages in Ethiopia. Who are they to point the finger at anyone, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Braddock wrote:

I don't get it... so It's not okay for Iran to support what it considers its interests in the region with military and strategic aid but it is okay for America to do exactly the same thing?

America at the moment are fighting a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq, they (along with Israel) have been supporting one side of the Palestinian struggle in the recent civil conflict with military equipment and have launched air strikes on villages in Ethiopia. Who are they to point the finger at anyone, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

You can't honestly see the difference between promoting violence and trying to quell it? Americans want the Government of Iraq to succeed and for peace to reign so they can get their troops home. Iran may be providing  material for insurgents to go blowing up civilians in marketplaces. American intentions are known, Iran is operating with deceit and denial. And FEn321 no one is claiming that Iran is the reason Iraq is where it is now. There are question that should be asked and not ignored though. If another country is providing weapons being used to kill your soldiers you don't simply look the other way.