Hostile Iranian agents in Iraq..

[palehorse]

Ok, this article was posted already, but I believe the thread was locked because the OP did not include any of his/her comments... I'm here to remedy that.

For several years it has been known to many throughout the military and IC that Iranians are actively participating in the hostilities in Iraq (and Afghanistan). There have been numerous public reports of bomb-making materials and other types of support for the Iraqi insurgents. The real issue everyone seems to have is that there has never been a "smoking gun" that directly links the Iranian government to the Iranians operating outside of their borders.

Many have defended Iranian participation and pointed to US efforts in the past to undermine our enemies' efforts in conflicts beyond our borders. Some people actually justify Iran's involvement because we have done similar things in the past -- such as our support of the Muj in Afghnaistan during the 80's, and elsewhere.

It has always been my contention that those people supporting or justifying Iran's involvement have forgotten what side they are on. They seem to think that it's A-OK for known Iranian intelligence operatives to assist Iraqi insurgents in attacking US interests and personnel. To me, trying to justify such actions is nearly unforgivable.

I am happy to see this article finally reports our authorization to use force against known Iranian operatives. While this may escalate Tehran's involvement, I believe that our troops have no choice, and every right, to take on this threat.

In other words, it's about damn time. The Iranians assisting the militias have placed themselves in the cross-hairs...we did not place them there. It would be borderline criminal to deny the US forces the ability to fight back.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16818179/

The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.

For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The "catch and release" policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go.

Last summer, however, senior administration officials decided that a more confrontational approach was necessary, as Iran's regional influence grew and U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran appeared to be failing. The country's nuclear work was advancing, U.S. allies were resisting robust sanctions against the Tehran government, and Iran was aggravating sectarian violence in Iraq.

Article continues at the link above...

 

[Steeplerot]

Now, who didn't see the war spilling over into it's neighbors and us making a mess of the mideast years ago?

Surely not the people in charge and their faithful legions. Naah.

This is not news, it is long foretold consequences.

 

[Aimster]

This is nothing more than a Bush media spin. It doesnt mention any evidence of anything.

So one is to assume that before this article came out that the sitation was like this

"Those people over there are trying to plot to kill US!!! Make sure they are from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Syria otherwise let them go"
"no sir they are from Iran and they are planting weapons on the ground"
"negative not authorized to kill, move on"

"rolls eyes"

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Aimster
This is nothing more than a Bush media spin. It doesnt mention any evidence of anything.

So one is to assume that before this article came out that the sitation was like this

"Those people over there are trying to plot to kill US!!! Make sure they are from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Syria otherwise let them go"
"no sir they are from Iran and they are planting weapons on the ground"
"negative not authorized to kill, move on"

"rolls eyes"

And to think some folks said neoconservatism is dead, they are just getting warmed up.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Now, who didn't see the war spilling over into it's neighbors and us making a mess of the mideast years ago?

Surely not the people in charge and their faithful legions. Naah.

This is not news, it is long foretold consequences.

If the war spills over it will be because of the actions of Iran, not ours.

If the Iranians don't want to be involved then all they have to do is stop supporting the terrorists and insurgents.
Of course this is the same Iran who provides Hezbollah with thousands of missiles and then tries to say it is not involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

[Aimster]

evidence Iranians are supporting terrorist and insurgents. Please?

Hezbollah is not an Israel-Palestine struggle group...so... yeah.

 

[techs]

Maybe I am missing something but wtf? If they came across insurgents they asked them if they were Iranians and if they were they held them a few days and let them go? When we attacked insurgent strongholds we asked if anyone was Iranian and let the Iranians go before shooting the rest of them?
Is the wackiness here that we treated Iranian agents working with the insurgents different from everyone else up til now?
I mean, wtf? Has Bush been so amazingly stupid that up til now we let Iranians who came to Iraq to join the insurgency get a free pass???????????

 

[feralkid]

This changes everything! Victory is ours.


:roll:

 

[OrByte]

Hmmmmm something smells fishy.

Were US combat forces not allowed to engage Iranians before? Weve been fighting in Iraq for more than a few years now...You mean to tell me that if Iranians were firing on US troops we werent allowed to fire back???

This washington post "news" seems more like propoganda.

 

[Aimster]

By putting this in the media it makes the reader assume there are Iranian insurgents inside Iraq. They haven't captured a single one. They must have special skills that the other insurgents don't have, like teleporting machines.

It just adds another headline that can be added to FoxNews.com. They have a little section for Iran almost every day.

Bush's people flooded the media with stuff on Iraq before the invasion/attack. They are doing the same thing with Iran.

 

[DealMonkey]

Obviously, this should have been the policy all along. Why it wasn't is beyond me.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Now, who didn't see the war spilling over into it's neighbors and us making a mess of the mideast years ago?

Surely not the people in charge and their faithful legions. Naah.

This is not news, it is long foretold consequences.

If the war spills over it will be because of the actions of Iran, not ours.

If the Iranians don't want to be involved then all they have to do is stop supporting the terrorists and insurgents.
Of course this is the same Iran who provides Hezbollah with thousands of missiles and then tries to say it is not involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

That logic is so assinine.

Iran wouldnt be in Iraq supporting terrorists and insurgents if the US didnt remove Saddam from power. Now who is responsible again?

Iran is doing what the US would do if put in similar circumstances, do not fool yourself.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: OrByte
Hmmmmm something smells fishy.

Were US combat forces not allowed to engage Iranians before? Weve been fighting in Iraq for more than a few years now...You mean to tell me that if Iranians were firing on US troops we werent allowed to fire back???

This washington post "news" seems more like propoganda.

If you read the article you will learn that the Iranians are no engaging the US soldiers directly. They are doing so by proxy -- training and using local insurgents to do the actual missions. In the past, US forces were not authorized to go after the Iranian agents themselves, even when intelligence linked them to attacks. They were restricted because some politicians believed that doing so might cause Tehran to escalate their involvement.

Now those restrictions have been lifted, and we can go after the Iranians themselves. They can no longer operate with impunity. Our efforts will go a long way toward eliminating the materials and training they provide to Iraqi militias.

This is a good thing, and it's about damn time.

PS: remember, this change happened a while ago... not yesterday. It's only just now been released to the public, so I speak of it in the future tense.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: OrByte
That logic is so assinine.

Iran wouldnt be in Iraq supporting terrorists and insurgents if the US didnt remove Saddam from power. Now who is responsible again?

Iran is doing what the US would do if put in similar circumstances, do not fool yourself.

I understand the concept of Cause and Effect very well.

However, that does not mean that Iran gets some sort of free pass. You cannot place the sole responsibility on the US for the hostile actions done by Iranians.

Iran is also very responsible for the hostile actions of their military and intelligence agents in Iraq.

The US would most certainly do the same thing if roles were reversed; but that does not absolve the Iranians of their responsibility.

Remember whose side you're supposed to be on... You are on the US' side, right?

 

[Aimster]

So they must train them and then teleport them?

Amazing since Iranians and Iraqis speak a different language as well. Iranians must bring a translator into Iraq.

They go around the streets "Hello Sir, are you a terrorist? I am looking to train an army"

Think about it. Iranians have no intel on anything inside Iraq. Majority of opposition groups against the U.S are Sunni and Iran is a Shia fanatical state.

Of course you wont think about it because your heart loves for Iran to be involved when common sense and facts say otherwise.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: OrByte
That logic is so assinine.

Iran wouldnt be in Iraq supporting terrorists and insurgents if the US didnt remove Saddam from power. Now who is responsible again?

Iran is doing what the US would do if put in similar circumstances, do not fool yourself.

I understand the concept of Cause and Effect very well.

However, that does not mean that Iran gets some sort of free pass. You cannot place the sole responsibility on the US for the hostile actions done by Iranians.

Iran is also very responsible for the hostile actions of their military and intelligence agents in Iraq.

The US would most certainly do the same thing if roles were reversed; but that does not absolve the Iranians of their responsibility.

Remember whose side you're supposed to be on... You are on the US' side, right?

Actually yes I can put the sole responsibilty of the instability of Iraq on the US shoulders.

Iran did not invade Iraq

Iran isn't just going to sit on the sidelines while such an opportunity presents itself, that is not to say I am absolving Iran of anything, but that the people in charge of our country had to have know at least this much and still decided to kick the hornets nest.

I think I am more on the side of the US then even you. I would never be so reckless with american soldiers lives.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Since there's an Iranian embassy in Baghdad, you would think it would ok for Iranians to be in Iraq


p.s. horse if you changed the name from your quote in your to Winston Churchill it would probably be more accurate

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Aimster
So they must train them and then teleport them?

Amazing since Iranians and Iraqis speak a different language as well. Iranians must bring a translator into Iraq.

They go around the streets "Hello Sir, are you a terrorist? I am looking to train an army"

There are plenty of Persians who speak Arabic... and English, French, German, Italian, Spanish... etc.

Think about it. Iranians have no intel on anything inside Iraq. Majority of opposition groups against the U.S are Sunni and Iran is a Shia fanatical state.

Uhh, the majority of Iraq is also Shia. Who do you think the Iranian Agents talk to for information? To arrange meetings? Make contacts? -- Shia sources. *cough*Sadr*cough*... Trust me, there are plenty of Iraqi Shi'ites willing to work with Iranian agents.

Of course you wont think about it because your heart loves for Iran to be involved when common sense and facts say otherwise.

I absolutely despise the fact that Iran is involved. I also regret our own involvement in Iraq. I also hope very much that we never have to go to war with Iran.

you are wrong Aimster.

 

[Aimster]

The Shia are not against the U.S occupation or invasion of Iraq ... they were against Saddam who was a Sunni.

Shias are too busy fighting Sunnis who are blowing themselves up killing tens of thousands of people.

Sunni are the minority and they are also the majority when it comes to attacks on everyone else.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: OrByte
That logic is so assinine.

Iran wouldnt be in Iraq supporting terrorists and insurgents if the US didnt remove Saddam from power. Now who is responsible again?

Iran is doing what the US would do if put in similar circumstances, do not fool yourself.

I understand the concept of Cause and Effect very well.

However, that does not mean that Iran gets some sort of free pass. You cannot place the sole responsibility on the US for the hostile actions done by Iranians.

Iran is also very responsible for the hostile actions of their military and intelligence agents in Iraq.

The US would most certainly do the same thing if roles were reversed; but that does not absolve the Iranians of their responsibility.

Remember whose side you're supposed to be on... You are on the US' side, right?

Actually yes I can put the sole responsibilty of the instability of Iraq on the US shoulders.

Iran did not invade Iraq

Iran isn't just going to sit on the sidelines while such an opportunity presents itself, that is not to say I am absolving Iran of anything, but that the people in charge of our country had to have know at least this much and still decided to kick the hornets nest.

I think I am more on the side of the US then even you. I would never be so reckless with american soldiers lives.

now THAT was beautiful! You completely side-stepped the issue and threw out some wonderful rhetoric as well!

We are discussing Iran's actions in Iraq, not the US invasion itself. Try sticking to the topic.

The most that could be said of the US, in terms of "responsibility," is that our presence in Iraq has led to Iran's support of the insurgencies.

However, Iran is still solely responsible for the actions of their military and intelligence agents in Iraq; regardless of circumstance.

We all know why the Iranians are there, but that does not change the fact that they have no business arming and training insurgents to kill US soldiers.. Nothing excuses their participation in those actions... NOTHING.

 

[bamacre]

What right do we have to be in Iraq that Iran does not?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: bamacre
What right do we have to be in Iraq that Iran does not?

Do you think that it is ok for Iranian agents to train Iraqis on how to better kill US soldiers?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Aimster
The Shia are not against the U.S occupation or invasion of Iraq ... they were against Saddam who was a Sunni.

Shias are too busy fighting Sunnis who are blowing themselves up killing tens of thousands of people.

Sunni are the minority and they are also the majority when it comes to attacks on everyone else.

US troops are frequently attacked by both the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Have you been under a rock for two years?

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Aimster
The Shia are not against the U.S occupation or invasion of Iraq ... they were against Saddam who was a Sunni.

Shias are too busy fighting Sunnis who are blowing themselves up killing tens of thousands of people.

Sunni are the minority and they are also the majority when it comes to attacks on everyone else.

US troops are frequently attacked by both the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Have you been under a rock for two years?

and 90% of the time they are from Sunnis.

The "stronghold for insurgents" areas are Sunni occupied areas.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: bamacre
What right do we have to be in Iraq that Iran does not?

Do you think that it is OK for Iranian agents to train Iraqis on how to better kill US soldiers?

I am very interested to see the people here answer these questions directly.

1) Do you think that it is OK for Iranian agents to train Iraqis on how to better kill US soldiers? (YES/NO)

2) Do you think that it is OK for Iranian agents to arm Iraqis with powerful IED's that are used to better kill US soldiers? (YES/NO)