Unrest spreads in Iran

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Makes ya feel good doesnt it?
We may be having a hard go in Iraq, but the spreading freedom is a good thing to see.

Article

NICOSIA [MENL] -- Pro-democracy unrest has spread throughout Iran.

The Iranian opposition reported clashes between Kurdish pro-democracy forces and authorities in western Iran. The opposition said battles took place in Baneh, Mahabad, Marivan, Piranshahr and Sanandaj.

The clashes took place on April 6 and several of the demonstrators were injured and dozens of others were arrested. Opposition sources said police used rubber bullets and tear gas to disperse the protests.

"In retaliation, many protesters inflicted damages to security patrol cars and public buildings," the SMCCDI opposition group said in a statement. "Armed masked protesters took over several security buildings and were able to disarm some of the security forces."

Later, authorities were said to have sent reinforcements from Marivan to restore control of the buildings. The opposition sources said the pro-democracy demonstrations were inspired by elections in Iraq.

There was no independent confirmation of the opposition report. Western diplomatic sources, however, have reported an increase in unrest near the Iranian-Iraqi border.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
How does the clashes between kurds and iran show spreading of freedom?
Do you even know about this situation? That is bad as it will really agitate relations with turkey too.
There are even mumblings of turkish troops in northern iraq fighting the US and kurds already, sad thing is average americans do not even understand the groups that make up iraq and the volitle situations surrounding things like the kurds besides that they supposedly got gassed by saddam back in the day.
*shudder*
This if anything else is a serious warning showing that the US is dangerously slipping on iraqs borders and letting bad stuff happen with the out of control instability from bush's war.

The kurds could be matchlight on bordering nations taking their revenge on them once again the kurds have been been terrorists in their effort of annexing areas of the 2 surrounding countries for 100's of years.
I am not saying they should not have their homeland but turkey and iran are not going to sit by and let them do it.
And no way in hell is bush going to be able to help unless we have a bigass draft.

How far can the neocons stretch the military? How many years have those men been out there before bush's incompetence releases the hordes of the neighboring countries upon a already defence stretched iraq ?
This could be very dangerous for bush's war. We were outnumbered like this when korea went bad.
 

PELarson

Platinum Member
Mar 27, 2001
2,289
0
0
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Makes ya feel good doesnt it?
We may be having a hard go in Iraq, but the spreading freedom is a good thing to see.

I am quite sure if it is President Bush will follow in the foot steps of President Eisenhower and squash democracy in Iran!

 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
1,500+ dead American soldiers and this administration still accepts no responsibility for their incompetence in planning for the invasion and aftermath.
What incompetence in the invasion? Seems to have gone off rather well.

What incompetence in the aftermath? Frankly, the death of ~1500 soldiers for the freedom of 24 million people and the conversion of a enemy state to a fledgling democracy which may end up spreading said ideology throughout the region...the world has done worse. It's taken until now for the Army to shift emphasises (a word?) but even that's not so bad when we're talking about rather drastic changes to a notoriously slow-moving organization.

That said, I hope the U.S. keeps to a 'hands-off' policy in Iran. They've been on the verge for years, and I still have hope they'll topple their regime from within.
 

EndGame

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2002
1,276
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
How does the clashes between kurds and iran show spreading of freedom?
Do you even know about this situation? That is bad as it will really agitate relations with turkey too.
There are even mumblings of turkish troops in northern iraq fighting the US and kurds already, sad thing is average americans do not even understand the groups that make up iraq and the volitle situations surrounding things like the kurds besides that they supposedly got gassed by saddam back in the day.
*shudder*
This if anything else is a serious warning showing that the US is dangerously slipping on iraqs borders and letting bad stuff happen with the out of control instability from bush's war.

The kurds could be matchlight on bordering nations taking their revenge on them once again the kurds have been been terrorists in their effort of annexing areas of the 2 surrounding countries for 100's of years.
I am not saying they should not have their homeland but turkey and iran are not going to sit by and let them do it.
And no way in hell is bush going to be able to help unless we have a bigass draft.

How far can the neocons stretch the military? How many years have those men been out there before bush's incompetence releases the hordes of the neighboring countries upon a already defence stretched iraq ?
This could be very dangerous for bush's war. We were outnumbered like this when korea went bad.

The only point I'll dispute is that of Turkey.....

You do know Turkey is a member of NATO right? You also reallize the U.S. is still launching air patrols from Turkey right?

Perhaps it's not impossible that tropps from Turkey are attacking Kurds in Northern Iraq.....I mean it was once Turkish territory and Turkey has made no qualms stating they wouldn't mind having it back........but these troops, if they are attacking U.S. troops are not federal Turkish troops. Even with tense relations, Turkish troops would not attack U.S. forces and if they did, it would immeadiately make headline news in all media.

 

leedog2007

Senior member
Nov 4, 2004
396
0
0
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
1,500+ dead American soldiers and this administration still accepts no responsibility for their incompetence in planning for the invasion and aftermath. Freedom medals and promotions for everybody!

P&N (where this belongs) - General Clark was right, even Repubs realize planning was FUBAR

The invasion was one of the most sucessful in history. Fewer than 50 men were killed in combat. And btw, the administration didn't plan the invasion, the military did. ;)
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: leedog2007
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
1,500+ dead American soldiers and this administration still accepts no responsibility for their incompetence in planning for the invasion and aftermath. Freedom medals and promotions for everybody!

P&N (where this belongs) - General Clark was right, even Repubs realize planning was FUBAR

The invasion was one of the most sucessful in history. Fewer than 50 men were killed in combat. And btw, the administration didn't plan the invasion, the military did. ;)

You're deluding yourself. The administration -- Ronald Dumsfeld and staff on Bush's orders -- overrode the Pentagon military leadership -- which originally called for ~380,000 troops to invade Iraq and maintain order in the aftermath -- and went in with fewer than 150,000.

Over two years later witness the results.

"Mission accomplished"

"Bring 'em on"

What a disgrace.

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Even Bremmer admitted it.

Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels

The former U.S. official who governed Iraq after the invasion said yesterday that the United States made two major mistakes: not deploying enough troops in Iraq and then not containing the violence and looting immediately after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation government until the handover of political power on June 28, said he still supports the decision to intervene in Iraq but said a lack of adequate forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting early on.

"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground."

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
And what about the Bush administration civilian Pentagon leaders and what they did to Shinseki for speaking what we all know now was the TRUTH?

Pentagon Contradicts General on Iraq Occupation Force's

By Eric Schmitt
New York Times
February 28, 2003

In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon's second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general's assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country.

Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward.

"We have no idea what we will need until we get there on the ground," Mr. Wolfowitz said at a hearing of the House Budget Committee. "Every time we get a briefing on the war plan, it immediately goes down six different branches to see what the scenarios look like. If we costed each and every one, the costs would range from $10 billion to $100 billion." Mr. Wolfowitz's refusal to be pinned down on the costs of war and peace in Iraq infuriated some committee Democrats, who noted that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., the budget director, had briefed President Bush on just such estimates on Tuesday.

"I think you're deliberately keeping us in the dark," said Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia. "We're not so naïve as to think that you don't know more than you're revealing." Representative Darlene Hooley, an Oregon Democrat, also voiced exasperation with Mr. Wolfowitz: "I think you can do better than that."

Mr. Wolfowitz, with Dov S. Zakheim, the Pentagon comptroller, at his side, tried to mollify the Democratic lawmakers, promising to fill them in eventually on the administration's internal cost estimates. "There will be an appropriate moment," he said, when the Pentagon would provide Congress with cost ranges. "We're not in a position to do that right now."

At a Pentagon news conference with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, Mr. Rumsfeld echoed his deputy's comments. Neither Mr. Rumsfeld nor Mr. Wolfowitz mentioned General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, by name. But both men were clearly irritated at the general's suggestion that a postwar Iraq might require many more forces than the 100,000 American troops and the tens of thousands of allied forces that are also expected to join a reconstruction effort.

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said. General Shinseki gave his estimate in response to a question at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point ? something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers ? are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." He also said that the regional commander, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, would determine the precise figure.

A spokesman for General Shinseki, Col. Joe Curtin, said today that the general stood by his estimate. "He was asked a question and he responded with his best military judgment," Colonel Curtin said. General Shinseki is a former commander of the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia.

In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that "stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible," but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction," Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help.

In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, many nations agreed in advance of hostilities to help pay for a conflict that eventually cost about $61 billion. Mr. Wolfowitz said that this time around the administration was dealing with "countries that are quite frightened of their own shadows" in assembling a coalition to force President Saddam Hussein to disarm.

Enlisting countries to help to pay for this war and its aftermath would take more time, he said. "I expect we will get a lot of mitigation, but it will be easier after the fact than before the fact," Mr. Wolfowitz said. Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he said.

At the Pentagon, Mr. Rumsfeld said the factors influencing cost estimates made even ranges imperfect. Asked whether he would release such ranges to permit a useful public debate on the subject, Mr. Rumsfeld said, "I've already decided that. It's not useful."

 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
1,500+ dead American soldiers and this administration still accepts no responsibility for their incompetence in planning for the invasion and aftermath.
What incompetence in the invasion? Seems to have gone off rather well.

What incompetence in the aftermath?
See BBond's posts. Our Commander in Chief should be responsible for the advice he takes and the dissenting opinions he chooses to ignore. We went in at his decision, with the number of troops that he felt was enough.

We didn't have enough troops during the invasion to guard weapon caches or to control the ground we'd captured, only enough to fight Saddam's troops.

We didn't have enough toops after victory to control much of anything, because Bush and his advisors approved post-war plans based on flowers, smiles, and welcomes from everyone in Iraq. If Bush isn't responsible for that decision (and ignoring advice to the contrary), who is?

Isn't part of leadership supposed to be accepting blame when the plans you approve fail?

(No, I'm not an anti-Bush fanatic. I supported the war in Afghanistan and give Bush a lot of credit for making the Arab world take America more seriously after we crushed the Taliban there.)
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: leedog2007
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
1,500+ dead American soldiers and this administration still accepts no responsibility for their incompetence in planning for the invasion and aftermath. Freedom medals and promotions for everybody!

P&N (where this belongs) - General Clark was right, even Repubs realize planning was FUBAR

The invasion was one of the most sucessful in history. Fewer than 50 men were killed in combat. And btw, the administration didn't plan the invasion, the military did. ;)

You're deluding yourself. The administration -- Ronald Dumsfeld and staff on Bush's orders -- overrode the Pentagon military leadership -- which originally called for ~380,000 troops to invade Iraq and maintain order in the aftermath -- and went in with fewer than 150,000.

Over two years later witness the results.

"Mission accomplished"

"Bring 'em on"

What a disgrace.

So, with less then half the requested manpower its still on of the most successful campaigns in history, and you call it a disgrace?
Yep, sure is crappy of us to bring freedom to a country.
I hope someday YOu have no freedoms, maybe you'll appreciate what we've done just a bit better.
Course, the way its goin in our own country, that could be just around the corner.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Makes ya feel good doesnt it?
We may be having a hard go in Iraq, but the spreading freedom is a good thing to see.
Are you somehow implying that what's going on in Iran is a direct result of invading Iraq?

If so:

:cookie:
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Originally posted by: Specop 007
So, with less then half the requested manpower its still on of the most successful campaigns in history, and you call it a disgrace?
Yep, sure is crappy of us to bring freedom to a country.
I hope someday YOu have no freedoms, maybe you'll appreciate what we've done just a bit better.
Course, the way its goin in our own country, that could be just around the corner.
If Bush had listened to the people telling him we needed to send in more troops we'd still have given the Iraqis freedom, but:

1. Iraq elections would have been possible much sooner
2. Their country (roads, power grid, schools, police, etc. ) would be in much better shape
3. Far fewer innocent Iraqis would be dead.
4. Many of the 1,500 dead and tens of thousands of wounded American soldiers would be alive and healthy today.

That's why it is correct to call Bush's handling of the war and its aftermath a disgrace.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: leedog2007
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
1,500+ dead American soldiers and this administration still accepts no responsibility for their incompetence in planning for the invasion and aftermath. Freedom medals and promotions for everybody!

P&N (where this belongs) - General Clark was right, even Repubs realize planning was FUBAR

The invasion was one of the most sucessful in history. Fewer than 50 men were killed in combat. And btw, the administration didn't plan the invasion, the military did. ;)

You're deluding yourself. The administration -- Ronald Dumsfeld and staff on Bush's orders -- overrode the Pentagon military leadership -- which originally called for ~380,000 troops to invade Iraq and maintain order in the aftermath -- and went in with fewer than 150,000.

Over two years later witness the results.

"Mission accomplished"

"Bring 'em on"

What a disgrace.

So, with less then half the requested manpower its still on of the most successful campaigns in history, and you call it a disgrace?
Yep, sure is crappy of us to bring freedom to a country.
I hope someday YOu have no freedoms, maybe you'll appreciate what we've done just a bit better.
Course, the way its goin in our own country, that could be just around the corner.

If these past two years are what you call a "successful campaign" I'd hate to see what you call a failure.

Stop re-writing history.



 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
Originally posted by: conjur
Makes ya feel good doesnt it?
We may be having a hard go in Iraq, but the spreading freedom is a good thing to see.
Are you somehow implying that what's going on in Iran is a direct result of invading Iraq?

If so:

:cookie:

Yeah nice cookie :roll:.

How do you know that Iraq hasn't had some effect in the region that now people want democracy? If you read some of the media, even Arab media, you will find that an increasing number of people in the middle east want democracy. That is related to Iraq.

As they see the tyrant removed and a democratic foundation laid, they want the same for their country, not by force however. Any reasonable will realize that as people look at other peoplw who are free and have a democratic government, they will want it too.

Is the Iraqi government even close to being functional? No. But its moving in that direction. We encountered many problems when setting up the democratic foundations of Germany and Japan. But in the end, thanks to us, the people in both countries flourished.

Iraq has never had democratic traditions so setting up a whole new system will not be done overnight. You're talking about a culture that is 5,000 years old.

Iran could not be happier that we removed its enemy to the west, after removing its enemy to the east. This war on terror has really helped the Iranian mullahs and may have delayed the inevitable reforms in Iran. Now the mullahs are much more harsher in going after protestors and students in Iran because they don't want the same to happen that happened in Iraq.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Why did Bush decide to attack Iraq -- a nation which had not attacked us? What reason did he give to justify the absolute immediate need to attack Iraq unprovoked?

Freedom and democracy?

Revise and Conquer

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: conjur
Makes ya feel good doesnt it?
We may be having a hard go in Iraq, but the spreading freedom is a good thing to see.
Are you somehow implying that what's going on in Iran is a direct result of invading Iraq?

If so:

:cookie:

Yeah nice cookie :roll:.

How do you know that Iraq hasn't had some effect in the region that now people want democracy? If you read some of the media, even Arab media, you will find that an increasing number of people in the middle east want democracy. That is related to Iraq.
Damn...you get any further up Bush's ass and you'll be able to see out of his mouth.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
that's a great source you have there.

I was searching for old news articles on Iraq and one came up from GPF. Good free source for hard news articles that paint a very different picture of what actually happened vs the revisionist fairy tales we're being fed today.

 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
70 million people in Iran. I don't see millions protesting anything. More protested then than now. The population is greater now than then.