Who exactly is fighting the War on Terror?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Ramo
As for Iran and IED's, almost all such attacks come from Sunni Arabs. Saying that Iran's responsible for supplying these groups when they're blowing up Iran's co-religionist allies is pretty damn absurd (characteristic of Dear Leader's propaganda).

Odd.

Iran hasn't problems supporting sunni movements when it sees fit.

Supporting one side against the other is a pretty good strategy for cooking up trouble.

And here's some evidence too:

http://www.nysun.com/article/46032

[Ramo]

Supporting Hamas to kill Israelis is quite a bit different from supporting Sunni Arab nationalists to kill Shia Iraqis and Iran's very own political proxies.

As for your source, anonymous sources in the NY Sun. Color me unimpressed.

[Ramo]

If Iran has had a role in IED's in Iraq, I would guess that it has occurred through diffusion into the black market from Iran's actual proxies (the Badr Brigade and possibly the Mahdi Army).

[Patroklos]

I'm serious and I've posted about this back when I was there. There were tons and tons of munitions left unsecure and Iraqi peasants first looted them to get the bass shell casings which they'd sell as scrape but after that insurgents started to take the explosive shells to use as IEDs. Click the link in my sig and you'll find posts where I blogged about it at the time. The US and UK just didn't have the forces to secure all of the bunkers much less enough UXO teams to blow up the munitions.

I dispute none of this Oerdin, I in fact said it myself. I am just pointing out that DRoseDARs's claims of exactly how much was looted are unsupported (especially by his own posted sources) and really don't make much sense.

[lord of the mark]

"Iran wanted the US to "end its hostility, to end sanctions," as well as to disband an Iranian rebel group based in Iraq and repatriate its members."

so in order to end sanctions from the US, which at the time had little impact on an Iran that had extensive trade relations with and investment from Europe, not to mention Russia and China, and to get the MEK, a gang of incompetents that cant shoot straight, whose presence probably unites the Iranian people with the regime disbanded, Iran was willing to drop their nuke program, drop their support for Hamas and Hezbollah (thus damaging their credibility with other groups they might support in the region) and to recognize Israel (thus endangering their internal stability).


Pardon me, but that makes NO sense.

Either Wilkerson was lying, or Iran had waved something silly in front of him, for purposes of their own, and Wilkerson, for whatever reasons, bit. I presume the Iranians wanted to get talks started and then take them in a direction more amenable to their interests, or to at least make it appear the US was the block against talks, and Wilkerson was either in sympathy to Iran, or he knew Cheney would block it and wanted to force Cheney to do so, so Cheney and the neocons could later be blamed.

If a deal is too good to be true, it usually isnt.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Supporting Hamas to kill Israelis is quite a bit different from supporting Sunni Arab nationalists to kill Shia Iraqis and Iran's very own political proxies.

How about supporting Hamas to kill Palestinian Arabs who happen to be members of Fatah?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
As for Iran and IED's, almost all such attacks come from Sunni Arabs. Saying that Iran's responsible for supplying these groups when they're blowing up Iran's co-religionist allies is pretty damn absurd (characteristic of Dear Leader's propaganda).

so the statements that the CIA was behind the death of Aldo Moro were also part of the George W Bush propaganda machine?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


Our involvement in Iraq (through our support of their gov't) could constitute exactly that.

"Iran last attacked American targets through terrorists in 1996 IIRC.

Iran's involvement in Iraq could be argued to constitute exactly that. "

Our involvement in Iraq could constitute attacking American targets through terrorists? WTF?

BTW, American involvement in Iraq, in support of the govt, has been authorized by the UNSC since mid-2003.

[Ramo]

so in order to end sanctions from the US, which at the time had little impact on an Iran that had extensive trade relations with and investment from Europe, not to mention Russia and China, and to get the MEK, a gang of incompetents that cant shoot straight, whose presence probably unites the Iranian people with the regime disbanded, Iran was willing to drop their nuke program, drop their support for Hamas and Hezbollah (thus damaging their credibility with other groups they might support in the region) and to recognize Israel (thus endangering their internal stability).

So Libya was acting irrationally when it dropped its nuclear program? I'd imagine that their economic ties were similar to Iran's.

As for supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, a lot of that is due to the fact that Iran is diplomatically isolated in the region (and feels it needs to create a rival block).

And the Spring of 2003 had a totally different political context than today. The Iranian reform movement wasn't far from its apex - you had student demonstrations and one of their own in the Presidency, the US wasn't embroiled in a three and a half year occupation where it was constantly losing credibility in the region, and of course Israel hadn't invaded Lebanon. I doubt that recognizing Israel would've had that much of a downside, particularly if they get a similar aid package to one Egypt secured at Camp David.

It's not too good to be true. It's just a deal that's not likely to come again for a while. And it's not just that Wilkerson was duped; the State Dept. wanted to engage Iran. And I sure as hell trust the judgment of State more than Cheney and Rummy.

Our involvement in Iraq could constitute attacking American targets through terrorists? WTF?

I explained that in my next post. Note that the Sadrists are part of the gov't, and there must be considerable diffusion of American arms into the black market.

so the statements that the CIA was behind the death of Aldo Moro were also part of the George W Bush propaganda machine?

No, but assertions that there were ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda were (i.e. in the Czech meeting). Forgive me if I take anonymous leaks from the Admin reported in the NY Sun with a grain of salt.

[Ramo]

How about supporting Hamas to kill Palestinian Arabs who happen to be members of Fatah?

Because the Arab Nationalists in Fatah are either Iranian proxies or Shia?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


So Libya was acting irrationally when it dropped its nuclear program? I'd imagine that their economic ties were similar to Iran's.

Libya didnt recognize Israel, its nuke program wasnt as advanced as Irans or as important domestically, and it was far weaker overall than Iran.

supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, a lot of that is due to the fact that Iran is diplomatically isolated in the region (and feels it needs to create a rival block).

whatever the rationale, turning aside from its allies will effect its reputation, and will require some more substantial payback.

And the Spring of 2003 had a totally different political context than today. The Iranian reform movement wasn't far from its apex - you had student revolts

but AFAIK the student movement wasnt close to MEK, and the existence of such student revolts was not a motive to make the MEK more important. There is of course evidence of domestic discontent in Iran now as well.

I doubt that recognizing Israel would've had that much of a downside, particularly if they get a similar aid package to one Egypt secured at Camp David.

So they were also asking for a 2 billion dollar a year aid package? I hadnt seen that. Anyway, diplo relations with Israel HAVE been a problem for Mubarak domestically, AFAICT, and Iran had a population that had been exposed to 24 years of propaganda demonizing the lesser Satan, and had (and has) a substantial body of the citizenry that is firmly Khomeinists and bitterly hates Israel.

It's not too good to be true. It's just a deal that's not likely to come again for a while. And it's not just that Wilkerson was duped; the State Dept. wanted to engage Iran. And I sure as hell trust the judgment of State more than Cheney and Rummy.

Lots of folks other than Cheney and Rummy dont trust the Iranian regime.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Ramo


So Libya was acting irrationally when it dropped its nuclear program? I'd imagine that their economic ties were similar to Iran's.

Libya was subject to a menagerie of of European sanctions.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

I explained that in my next post. Note that the Sadrists are part of the gov't, and there must be considerable diffusion of American arms into the black market.

If the Iranian IEDS are there only by "diffusion", and not deliberate supply.

No, but assertions that there were ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda were (i.e. in the Czech meeting). Forgive me if I take anonymous leaks from the Admin reported in the NY Sun with a grain of salt.

Im simply asking why Iranian support for Sunni insurgents who kill Shiite Iraqis is different in kind than alleged CIA support for the killing of Aldo Moro. The rationale behind such actions is comparable - allegedly Aldo Moro was killed because the CIA wanted to scare Italians into rallying against Communists. Iran could fund Sunni insurgents in order to scare shiites into supporting pro-Iranian militias, and to convince them that the Pro-US army (and the MNF) is not capable of protecting them.

Im NOT saying I have evidence that is what they are doing, but I dont see thats a priori absurd.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I dispute none of this Oerdin, I in fact said it myself. I am just pointing out that DRoseDARs's claims of exactly how much was looted are unsupported (especially by his own posted sources) and really don't make much sense.

How is it that you repeatedly missed the words "upwards of" ? I never claimed jacksh*t, only that a great deal of material, "upwards of...", had been removed from Al Qaqaa, one of several sites that were unguarded during the invasion.

[Patroklos]

How is it that you repeatedly missed the words "upwards of" ?

up·ward /ˈʌpwərd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhp-werd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adverb Also, upwards.
1. toward a higher place or position: The birds flew upward.
2. toward a higher or more distinguished condition, rank, level, etc.: His employer wishes to move him upward in the company.
3. to a greater degree; more: fourscore and upward.
4. toward a large city, the source or origin of a stream, or the interior of a country or region: They followed the Thames River upward from the North Sea to London.
5. in the upper parts; above.
–adjective
6. moving or tending upward; directed at or situated in a higher place or position.
—Idiom
7. upwards of, more than; above: My vacation cost me upwards of a thousand dollars.