Iran

[Rigs11]

Iran 'behind Green Zone attack'

The most senior US general in Iraq has said he has evidence that Iran was behind Sunday's bombardment of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.

Gen David Petraeus told the BBC he thought Tehran had trained, equipped and funded insurgents who fired the barrage of mortars and rockets.

He said Iran was adding what he described as "lethal accelerants" to a very combustible mix.

There has as yet been no response from Iran to the accusations.

n response to the news that 4,000 US military personnel have now been killed in Iraq, he said it showed how much the mission had cost but added that Americans were realistic about it.

He also said a great deal of progress had been made because of the "flipping" of communities - the decision by Sunni tribes to turn against al-Qaeda militants.

The extent of this had surprised even the US military, he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7311565.stm

[Rigs11]

Monday, March 24, 2008
TEHRAN: An American nuclear submarine has crossed the Suez Canal to join the US fleet stationed in the Persian Gulf, Egyptian sources say.

Egyptian officials reported that the nuclear submarine crossed the canal along with a destroyer on Friday and Egyptian forces were put on high alert when the navy convoy was passing through the canal.

An American destroyer recently left the Persian Gulf, heading towards the Mediterranean Sea; earlier on Thursday, a US Navy rescue ship crossed the canal to enter the Red Sea.

The deployment comes as recent reports allege that US Vice President Dick Cheney is seeking to rally the support of Middle Eastern states for launching an attack on Iran.


http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=102736
This is while US officials deny that Cheney’s Mideast tour is linked to a possible military attack on Iran.

According to the latest reports, in recent months a major part of the US Navy has been deployed in and around the Persian Gulf.

Meanwhile, Iran on Sunday rejected French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s comments on the necessity to build a strong deterrent against new security threats posed by nuclear-armed Islamic states, a news agency reported.

Speaking on Friday at the launch of the fourth of France’s latest generation of nuclear-armed submarines, Sarkozy said Iran was “increasing the range of its missiles while serious suspicions weigh on its nuclear programme”.

But Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini insisted Iran was a source of peace and stability in the Middle East.

“Iran has upgraded its capabilities (and) drawing a parallel between these achievements and possible threats against other countries is inappropriate and invalid,” the students’ news agency ISNA quoted Hosseini as saying.

Iran, locked in a standoff with the West over its nuclear plans, had previously boasted it had missiles that could sink” big warships” in the Gulf, a region where US aircraft carriers and warships operate. Iran’s Shahab-3 missile, with a range of 2,000 km is capable of hitting Israel and US bases in the Gulf, Iranian officials say. Iran has refused to recognise Israel since the 1979 Islamic revolution toppled the US-backed Shah.

Tehran said in November it had built a new missile with a range of 2,000 km, a step analysts said could add more power to its conventional arsenal when tensions over its atomic plans are rising.

The West accuses Iran of trying to acquire nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian programme. Iran denies the charges, saying it only wants to generate electricity to meet the country’s booming demand.

The U.N. Security Council has imposed three sanctions resolutions against Iran following Tehran’s failure to suspend its nuclear activities, as demanded by the council.

Hosseini said Iran posed no threat to any country. “Iran’s foreign policy is in line with international regulations and laws,” he said.

[Taco John]

Right on schedule... Fallon resigns, and the war drums start beating again.

Until I see the proof, I'm going to go ahead and assume this is another GOT incident.

[cutthemdown]

Iran is really being a thorn right now. I have to give it to them they are playing cards with guile. I still think there is no rush to attack Iran but I could be wrong. It depends mostly on when the air force would say they have weapons and a way to deliver them that can penetrate the Natanz facility. I don't see an attack on Iran ever involving trying to take cities. It would be more a series of missile attacks, bombings IMO.

Until we have something that will be effective at getting deep into the ground and causing devestation to the underground facilites Iran has built I think we hold off.

No way we can stop Iran from helping insurgents in Iraq. It's just something we will have to deal with as long as we hold Iraq. The thing is the insurgency can really only make Americans weary, you have to do more then kill 4000 troops every 5 yrs to win. Americans may not tolerate even that and we will soon see in November.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Right on schedule... Fallon resigns, and the war drums start beating again.

Yep.

Wonder how long before Oil Boy starts reassuring us that the Iranian people will greet us as liberators?

[TailgateNut]

It is time for the oil baron smoochers to start beating the war drums. The election is right around the corner, and this is one way to lend a "crutch" to their prehistoric candidate.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Iran is really being a thorn right now. I have to give it to them they are playing cards with guile. I still think there is no rush to attack Iran but I could be wrong. It depends mostly on when the air force would say they have weapons and a way to deliver them that can penetrate the Natanz facility. I don't see an attack on Iran ever involving trying to take cities. It would be more a series of missile attacks, bombings IMO.

Until we have something that will be effective at getting deep into the ground and causing devestation to the underground facilites Iran has built I think we hold off.

No way we can stop Iran from helping insurgents in Iraq. It's just something we will have to deal with as long as we hold Iraq. The thing is the insurgency can really only make Americans weary, you have to do more then kill 4000 troops every 5 yrs to win. Americans may not tolerate even that and we will soon see in November.Still beating those war drums eh? Bush would be proud.

[Spider]

Iran is really being a thorn right now. I have to give it to them they are playing cards with guile. I still think there is no rush to attack Iran but I could be wrong. It depends mostly on when the air force would say they have weapons and a way to deliver them that can penetrate the Natanz facility. I don't see an attack on Iran ever involving trying to take cities. It would be more a series of missile attacks, bombings IMO.

Until we have something that will be effective at getting deep into the ground and causing devestation to the underground facilites Iran has built I think we hold off.

No way we can stop Iran from helping insurgents in Iraq. It's just something we will have to deal with as long as we hold Iraq. The thing is the insurgency can really only make Americans weary, you have to do more then kill 4000 troops every 5 yrs to win. Americans may not tolerate even that and we will soon see in November.

Iran couldnt get the **** out of its own way , the only thing that has saved Iran is the terrain surrounding the country ......... they dont have that protection outside of their boarders ................. Iran is no more of a threat to US then Iraq or Luxembourg

[baja]

Iran couldnt get the **** out of its own way , the only thing that has saved Iran is the terrain surrounding the country ......... they dont have that protection outside of their boarders ................. Iran is no more of a threat to US then Iraq or Luxembourg

Don't lump Luxembourg in with those other two - they got smelly cheese and that's power.

[epicSocialism4tw]

................. Iran is no more of a threat to US then Iraq or Luxembourg


Wow. You really believe this?

[El Guapo]

Iran is really being a thorn right now. I have to give it to them they are playing cards with guile. I still think there is no rush to attack Iran but I could be wrong. It depends mostly on when the air force would say they have weapons and a way to deliver them that can penetrate the Natanz facility. I don't see an attack on Iran ever involving trying to take cities. It would be more a series of missile attacks, bombings IMO.

Until we have something that will be effective at getting deep into the ground and causing devestation to the underground facilites Iran has built I think we hold off.

No way we can stop Iran from helping insurgents in Iraq. It's just something we will have to deal with as long as we hold Iraq. The thing is the insurgency can really only make Americans weary, you have to do more then kill 4000 troops every 5 yrs to win. Americans may not tolerate even that and we will soon see in November.

It's really no different than when we were supplying weapons and training to Afghanistan (against the USSR). dont get me wrong, it sucks... Im not for another war, as I am sure many americans feel the same, but if these bastards want in on the war Im sure we can deal them in.

[Rohirrim]

If the U.S. attacks Iran I foresee our country coming apart at the seams, economically and politically. The period of American global pre-eminence will be at an end. Our military will collapse. Do any of these assholes ever read a history book? Ever hear of the Greeks in Syracuse? If there was a God looking out for America, Dick Cheney's heart would stop.

[epicSocialism4tw]

If the U.S. attacks Iran I foresee our country coming apart at the seams, economically and politically. The period of American global pre-eminence will be at an end. Our military will collapse. Do any of these a-holes ever read a history book? Ever hear of the Greeks in Syracuse? If there was a God looking out for America, Dick Cheney's heart would stop.

I'm no Calvinist.

God has helped America, and America is helping itself tear away from God.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'm no Calvinist.

God has helped America, and America is helping itself tear away from God.Right. :clown:

[W*GS]

God has helped America, and America is helping itself tear away from God.

Oh brother. You're not putting us on, are you?

[orinjkrush]

i suggest we "give" Iran to the Turkmenastans and Azerbijans. They can have what they can keep and we'll give the arms to do it. If the Saudis can use proxies so can we.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran
<!-- begin content -->[/URL] [URL="http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=564&Itemid=1/"]
(http://www.smirkingchimp.com/author/margaret_kimberley)
From Black Agenda Report (http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=564&Itemid=1/)


It is happening. The plans for the Bush administration to begin mass murder of the Iranian people have been put in motion. The plot was stalled temporarily by the National Intelligence Estimate report released last fall, a report which said that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program. Bush and Cheney were thrown off their game, but not by much and not for long. They were inconvenienced but ultimately took the small set back in stride because they both knew they had nothing to worry about.
They know that the press will report what they say without criticism or analysis. They know that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have said that all options are on the table with Iran. They know that European nations like France have publicly stated their allegiance to Bush vis a vis Iran. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/11/wiran111.xml/) also bowed to Bushian bullying and declared that Iran must not be allowed to become a nuclear power. Now Germany has joined the hall of shame. German Chancellor Angela Merkel (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/18/germany.israel/) groveled before the Israeli Knesset and essentially promised not to protest when Israel assists America in creating an Iranian holocaust. Apparently German sins of genocide against the Jews can only be expiated by complicity with an Israeli genocide.
When historians write about the catastrophes that struck the world in 2008, events that have taken place in March of 2008 will surely loom large. The worldwide economic meltdown finally became impossible to deny, with the Federal Reserve using the workers’ dime to bail out a major investment banking firm, Bear Stearns. Dick Cheney traveled to Iraq, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, making sure his nefarious plans went off without a hitch. John McCain claimed that Iran was the home of al Qaeda, the bogeyman that sends already trigger happy Americans on blood thirsty rampages. Democrats who had the power to stop Bush in his tracks, once again pledged to do nothing.
In 2007 both the Senate and House passed resolutions that backed war with Iran. Impeachment, the one weapon Congress could use to stop further war making, is ignored and forgotten by John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary committee.
In recent days Conyers said he would begin impeachment hearings, but only if Bush attacks (http://blog.pdamerica.org/?p=1809/) Iran. Apparently not enough human beings have been killed by Bush and the body count needs to grow exponentially before Conyers will lift a finger. On the other hand, the two-faced Congressman says he fears impeachment because it will hurt the Democrats in the upcoming November election. So it seems he will do nothing, no matter how many people die because of the crimes committed under the Bush regime.
The attack on Iran is an open secret, but Americans, like a wronged spouse, are the last to know. Dick Cheney must have told the Saudi princes of his intended evil doing because Saudi Arabia is planning for "the probabilities of leaking nuclear and radiation hazards in case of any unexpected nuclear attacks in Iran (http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=96940/). . . " Saudis know the deal, while John and Jane Q. Public are still in the dark.
What will the Democrats do when Iranians are nuked? When Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni recently visited the United States, Obama gave her a phone call (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/963286.html/) and told her she shouldn’t worry about an Obama administration. He said all the right things, that Israel has a right to defend itself (kill Palestinians whenever it wants) and agreed that Iran was an evil nation that shouldn’t have the nuclear weapons that Israel has had for decades. So much for change.
The saber rattling and furtive Dick Cheney meetings are just the tip of the iceberg. The worldwide economic crisis is pushing the war agenda (http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?Itemid=36&id=274&option=com_content&task=view/) more than any other factor. Black Agenda Report said as much nearly one year ago.
“Ultimately, the parasitic class can only maintain its rule by force. Manufacturing nothing, creating no value except on paper, they must finally call upon the Armed Forces to impose their unearned advantage on the planet. Such was the logic of March, 2003. The Great Offensive failed, but the contradictions that compelled the captains of finance capital to order their political servants to wage war, remain - and are in fact more acute than four years ago. They must wage war, again, to fight their way out of the box.”
Every bail out of an investment bank is an omen of an oncoming worldwide financial calamity, but it is also an omen of more American aggression. The Obama/Clinton fight for the nomination is a sorry side show spectacle. In any case, the new war will help John McCain more than it will help the Democratic nominee. Even if the Democrat should win, both Obama and Clinton have stated that they too believe in maintaining America’s empire. Bush’s wars won’t end with a Democratic administration.
In the space of just five years, our nation will be waging another war of aggression and we will all be accessories after the fact. Our country may have also entered into a depression, so we will be poor criminals too. To use an expression coined by Poppy Bush, we will be in deep doo doo. Cheer up though. We won’t be in as much trouble as Iranians. Many of them will soon be dead.

[mhgaffney]

Nothing surprising here --

But the neocons' new push for war is disturbing.

Someone should tell the American people that our leaders (such as they are) have placed thousands of US sailors now on uty in the Gulf in harm's way

with no defense aganst the Russian cruise missiles that will probably come into play in the event the planned war against Iran materializes.

Our sailors will be sitting ducks -- basically up the creek without a paddle. And you can also be sure we ain't seen nothing yet in Iraq. If Cheney gets his war the Shi'ites will come out of the woodwork and surrund the Green Zone. US troops in Iraq will find themselves besieged.

The only way to prevent this is to impeach Cheney and Bush while we still have a chance to turn things around.

Time is running out.

MHG

[W*GS]

Weren't we assured, some months ago, that Tehran was in imminent danger of being nuked?

What happened?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://i1.democracynow.org/images/story/34/2734/TargetIran10-16.jpg Scott Ritter on “Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change”

Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter: “The path that the United States is currently embarked on regarding Iran is a path that will inevitably lead to war. Such a course of action will make even the historical mistake we made in Iraq pale by comparison.”


Twenty-five ministers from the European Union are expected to meet tomorrow to ask the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran. They say sanctions are necessary because of Iran’s refusal to halt uranium enrichment. Though Iran contends its nuclear program is for generating electricity, the U.S. and some of its allies allege it is trying to develop atomic weapons.
On Saturday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, said that Western threats to impose sanctions were part of a “psychological war” and that the Islamic Republic was more determined than ever to pursue peaceful nuclear technology.
A new book by former weapons inspector–Scott Ritter–claims that the Bush Administration is determined to wage war against Iran. In “Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change,” Ritter examines the administration’s regime-change policy and the potential of Iran to threaten US national security interests.
Scott Ritter, Ritter served from 1991 to 1998 as a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq in the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM). His new book is, “Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change.” His previous book is “Iraq Confidential.”

AMY GOODMAN: A new book by former weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, claims the Bush administration is determined to wage war against Iran. In Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change, Scott Ritter examines the administration’s regime change policy and the potential of Iran to threaten U.S. national security interests. He writes, “The path the United States has currently embarked on regarding Iran is a path that will inevitably lead to war. Such a course of action will make even the historical mistake we made in Iraq pale by comparison,” he writes. Scott Ritter joins us in the studio now. Welcome to Democracy Now!

SCOTT RITTER: Well, thanks.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think is the key to understand about Iran right now, about the U.S., well, about your title targeting—Target Iran?

SCOTT RITTER: Well, the most important thing is to understand the reality that Iran is squarely in the crosshairs as a target of the Bush administration, in particular, as a target of the Bush administration as it deals—as it relates to the National Security Strategy of the United States. You see, this isn’t a hypothetical debate among political analysts, foreign policy specialists. Read the 2006 version of the National Security Strategy, where Iran is named sixteen times as the number one threat to the national security of the United States of America, because in the same document, it embraces the notion of pre-emptive wars of aggression as a legitimate means of dealing with such threats. It also recertifies the Bush administration doctrine of regional transformation globally, but in this case particularly in the Middle East. So, we’re not talking about hypotheticals here, regardless of all the discussion the Bush administration would like you to believe there is about diplomacy. There is no diplomacy, as was the case with Iraq. Diplomacy is but a smokescreen to disguise the ultimate objective of regime change.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the difference in approach the U.S. takes to North Korea, which has, according to their own reports, set off a nuclear bomb, and Iran?

Continued here: http://www.democracynow.org/2006/10/16/scott_ritter_on_target_iran_the

[cutthemdown]

Wow. You really believe this?

Spider is an idiot, yes he really believes that.

[orinjkrush]

only thing worse than taking out iran, would be not to.
first iran, then syria. then any other fricking islamic pissant camel humpin tribe. oh and lets let india, russia, israel, china, france and turkey play in the sandbox too.

we only erred in trying to rebuild their sand castles.


oops. weren't we talkin about the raiders?

[TailgateNut]

only thing worse than taking out iran, would be not to.
first iran, then syria. then any other fricking islamic pissant camel humpin tribe. oh and lets let india, russia, israel, china, france and turkey play in the sandbox too.

we only erred in trying to rebuild their sand castles.


oops. weren't we talkin about the raiders?


Geezus! You are ****ing nuts.

[orinjkrush]

Geezus! You are ****ing nuts.

maybe. but you you're blind.

[TailgateNut]

maybe. but you you're blind.

Please elaborate.

[orinjkrush]

there really is evil in the world. and it is religious.
when hindus and christians and buddhists and jews and atheists can't just get along with a certain (cough) islamic persuasion, doesn't that say something?

nazis had the only truth too.

[TailgateNut]

there really is evil in the world. and it is religious.
when hindus and christians and buddhists and jews and atheists can't just get along with a certain (cough) islamic persuasion, doesn't that say something?

nazis had the only truth too.


Okee dokee. :spit:



I do agree with your "religions are the root of most truly evil deeds" take.

[orinjkrush]

yep, christianity had about a thousand year screw up too. but thankfully it appears that most of us have transcended it. islam seems to still be back at the crusader time and they need to let it go and move on dot org. elsewise, we have a world problem, houston.

i am not willing to let my daughter or yours die to these screwoffs.

[TailgateNut]

yep, christianity had about a thousand year screw up too. but thankfully it appears that most of us have transcended it. islam seems to still be back at the crusader time and they need to let it go and move on dot org. elsewise, we have a world problem, houston.

i am not willing to let my daughter or yours die to these screwoffs.


I'm not going to get into the wacky world of religion. Regardless of the god/gods or whatever the followers are all bonkers.

Burning bushes, parting of the seas, sacred ****ing cows, ......blah blah blah.

Islam is no worse and no better than the rest. They are all looney.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

yep, christianity had about a thousand year screw up too. but thankfully it appears that most of us have transcended it. islam seems to still be back at the crusader time and they need to let it go and move on dot org. elsewise, we have a world problem, houston.

i am not willing to let my daughter or yours die to these screwoffs.



“It has a great deal more to do with the economy than with ideology,” said one senior American military official, who said that studies of detainees in American custody found that about three-quarters were not committed to the jihadist ideology. “The vast majority have nothing to do with the caliphate and the central ideology of Al Qaeda.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/wo...=1&oref=slogin.

[Dudeskey]

How can anyone even support attacking Iran when we can't even hold off the Taliban in Afghanistan, Al Sadr's decided to start **** again and meanwhile billions are going into Iraq with little or no accountability as our nation's credit card continues to get run up... The dems need to find their nads and quick... The neocons seem to be hellbent on starting world war 3 & running this country straight into the ground in the process...

[cutthemdown]

How can anyone even support attacking Iran when we can't even hold off the Taliban in Afghanistan, Al Sadr's decided to start **** again and meanwhile billions are going into Iraq with little or no accountability as our nation's credit card continues to get run up... The dems need to find their nads and quick... The neocons seem to be hellbent on starting world war 3 & running this country straight into the ground in the process...

practice makes perfect. By the time we take on Syria we should be really good at it. AMERICA **** YEAH COMING TO SAVE THE MOTHER****IN DAY YEAH!!!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

practice makes perfect. By the time we take on Syria we should be really good at it. AMERICA **** YEAH COMING TO SAVE THE MOTHER****IN DAY YEAH!!!

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/4540/warmongerstatenh2.jpg

[elsid13]

How can anyone even support attacking Iran when we can't even hold off the Taliban in Afghanistan, Al Sadr's decided to start **** again and meanwhile billions are going into Iraq with little or no accountability as our nation's credit card continues to get run up... The dems need to find their nads and quick... The neocons seem to be hellbent on starting world war 3 & running this country straight into the ground in the process...

The funny part is that fighting/attacking Iran, after a logistic build up is far easier mission for how we designed our military. The problem in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't destory things it policing and providing economically empowerment.

[epicSocialism4tw]

LABF, if Clinton would have dealt with any of these problems when they were presented to him instead of hunting down interns, Bush wouldnt have had to react to 9/11 with such a dramatic response.

Bush isnt blameless by any means, but he isnt what you partisan propagandists make him out to be.

If Iraq and Afghanastan are any sort of success, history will think that you people were absolute morons.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF, if Clinton would have dealt with any of these problems when they were presented to him instead of hunting down interns, Bush wouldnt have had to react to 9/11 with such a dramatic response.

:crazy:

Your ability to ignore facts and live in an alternate reality of your (and Fox News') own creation is scary sometimes.

Bush isnt blameless by any means, but he isnt what you partisan propagandists make him out to be.

Ha!

You must find it difficult living in a country where ~70% of your fellow citizens are "partisan propagandists" where opinions of Bush are concerned.

BTW, I notice you still haven't managed to break your habit of burying your head in the sand and dismissing all inconvenient facts and uncomfortable realities as "propaganda."

If Iraq and Afghanastan(sic) are any sort of success, history will think that you people were absolute morons.

History already shows that you and your fellow BushCo supporters are absolute morons for supporting the worst strategic blunder in U.S. history.

And your allusion that some hypothetical ends might somehow justify the means (i.e., WMD lies, trumped-up intel, etc.) is morally reprehensible.

[orinjkrush]

.

i really question the validity/veracity of surveys of detainees. you think they will speak candidly during their interrogation/incarceration? methinks not.

the system of ideas known as islam, seems to me to be anti-humanistic, un-civilized and most definitely non-liberal. liberals, who at the root, are mostly about new ideas, should be most scared of the spread of islamic dogma.

[Florida_Bronco]

Nothing surprising here --

But the neocons' new push for war is disturbing.

Someone should tell the American people that our leaders (such as they are) have placed thousands of US sailors now on uty in the Gulf in harm's way

with no defense aganst the Russian cruise missiles that will probably come into play in the event the planned war against Iran materializes.

Our sailors will be sitting ducks -- basically up the creek without a paddle. And you can also be sure we ain't seen nothing yet in Iraq. If Cheney gets his war the Shi'ites will come out of the woodwork and surrund the Green Zone. US troops in Iraq will find themselves besieged.

The only way to prevent this is to impeach Cheney and Bush while we still have a chance to turn things around.

Time is running out.

MHG

First off, I don't see those anti-ship missles being much of a problem. Our ships have pretty advanced missle defense systems and if that wouldn't work, we still have all kinds of other alternatives including but not limited to air strikes from the stealth bombers.

Oh, and remember what happened the last time a bunch of idiots with guns "besieged" our troops? We killed about 10,000 of them to our 18. Don't underestimate our military force.

But I do agree with you and Roh in that going to war with Iran would just be bad all over, especially at this point in time.

[Florida_Bronco]

yep, christianity had about a thousand year screw up too. but thankfully it appears that most of us have transcended it. islam seems to still be back at the crusader time and they need to let it go and move on dot org. elsewise, we have a world problem, houston.

i am not willing to let my daughter or yours die to these screwoffs.

I've started to do some research into the Quran, and believe me Islam is NOT a religion of peace.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I never said that I was a Bush supporter, only that your propaganda is ridiculous.

Speaking of the ignorance of facts, your recollection of Clinton is equally ridiculous.

[Spider]

Wow. You really believe this?

Show me different.........

[Spider]

Spider is an idiot, yes he really believes that.

LOLO special ed bastard calling anyone an Idiot ...... you are right on par with Chief fan Bob .....And yes you are the first person I have ever said that about .....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I never said that I was a Bush supporter, only that your propaganda is ridiculous.

ROFL!

Everyday there's another Bush apologist doing his impression of Peter denying Christ when the rooster crows around here.

Too funny.

BTW, to call something "propaganda" is to imply that it's not true.

Speaking of the ignorance of facts, your recollection of Clinton is equally ridiculous.

Your side has the patent on "propaganda" where Clinton is concerned.

[Cito Pelon]

I'm a solid American citizen, vote every year, served six years in the US Army, and I'm pretty sick and tired of hearing how Iran is the cause of all problems in Iraq. WTF, this constant ragging on Iran is childish. It's like a little kid making up a story to blame somebody else for a broken toy.

There is no way period Iran will ever have influence of magnitude on the Iraqis. There is no way Iraqis will let Iran have any influence on their internal politics. They may accept weapons from them same as they'll accept weapons from any nation on earth from the South Africans to the Canadians, but there is no way period Iran will have any influence whatsoever on their politics.

Put yourself in Basra - you have a good thing going if you can take control of that port, why would you let the Iranians or anybody control that port? No way you let anybody control that port. If I was a citizen of Basra I would sure be looking to control that port. I'd be looking to control that port any way I could, that's a millionaires port, baby, that port is bigtime money. There's gonna be battles galore over Basra, and the Iranians are definitely out of it. There is no way on this earth the Iraqi clans let the Iranians take over Basra.

[Cito Pelon]

Iran is really being a thorn right now. I have to give it to them they are playing cards with guile. I still think there is no rush to attack Iran but I could be wrong. It depends mostly on when the air force would say they have weapons and a way to deliver them that can penetrate the Natanz facility. I don't see an attack on Iran ever involving trying to take cities. It would be more a series of missile attacks, bombings IMO.

Until we have something that will be effective at getting deep into the ground and causing devestation to the underground facilites Iran has built I think we hold off.

No way we can stop Iran from helping insurgents in Iraq. It's just something we will have to deal with as long as we hold Iraq. The thing is the insurgency can really only make Americans weary, you have to do more then kill 4000 troops every 5 yrs to win. Americans may not tolerate even that and we will soon see in November.

You should understand that Bush and Cheney are little boys that never grew up. I will repeat - there is no way on this earth that the Iraqis will let the Iranians have control of their oil. Period. It's all a smoke screen by Bush and Cheney because they'd like to get into combat with the Iranians if they can get people to buy into it. It's just a game to them, don't you get that yet? There are no consequences to them, it's just a geopolitical game to them with no consequences.

[Cito Pelon]

I'm not going to get into the wacky world of religion. Regardless of the god/gods or whatever the followers are all bonkers.

Burning bushes, parting of the seas, sacred ****ing cows, ......blah blah blah.

Islam is no worse and no better than the rest. They are all looney.

Agreed. The amount of time and progress religion has stunted human progress irritates me. They try to keep the monkey in us supreme.

[Cito Pelon]

Taking the Basra deal further, Basra is the withdrawal path for American troops. They either go through Basra to troop ships, or they get airlifted out, or they go north into Turkey to Incirlik. This current offensive in Basra is certainly in part to make a corridor to the troop ships. This is why I was happy to see the 'surge', so there were enough troops to make that corridor for withdrawal through Basra. The withdrawal is sure gonna be a shooting gallery. Whomever the next President is will have to deal with that. GWB and the current commanders in the Theatre are trying to make that feasible, I guess. I don't know. All I know is it is going to be very, very messy when the troops try to withdraw through Basra. There may be more casualties in the withdrawal than we've had so far. It's possible the Iraqis will let them go through to the troopships, more likely it will be a shooting gallery. Better to airlift them I think. Now is a good time to make that corridor since we're already bombing Basra insurgent targets. I don't know, you tell me. Seems to me GWB will leave it to the next President to take the hit of the messy withdrawal, the blood will be on the next Presidents hands, GWB is that kind of pussy. I just don't know how long we can hang in Iraq. We have to make a good withdrawal. You tell me, I don't know.

[TailgateNut]

Seems to me GWB will leave it to the next President to take the hit of the messy withdrawal, the blood will be on the next Presidents hands, GWB is that kind of p***Y. .


That was his plan. He's like the little kid who makes a mess and refuses to clean up after himself.

[NYBronco]

Monday, March 24, 2008
TEHRAN:

But Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini insisted Iran was a source of peace and stability in the Middle East.

“Iran has upgraded its capabilities (and) drawing a parallel between these achievements and possible threats against other countries is inappropriate and invalid,” the students’ news agency ISNA quoted Hosseini as saying.

Iran, locked in a standoff with the West over its nuclear plans, had previously boasted it had missiles that could sink” big warships” in the Gulf, a region where US aircraft carriers and warships operate. Iran’s Shahab-3 missile, with a range of 2,000 km is capable of hitting Israel and US bases in the Gulf, Iranian officials say. Iran has refused to recognise Israel since the 1979 Islamic revolution toppled the US-backed Shah.

Hosseini said Iran posed no threat to any country. “Iran’s foreign policy is in line with international regulations and laws,” he said.

I found the above statements interesting.

[Spider]

I tell you what Angry I will make this even easier , show me 1 country Iran invaded .......

[Rigs11]

Those damn iraninans..


Sources: Iran helped prod al-Sadr cease-fire

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iran was integral in persuading Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to halt attacks by his militia on Iraqi security forces, an Iraqi lawmaker said Monday.

Haidar al-Abadi, who is with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Dawa Party, said Iraqi Shiite lawmakers traveled Friday to Iran to meet with al-Sadr. They returned Sunday, the day al-Sadr told his Mehdi Army fighters to stand down.

News of Iran's involvement in the cease-fire talks came as an al-Maliki spokesman said operations targeting "outlaws" in the Shiite stronghold of Basra would end when the mission's goals were achieved. Earlier, al-Maliki spokesman Sami al-Askari said the operation would be over by week's end, but he later recanted on the timetable.

The lawmakers who traveled to Iran to broker the cease-fire were from five Shiite parties, including the Sadrist movement. Al-Abadi would not say where in Iran the meeting was held.

The lawmakers hoped to convince Iran to cut off aid to Shiite militias and to persuade al-Sadr to end the fighting. Negotiations were difficult, but the delegation achieved its aims, al-Abadi said. Watch how the cease-fire affects Shiite vs. Shiite fights »

News of the delegation's role comes a day after Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh firmly denied there had been any direct or indirect talks between the government and al-Sadr's representatives in Najaf, where al-Sadr's headquarters is located.

Al-Dabbagh made no mention of the Iran meeting but said the government welcomes efforts by politicians to end the bloodshed in Iraq.

Iran's exact involvement in the negotiations is unclear, but two sources concur that the Islamic republic played a key role.

While al-Abadi said Iranian officials participated in the discussions, another source close to the talks said the Iranians pressured al-Sadr to craft an agreement.

Al-Sadr and some Shiite parties have close ties to Iran, a Shiite-dominated country. The talks were the latest reflection of the influence Iran wields in Iraq, where about 60 percent of the population is Shiite.

As for the operations targeting outlaws in Basra, Maj. Gen. Abdul Aziz Mohammed, commander of operations for Iraq's Ministry of Defense, told reporters at a news conference that he hoped the mission would be brief and limited. He provided no timetable.

More than 400 people have died since early last week in battles across the war-ravaged country, according to sources.

At least 200 people have been killed and 500 wounded in Basra battles since Tuesday, a high-ranking Iraqi security official said. More than 100 had been killed in Baghdad as of Sunday, with another 100-plus killed in clashes in other cities in southern Iraq, Iraqi authorities said.

The mood Monday on the streets in Basra was quiet, said al-Askari, the prime minister's spokesman. Shops opened in the morning, and the movement of people was almost back to normal in the center of town.

Troops and police, whom the U.S. and Britain have backed, are in control of much of Basra, and local security forces are going house-to-house in some districts to confiscate weapons and chase "the outlaws and the criminal and smuggling gangs," the spokesman said.

The Shiite militia members that were in the streets have withdrawn, al-Askari said.

There had been an all-day curfew in Basra during the operation. It was lifted Saturday, and the normal curfew of 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. is in place.

The fighting in Basra spread to other southern cities, such as Kut, Karbala and Diwaniya, and it raged in Shiite regions of Baghdad.

Authorities in Baghdad also reported a quieter situation in the capital, where there have been no reports of clashes, an Iraqi Interior Ministry official said.

There were several instances of "indirect fire" at the area commonly known as the Green Zone, a U.S. Embassy spokesman said, but there were no reports of deaths or injuries. Indirect fire is a reference to rocket and mortar fire, and the U.S. military suspects that hard-line Shiite militants stage such attacks.

Authorities in Baghdad eased a stiff, citywide curfew on Monday, but a vehicle ban remained in place in Sadr City, Shula and Kadhimiya -- three neighborhoods seen as al-Sadr strongholds. The usual 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. curfew is in place citywide.

Mohammed, the Iraqi commander, also said the situation was quiet in other southern cities where fighting had been reported.

In issuing his call to end fighting, al-Sadr demanded that the Iraqi government provide amnesty to his followers and release any supporters who were being held.

Al-Sadr suspended the operations of the Mehdi Army in August, and the cease-fire is credited with helping decrease the violence in Iraq over the last few months.

Continued...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/31/iraq.main/index.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

i really question the validity/veracity of surveys of detainees.


On what grounds?