CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Oh motherfuckin hell...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Oh motherfuckin hell...

post #1 of 39
Thread Starter 
Are the Iranians out for Revenge?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Time.com
The speed and level of chaos in Iraq is picking up fast. An apocalyptic cult came uncomfortably close to taking Najaf, one of Shi'a Islam's most holy cities, and murdering Grand Ayatollah Sistani. Sistani is the neo-cons' favorite quietist Shi'a cleric, the man who was supposed to keep Iraq's Shi'a in line while we went about nation building. And then, on Sunday, Iran's ambassador to Baghdad told the New York Times that Iran is in Iraq to stay, whether the Bush Administration likes it or not.

And that's not the worst of it. American forces still hold five members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Arrested by American forces in Erbil on Jan. 11, the Administration has accused the five IRGC members of helping the Iraqi opposition kill Americans.

I've written here before that the IRGC has a long history of calculated violence against its enemies, particularly the United States. The Administration's accusations are plausible. But at the same time the U.S. needs to remember what a serious spoiler the IRGC can be when provoked.

In July 1982, after a Christian Lebanese militia kidnapped the Iranian charge d'affaires in Beirut, the IRGC set in motion a campaign of retaliatory kidnappings, hijackings and assassinations against the U.S. and the West. The Iranian charge was a senior IRGC officer, and the IRGC had no intention of letting his kidnapping go unanswered. The IRGC campaign lasted for more than 10 years and dragged the U.S. into Iran-contra and the arms-for-hostages deal that nearly brought down the Reagan Administration.

Some Iraqis speculate that the IRGC has already started a campaign of revenge with the killing of five American soldiers in Karbala on Jan. 20, nine days after the arrest of the IRGC members in Erbil. As the logic of the rumor goes, five American soldiers were killed for five Iranians taken; Karbala was an IRGC message to release its colleagues — or else.

The speculation that Karbala was an IRGC operation may have as much to do with Iraqis' respect for IRGC capacity for revenge as it does with the truth. Nevertheless, we should count on the IRGC gearing up for a fight. And we shouldn't underestimate its capacities. Aside from arming the opposition, the IRGC is capable of doing serious damage to our logistics lines. I called up an American contractor in Baghdad who runs convoys from Kuwait every day and asked him just how much damage."Let me put it this way,"he said."In Basra today the currency is the Iranian toman, not the Iraqi dinar."He said his convoys now are forced to pay a 40% surcharge to Shi'a militias and Iraqi police in the south, many of whom are affiliated with IRGC.

Mindful of the spreading chaos in Iraq, President Bush has promised not to take the war into Iran. But it won't matter to the IRGC. There is nothing the IRGC likes better than to fight a proxy war in another country. Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down.
post #2 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL
Are the Iranians out for Revenge?
The article says the IRGC, not Iran as a whole, could be out for revenge, but as usual you choose not to consider the difference.
post #3 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Alexor
The article says the IRGC, not Iran as a whole, could be out for revenge, but as usual you choose not to consider the difference.
The IRGC is the largest military organization in Iran, controls Iran's missile forces, and is sanctioned by the Iranian government. That pretty much qualifies them as "Iran" for all intensive purposes.

If we sent National Guard members into Mexico to organize a military coup, "America" would be the term used, so I fail to see what point you are trying to make regarding semantics.
post #4 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death Surge
The IRGC is the largest military organization in Iran, controls Iran's missile forces, and is sanctioned by the Iranian government. That pretty much qualifies them as "Iran" for all intensive purposes.

If we sent National Guard members into Mexico to organize a military coup, "America" would be the term used, so I fail to see what point you are trying to make regarding semantics.
I think he was trying to avoid another Hezbollah/Lebanon distinction debate.
post #5 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark
I think he was trying to avoid another Hezbollah/Lebanon distinction debate.
Big difference. Lebanon continues to obfuscate Hezbollah's position as a sanctioned part of the government. The IRGC IS Iran's primary military organization. No one there ever disavows their actions.
post #6 of 39
Iran causing trouble in Iraq?
Sounds like another WMD storyline to me... Giving Americans another excuse to attack another oil-rich country. Hugo Chavez's sabre-rattling in Venezuela is another one.
I'm sure there are Iranian extremists in Iraq, but are they representing their country? Better make sure this time. I don't believe anything the current administration or American media outlets tell me. Even if they told me the sky was blue....
post #7 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death Surge
for all intensive purposes.
sigh
post #8 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death Surge
The IRGC is the largest military organization in Iran, controls Iran's missile forces, and is sanctioned by the Iranian government. That pretty much qualifies them as "Iran" for all intensive purposes.

If we sent National Guard members into Mexico to organize a military coup, "America" would be the term used, so I fail to see what point you are trying to make regarding semantics.
Intents and purposes.

If the government isn't publicly sanctioning it, then it's more like the "Iran Contra Affair." Yes, it may be supported by the government of Iran, but as long as they publicly deny it (a la Lebanon and Hezbollah, or Sudan and the Janjaweed) you can't really declare war on the government itself.
post #9 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyPete
Iran causing trouble in Iraq?
Sounds like another WMD storyline to me... Giving Americans another excuse to attack another oil-rich country.
I'm sure there are Iranian extremists in Iraq, but are they representing their country? Better make sure this time. I don't believe anything the current administration or American media outlets tell me. Even if they told me the sky was blue....
thats the problem I have with this whole story, I don't believe a fucking word of it. Not saying I know anything any better, but why should I believe the MSM or the administration...
post #10 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyPete
Iran causing trouble in Iraq?
Sounds like another WMD storyline to me... Giving Americans another excuse to attack another oil-rich country. Hugo Chavez's sabre-rattling in Venezuela is another one.
I'm sure there are Iranian extremists in Iraq, but are they representing their country? Better make sure this time. I don't believe anything the current administration or American media outlets tell me. Even if they told me the sky was blue....
Greetings Mr. Moore.

We clearly need some sort of constructive program of engagement with Iran, or watch the already teetering Iraq completely collapse.
post #11 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Wood
We clearly need some sort of constructive program of engagement with Iran, or watch the already teetering Iraq completely collapse.
Is that what is happening? A constructive program of engagement? The only engagement this administration is looking for is a military one.
post #12 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by hostiledm
Is that what is happening? A constructive program of engagement? The only engagement this administration is looking for is the Rapture.
Fixed.
post #13 of 39
"a constructive program of engagement with Iran"

Chris Wood talks like one of "them".

Devin! The site's been compromised!
post #14 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devincf
sigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belethedheliel
Intents and purposes.
Yes, I'm fully aware that "intensive purposes" is not correct, but my family has a long standing tradition regarding deliberate mispronunciations that tend to creep into my writing. I also like to say "suspension of belief" instead of "disbelief", and pronounce chasm incorrectly as cha-sem, but you just can't catch that one written.

Now that the grammar portion of the show is over, I remain fascinated at the "but we can't really blame Iran" attitude. Hate to break it to folks but the U.S. doesn't have a monopoly on government sponsored interference. I would be far more shocked that Iran DIDN'T have disruptive operations going on in Iraq than I am by this item, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete idiot.
post #15 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyPete
"a constructive program of engagement with Iran"

Chris Wood talks like one of "them".

Devin! The site's been compromised!
One of the rational people hoping for a diplomatic solution and an end to bloodshed? In that case, yes.
post #16 of 39
It's in Iran's best interests to interfere with the rapidly-deteriorating situation in Iraq. It's more like another insult to the American occupation.
post #17 of 39
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Alexor
The article says the IRGC, not Iran as a whole, could be out for revenge, but as usual you choose not to consider the difference.
I didn't choose anything, that was the title at the top of the page I copied and pasted from. And what do you mean, "as usual" you little cunt? Is there some record of me doing whatever it is you inferred me to be doing, somewhere in the past?
post #18 of 39
Thread Starter 
Also, I fully hold Iran responsible if this does in fact turn out to be the case. I don't like our current government any more than many of you, but c'mon, Iran is not our friend and is not looking out for anyone's interests but their own (cue standard, "you mean just like the US" response).
post #19 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL
I didn't choose anything, that was the title at the top of the page I copied and pasted from. And what do you mean, "as usual" you little cunt? Is there some record of me doing whatever it is you inferred me to be doing, somewhere in the past?
You do tend to treat Iran like the personification of evil.

Also, very impressed with you acting tough over the net.
post #20 of 39
Fight!!! Fight!!!
post #21 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL
Iran is not our friend and is not looking out for anyone's interests but their own (cue standard, "you mean just like the US" response).
You mean just like the US?
post #22 of 39
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Alexor
You do tend to treat Iran like the personification of evil.

Also, very impressed with you acting tough over the net.
I'm not acting tough, I'm not acting anything. I'm expressing frustration at your presumptions. I don't even believe in "evil" per se, so how I could treat Iran as the personification of such is an interesting distortion of my previous comments on that nation.

I read this story and thought to myself, "Oh shit, I really hope this doesn't turn into anything serious." Well, anything more serious than it already is. I don't like war and I certainly don't like the idea of that war. But by all means, continue putting words in my mouth.
post #23 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL
I don't even believe in "evil" per se, so how I could treat Iran as the personification of such is an interesting distortion of my previous comments on that nation.
Quote:
But by all means, continue putting words in my mouth.
I went and reread some of your old posts about Iran and I was wrong. I apologize.
post #24 of 39

media games, again

This from Huffpost:

Quote:
Today the New York Times, on page A10, informs us that "Iran May Have Trained Attackers That Killed 5 American Soldiers, U.S. and Iraqis Say"

Note that:
- the claim that Iran "may have" trained attackers gets the headline and the lede. Of course, green Martians "may have" trained the attackers. The key question is: is there real evidence?
- there is not a single named source in the article.
- there is no rebuttal, no point of view different from the allegation, even though plenty of knowledgeable analysts (Juan Cole, Gareth Porter, Trita Parsi, for starters) could have easily been found to give a contrary view. A recent Los Angeles Times piece found "scant evidence" for the claim that Iran was behind attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
- no "direct evidence" exists, as the article acknowledges (further down.)
- the only "evidence" given is that the attack was sophisticated (what are they saying - Iraqis are too dumb to do this by themselves ?!) and that Iran has a motive for retaliating against the U.S. Which is no evidence at all - lots of folks have a motive for retaliating against the U.S.

In no way did this unsourced, unsubstantiated speculation deserve this article and this headline.
One would hope that, after the illegal and unwarranted invasion of Iraq, the media would be more careful about this kind of thing. Apparently not.
post #25 of 39
Now, this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6360469.stm) is what a CJCS is supposed to do.

A lot of people had some heartbreak with Peter Pace getting the top job, but he's shaping up to be an improvement over that empty suit Myers.
post #26 of 39
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
Now, this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6360469.stm) is what a CJCS is supposed to do.

A lot of people had some heartbreak with Peter Pace getting the top job, but he's shaping up to be an improvement over that empty suit Myers.
When I finally saw the supposed proof that Iran was responsible for attacks on US soldiers I was shocked at how ineffective that evidence was. You're looking at a region that has been engaged in war and warlike policies against each other for decades. There are stockpiles of bombs and guns all over the fucking place, is it really that surprising that a few tons of Iranian munitions found its way into the hands of the Iraqi insurgency? That doesn't implicate anyone and I am shocked that we're expected to buy it.

I don't trust Iran but that report was, frankly, kinda scary.
post #27 of 39
It's kinda like when our administration was desperetly trying to find WMDs in Iraq, and all the could dig up was some short range missles and a weapons site that had been out of comission for a decade, and tried to spin it so that it looked like they were right all along.
post #28 of 39
If there is any silver lining to the Iraq mess, it's that the politicians, the press, and the public (hopefully) won't be so willing to go along with another war based on anything less than some pretty solid intelligence that the country in question represents a real, present threat to the US. So many people I know who were in favor of the Iraq invasion justified it by saying "The President must know something about WMDs, terrorist connections, or some current threat that he just can't disclose to the public; otherwise, why would Congress be going along with it?" Oops. Not too many people will be giving Bush the benefit of the doubt this time around if he starts beating the war drums too loudly.
post #29 of 39
When it comes to this stuff, I simply can't believe the President without more proof. Simple as that. He will have to back it up.
post #30 of 39
But he says it's true!

Quote:
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday he’s convinced that the Iranian government is supplying deadly weapons to fighters in Iraq, even if he can’t prove the orders came from the highest levels in Tehran.
Yeah, just like he was convinced there were WMDs in Iraq....

Quote:
And the president warned of “disastrous consequences” that would follow in the event of a U.S. military withdrawal.
Yes -- the Republicans would lose the election.
post #31 of 39
Quote:
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday he’s convinced that the Iranian government is supplying deadly weapons to fighters in Iraq, even if he can’t prove the orders came from the highest levels in Tehran.
It's a given that the legions of fuckwit yokels who support this despotic monkey now believe this as fact, but please tell me the majority of America isn't going to buy this bullshit again folks. Please. Are people this fucking stupid?
post #32 of 39
Generally speaking, yes.
post #33 of 39
It's time for Democrats to grow a spine and put their goddamn foot down. You have both Houses, people! Use it.
post #34 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark
It's time for Democrats to grow a spine and put their goddamn foot down. You have both Houses, people! Use it.
Well, they have the House solidly, but the Senate's a whole different story. The Republicans can filibuster there easily and stop all legislation from coming out of Congress. Of course, the Republicans are looking more and more stupid by filibustering and sticking with Bush as time goes by. Let's see how things are playing out by the Spring. Not to say that something shouldn't be done right now. I just think that the Republicans are going to be saying a whole lot of different things this Spring when the situation in Iraq still hasn't changed and more of our soldiers are dead.
post #35 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark
It's time for Democrats to grow a spine and put their goddamn foot down. You have both Houses, people! Use it.
Wouldn't Democrats like nothing more than for Bush to replay March to War '02 with the catastrophe of Iraq to point to? War with a Middle Eastern country has never seemed so distasteful to the public; having a president with less than 0 credibility on the issue repeat all of his old mistakes should give their candidates plenty of ammo for the campaign trail.
post #36 of 39
This bumper sticker/product placement must be made...

"The United States of America (tm)...Destabilizing the Middle East since 1979!"
post #37 of 39
From what I've heard about the weapons that were found, the markings on the weapons were printed in English and the year was not in the Iran callender.

Can anyone confirm this? Is there an image somewhere?

Because if this is true, then there's no reason this should even be discussed, and Bush and his Cronies should be exposed for the lying sacks of shit they are and have always been.
post #38 of 39
As long as we don't fight the Iranians on a large scale, keep the fighting in Iraq, and for the love of God DON'T INVADE, then our chances of saving some face on the world stage could be slightly better. At least from the standpoint that we aren't the only warmongers out there.
post #39 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyPete
Giving Americans another excuse to attack another oil-rich country. Hugo Chavez's sabre-rattling in Venezuela is another one.
There's 0.0001% chance of the US invading Venezuela anytime soon.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Oh motherfuckin hell...