BF2S Forums Iran's involvement in Iraq

Pug wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

And yes, Saddam was better for Iraq.

I don't agree, but I would be interested in your opinion on whether the current government or a Sadr gov't is better than Saddam in power...from the Iranian prespective.

Anything different than Saddam is better for Iran.

Pug wrote:

And reported today:
"US Says Iran increasing support of insurgents.  Separately, UN says Iraqi groups recruiting child suicide bombers"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24311124/

wowi'mshocked

or not.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If anyone actually bothered to read the article

BAGHDAD - The top U.S. military official accused Iran of increasing arms and training support to insurgents in Iraq as well as militants battling U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Defense Department news conference that he has "no smoking gun" proof that the highest leadership in the Iranian government has approved the stepped up aid to insurgents who are killing U.S. and Iraqi forces.

But he said it is clear that recently made Iranian weapons are flowing into Iraq at a steadily increasing rate, including to support insurgents during the recent fighting in Basra in southern Iraq.

'Accused', 'No smoking gun or proof'

We've been here before haven't we?

It would help if you quoted the entire bit...I'll help you out here.

"...'no smoking gun' proof that the highest leadership in the Iranian government has approved the stepped up aid to insurgents..."

The bold part is important. It's not saying that there isn't proof that Iran is supplying weapons, only that there isn't proof that the Iranian leadership is involved. They have the proof that Iranian-made weapons are being used over there...in the form of captured, recently-produced, Iranian weapons.

No, the important part of the sentence is ''no smoking gun' proof', anything after that part is irrelevant.

Lets see how it works for me.
'I have no proof FEOS worships Satan, eats babies and is planning and equipping himself for a nerve gas attack on the US capitol.'

Clearly I must drop a large bomb on him and his family just to be sure, actually better take out the whole neighbourhood, any relatives on his or his wifes side and anyone he communicates with over the internet, I mean I have never been wrong in the past about my baseless and wild accusations and we can't take risks with US security now can we?

They have the proof that Iranian-made weapons are being used over there...in the form of captured, recently-produced, Iranian weapons.

Well so what? Maybe they bought them? There is a free world market in military weapons, who the Mahdi army buys its weapons from is hardly a big deal.

Even if Iran is supplying weapons why are you surprised? The US has been meddling in the area for almost half a century, the democratically elected govt of Iran was removed by the US and a brutal and tryannical puppet govt. put in its place. So much for spreading democracy.
Maybe Russia should have nuked the US in retaliation for all the Russians killed with US bought weapons in Afghanistan? Fairs fair.

The US has been messing with Iran and killing Iranians for decades, maybe its payback time and the US should just suck it up, or get out of Iraq, take your pick. In the meantime please quit blubbing like a bunch of crybabies.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-04-26 22:20:17)

Dilbert_X wrote:

No, the important part of the sentence is ''no smoking gun' proof', anything after that part is irrelevant.

Only if you don't want to bother with the entire set of facts.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The only 'fact' is Iranian weapons are being found in Iraq.
Looking at the wider historical and political picture whats the big deal?

Is the current Iraqi government bad for Iran?

Who pays for drawing out the war?

Is that wide enough for you?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Who pays for drawing out the war?

That would be America, for every million dollars Iran spends it probably costs the US a billion

Iraqi people

Fixed

Dilbert_X wrote:

Iraqi people

There is going to be a civil war at some point, the US presence just delays and lengthens it.

There is going to be a civil war at some point????????

:facepalm:

Odd, I thought Iran didn't like Hussein.

What with the massive war they fought, and the fact that Saddam represents Shia when Iran (and most of Iraq) is Sunni (wait, have I got that the right way?)

What Iran REALLY would want to be things the way they are (i.e. a Iran-leaning Sunni(?) majority government, NOT Moqtadr who has issues with Iran) minus the US + other foreign presence.

Uh, you need to read up a bit.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Iraqi people

There is going to be a civil war at some point, the US presence just delays and lengthens it.

Ahh, so by Iran sending more troops/training/equipment and other support to fight the current Iraqi and US troops...that's the US that's delaying and lengthening the civil war?

Riiiiiiiight.

Spark wrote:

In any case the electoral process was rushed, and leaded to increased tensions between the two sides.

I read somewhere that the Shia believe leadership is supposed to be passed down, while the Sunnis don't like that idea.  That's part of the problem too.