Bush accusing Iran of arming insurgents

[MDC 7,882]

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday he's certain the Iranian government is supplying deadly weapons used by fighters in Iraq against U.S. troops, even if he can't prove that the orders came from top Iranian leaders.

 

More important, Bush said in his first news conference of the year, is the need to protect American forces against the new weapons and technology, including sophisticated new roadside bombs.

 

"I'm going to do something about it," Bush pledged, displaying apparent irritation at being repeatedly asked about mixed administration signals on who was behind the weaponry.

 

"To say it is provoking Iran is just a wrong way to characterize the commander in chief's decision to do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm's way," Bush said.

 

U.S. officials have said that Iran is behind attacks against troops in Iraq, an assertion denied by Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

 

Is there some way we could move the end of this moron's term up a year?

[Snuff 10]

Some of the top Generals also have said it, and some of the other Generals have said there is not enough evidence. Who knows.

I wouldn't doubt it for a minute though. Why wouldn't Iran try to arm the Iraqi insurgents?

[wiffleball 4,797]

The fact that he did a press conference (incredibly rare event for him. I think he holds the record for least number of Q&A's of any modern President) adds a lot of weight to that theory. That's the first thing I thought when I saw his mug on TV talking about Iran.

 

The conventional wisdom is that it takes 4 carriers to wage a bombing campaign against Iran. I think 2 are in place (or close) now with another on the way. Very quietly, the USS Ronald Reagan is headed there from the western approach too.

 

'Course, the ship will forget the mission by the time it gets halfway there...

 

 

Really cool website showing the locs & missions of our carriers

[Snuff 10]

Very quietly, the USS Ronald Reagan is headed there too.

 

'Course, the ship will forget the mission by the time it gets halfway there...

 

You focker.

[parrot 789]

I sure hope so. These other two wars are getting BOOOOOOOORING.

[Strike 6,019]

I sure hope so. These other two wars are getting BOOOOOOOORING.

 

We were told the war is over and we won

[MDC 7,882]

Some of the top Generals also have said it, and some of the other Generals have said there is not enough evidence. Who knows.

I wouldn't doubt it for a minute though. Why wouldn't Iran try to arm the Iraqi insurgents?

 

Unless we can prove that the Iranian gov't is arming Shiite militias - and there's big dispute as to their involvement - why would our Idiot in Chief be saber-rattling? Isn't one poorly planned and ineffective war enough for that idiot? I really fear he's going to put us into another one before his term is up and leave the same incompetents in charge.

[wiffleball 4,797]

Unless we can prove that the Iranian gov't is arming Shiite militias - and there's big dispute as to their involvement - why would our Idiot in Chief be saber-rattling? Isn't one poorly planned and ineffective war enough for that idiot? I really fear he's going to put us into another one before his term is up and leave the same incompetents in charge.

 

 

I have no doubt that Iran is messing around there. Same M.O. as with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Arm the militias. They undoubtedly want a Shia puppet state there.

 

As to why GWB is saber-rattling. He'll use this as the excuse, but Iran has been doing the same thing for the past three years. The real question is - why the full-court press now?

 

The answer: We want to bomb (among other things) their Nuke capability. We want to do it before Israel does b/c if Israel does, the odds of a full-scale middle east broohaha go through the roof.

[Snuff 10]

If it is proven that Iran is aiding the militias with weapons that are killing US soldiers, should we go to war (again)?

[Rusty Syringes 478]

While the Bush Administration's credibility is rather shot, these weapons have to be coming from somewhere.

 

The insurgents aren't sitting around and making these sophisticated things out of dirt.

 

They're probably not coming from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Turkey, so that pretty much leaves Syria and Iran.

 

Not exactly stretch.

 

But is it really an alarming deal?

 

The Chinese and Russians were helping the North Koreans and Vietnamese, right?

 

[wiffleball 4,797]

ETA: On FBG, one guy said his buddy in Special Forces (or was it Olympics?) just died in Iran. Prolly not something you'll see in the newspaper. Wouldn't surprise me if we were doing what we've always done; send in the Special Ops guys to do targeting and recon for the bombers.

[Mungwater 601]

just make that place a parking lot.

[Snuff 10]

ETA: On FBG, one guy said his buddy in Special Forces (or was it Olympics?) just died in Iran. Prolly not something you'll see in the newspaper. Wouldn't surprise me if we were doing what we've always done; send in the Special Ops guys to do targeting and recon for the bombers.

 

Saw that as well. You can guaranfockingtee we have guys there right now, and have for some time.

[MDC 7,882]

If it is proven that Iran is aiding the militias with weapons that are killing US soldiers, should we go to war (again)?

 

1. After absolutely guaranteeing the public that Saddam not only had WMDs but we knew where they were, could Bush offer up any evidence that would be worth believing? He is the president who cried wolf.

2. Of the factions in Iraq, the Shiites are prob. less likely to be pulling off attacks on US troops mainly because our presence is the only reason they're not oppressed anymore.

3. Can we really afford to wage a 3rd war over this stuff? I agree, if Iran was engaging in attacks directly on US troops that's one thing. I don't know if aiding one side of a civil war and our troops get caught in the crossfire is war-worthy. Esp. with the position we're in right now.

 

Dunno. I do know that if we have to go to war, I'd feel a whole lot better if Bush and the gang that couldn't shoot straight were NOT in charge of it. I wouldn't trust these guys to manage a McDonald's, much less a military operation.

[Snuff 10]

Also, if we do go to war with Iran, wonder if the EU will step up to the plate?

[bob_probert_2000 1]

We're just gonna have to put our soldiers in harms way to keep em out of harms way.

[parrot 789]

I think we need to roll in there and set up a democracy which will induce a well-spring of freedom that will transform the middle east. Shouldn't take more than a few weeks.

[wiffleball 4,797]

One thing they better be thinking of, is the difference between bombing Iran now and all our past "bomb and go" attacks is that we've got 100,000 guys sitting well within Iran's missile and artillery range now. Big focking difference.

[Snuff 10]

Dunno. I do know that if we have to go to war, I'd feel a whole lot better if Bush and the gang that couldn't shoot straight were NOT in charge of it. I wouldn't trust these guys to manage a McDonald's, much less a military operation.

 

Militarily, they had a great plan for the Iraq war. Our military kicked ass. It's the aftermath they focked up on.

[parrot 789]

Here's what's funny, we and Iran are backing the same horse in Iraq, and if the guys on the other side are getting aid it's most likely out of Saudi Arabia, but we aren't saying sh!t about that.

[MDC 7,882]

Militarily, they had a great plan for the Iraq war. Our military kicked ass. It's the aftermath they focked up on.

 

Yes, if you define the military plan as being just the initial invasion of Iraq and disregard all the other stuff, like securing the borders, dealing with a potential insurgency, having a strategy for withdrawl, etc. it was a smashing success.

[wiffleball 4,797]

Lemme see if I got this right (have to re-think this every other week)

 

Saddam was a Sunni that persecuted the Shia majority.

 

Now the Shia are the majority and Iran is funding them against the Sunnis and the U.S.

 

The Saudis are mostly Sunnis. - And we support them.

 

 

Man, this is almost as hard as Boznia-Hertsobad. . - Never did get that one figgered out.

 

[Snuff 10]

Yes, if you define the military plan as being just the initial invasion of Iraq and disregard all the other stuff, like securing the borders, dealing with a potential insurgency, having a strategy for withdrawl, etc. it was a smashing success.

 

Yup, like I said, they focked up with the aftermath. Would the "aftermath" be the same with Iran though? No. But I sure wouldn't feel secure about it being successful either.

[Mungwater 601]

 

Man, this is almost as hard as Boznia-Hertsobad. . - Never did get that one figgered out.

 

 

I was there at that schit. Still pisses me off knowing that the prez was getting head by some fat chick when he sent us in there.

[wiffleball 4,797]

I was there at that schit. Still pisses me off knowing that the prez was getting head by some fat chick when he sent us in there.

 

 

I really tried to understand that war - and who was who. I wasn't smart enough. Ultimately, about all I got was that we were there protecting Muslims from somebody. - Protestants or something.

 

And now the Muslims hate us.

 

Don't get it.

[Mungwater 601]

I really tried to understand that war - and who was who. I wasn't smart enough. Ultimately, about all I got was that we were there protecting Muslims from somebody. - Protestants or something.

 

And now the Muslims hate us.

 

Don't get it.

 

What was screwy about that one too was that the Russians were there as R & R from Checnya. Those dudes would show up in the tents, all shot up, literally. There was also some pics and vids that still turn my stomach that they would show around when they've been drinking.

 

I still have a Russian flask complete with sickle and hammer and stalins face on it that I traded for.

[Flashover 0]

Didn't the "Senior Officials" who came up with the info about Iran supplying the insurgents refuse to give their identity. It's a little strange that "Senior Officials" making a claim of this magnitude chose to remain anonymous. I guess we should just believe them, afterall their case is probably a slam-dunk!

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Fock it, WAR BUSH! Its time to roll these motherphuckers up.

[Voltaire 5,489]

I was there at that schit. Still pisses me off knowing that the prez was getting head by some fat chick when he sent us in there.

 

And how many American troops did we lose? Zero, I believe, until well after when one soldier stepped on a landmine. We won a was without losing one life. And did we bring a lasting peace to the region? Yeah we did didn't we... international cooperation and accolades ... ya know, it was really nice when adults who actually like sex were in charge of the military and goverment wasn't it?

[IGotWorms 4,063]

An interesting article from the New Yorker on why it is a bad idea to engage in public animosity with Iran:

 

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/talk/0...talk_surowiecki

 

The past few months haven’t been easy for Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His refusal to halt Iran’s uranium-enrichment program led the United Nations to impose sanctions in December. Inflation in Iran has exploded, with the price of commodities like bread and meat rising as much as twenty-five per cent. In the country’s recent municipal elections, Ahmadinejad’s political allies were crushed, and clerics and lawmakers have begun criticizing him in public. Worse still, through the second half of 2006 the price of oil tumbled almost thirty per cent, a disaster for an economy as dependent on oil revenue as Iran’s. (The country pumps almost four million barrels of oil a day and ultimately exports more than half of it.) And then the Bush Administration said that it had authorized U.S. troops to detain or kill any Iranians found to be working with the Iraqi insurgency, and dispatched a second aircraft-carrier group to the Persian Gulf, sparking rumors that a military strike against Iran was in the works.

 

This latest confrontation with the U.S. should have been the capper to a bad winter for Ahmadinejad. Strangely, though, it may instead have brought about an upturn in his fortunes. Soon, oil prices started to rise, jumping twenty per cent in just two weeks. As a result, the Iranian regime suddenly has an extra twenty million dollars or so to spend every day, a windfall that will help Ahmadinejad to placate his critics and solve some of his country’s more pressing economic problems.

 

The jump in oil prices wasn’t entirely a geopolitical phenomenon—the cold snap in the U.S. was also a big factor—but it was driven in part by an increase in what oil traders call the “risk premium.” When buying and selling oil, traders don’t just look at today’s supply and demand. They also try to forecast the future. And if buyers think there’s a chance that supply is going to be lower down the line—because, say, Iranian oil fields will be shut down—they will be willing to pay a higher price today in order to guarantee that they will have the oil they need. That’s why, in the run-up to the Iraq war, oil prices jumped more than fifty per cent. In the current confrontation between the U.S. and Iran, these same concerns create a perverse set of incentives: whenever the U.S. says things that make a military conflict with Iran seem more likely, the price of oil rises, strengthening Iran’s regime rather than weakening it. The more we talk about curbing Iranian power, the more difficult it gets.

 

 

Of course, if the Bush Administration were TRYING to drive up oil prices, then a war in Iraq and sabre-rattling with Iran would be a hell of a good way to go about it.

 

ON EDIT:

 

My guesses as to what may really be happening here, in order of likelihood in my mind:

 

1) The Bush Administration wants to use Iran as a buffer against increased criticism and public outrage over the Iraq war. Its not the Administration's fault Iraq is going badly, its those damn Iranians interfering! And we can't leave because then Iran will swoop in! This scenario also works from the Iranian point of view, because as long as they can get their populace to focus on a perceived threat from the Americans, they will be less likely to notice how inept and corrupt their own government is.

 

2) In a fit of stupidity, the Administration actually believes they can threaten Iran in to submission, thereby stopping whatever sort of interference they may be running in Iraq, and perhaps coercing them to give up their nuclear weapons program.

 

3) In a fit of stupidity, the Administration believes that they should go to war with Iran. This could take many different forms, but I think they might be delusional enough to believe that a bombing campaign would weaken the government and then the Iranian populace would rise up, overthrow them, install their own democracy, and then the good vibes from that democracy would penetrate in to Iraq and thereby making our mission there a success. Or something along those lines.

 

4) The Administration really just wants to make money for themselves and their friends. War is a very profitable enterprise, profit margins in war-related industries easily top those of any other industry in the world. So make war, and the likes of Halliburton, Bechtel, etc. make a lot of money. The Administration has direct links to such industry giants, and who knows what else is going on out there that we don't know about (ie., secret investments in the defense industry by administration officials). Also, war in the middle east drives up oil prices, which enriches Big Oil (again, many ties with the administration) and the Saudi Royal Family. The whole damn thing is just a conspiracy to defraud American tax payers and energy consumers worldwide on an unprecedented scale.

 

I think its likely a combination of all these elements, and probably a few others I haven't considered yet.

[Voltaire 5,489]

As for Iran, I don't know that we can allow them to develop their nuclear weapons program. Frankly, I think if negotiatins fail, we may well have to knock their facilities out. These guys are notorious backers of terrorists and allowing them nukes has to be out of the question.

 

terrorism+nukes= disaster. There's no "Mutually Assured Destruction" to deter terrorists.

[Flashover 0]

I don't know if I like the President of the United States relying on information from "Senior Officials" who refuse to give their identities. It sounds like something a Bush...oh never mind.

[What is the deal? 1]

it's hilarious when people on this board try to pretend like they know more than the commander-in-chief

 

I'll play along with my take: There are radical elements on both sides of the aisle- Sunni and Shiite. Shiites are backed by Iran/Syria while the Sunnis are backed by Al Qaeda and possibly funded by the Saudis. Both sides just want to kill and terrorize everyone to make the US look very bad and they realize that's how they will win the war because the American people lose their drive to fight. Luckily, we have a strong backbone of folks who know they are fighting for something...

 

There are also peaceful and cooperative elements on both sides that want a stable Iraq- nobody cares about them...

 

One thing I know for certain is that we have developed better technology on how to fight this type of war. An invasion of Iran would not be near a clusterfock as Iraq although there military may put up a better fight.

 

I've said from the beginning a lot of the reasons behind the Iraq war was for positioning because we could justify an invasion and at the same time bunker down between Iran and Syria. Now we have a solid presence along with the air support from the carriers. For some reason Iran's not scared, but they should be...

 

The funny thing is everyone seems to think that the Middle East was a peaceful place before we got there and I have no idea why. I can remember people saying we want peace in the Middle East when I was in grade school...action is better than reaction or appeasement IMO

[Flashover 0]

 

I've said from the beginning a lot of the reasons behind the Iraq war was for positioning because we could justify an invasion and at the same time bunker down between Iran and Syria. Now we have a solid presence along with the air support from the carriers. For some reason Iran's not scared, but they should be...

 

 

I don't agree. I don't see why we needed to invade Iraq to invade Iran. Our military is stretched to the limit, the majority of the world doesn't support us, our credibility is shot because of Iraq, and I wouldn't say we have a solid presence. If Iran is such a threat, why didn't we just invade them? And why does it seem that the administration is using the same shady/questionable tactics as they did in Iraq to make the case against Iran?

[mmmmm...beer 815]

It's already been said in this thread but we just need to nuke those motherfockers....

 

fock sending troops... FLASH!! BANG!!

 

Over.... we win....we'll always win...

[Know Doubt 0]

Do NOT underestimate Iran's defenses/forces.

It is well known that they are better armed than Iraq and better 'equipted' to deal with an attack/invasion.

Especially when Iraq was 'kept down' by santions in the 90s before we invaded the 2nd time. It will be no cake walk.

 

I'm not saying they're gonna kick our azz, but it ain't gonna be a walkover like either time in Iraq.

 

 

 

This is gonna get bad and we'd be in a much, much better position IF we weren't in Iraq already using valuable troops/supplies.

[jets24 6]

Is there some way we could move the end of this moron's term up a year?

 

 

You're right. Lets allow Iran to give them weapons.

[MDC 7,882]

You're right. Lets allow Iran to give them weapons.

 

Is the Iranian government giving them weapons? Maybe George should STFU until he has some evidence.

 

You may have heard military intelligence isn't his strong suit.

[kpbuckeye 3]

And how many American troops did we lose? Zero, I believe, until well after when one soldier stepped on a landmine. We won a was without losing one life. And did we bring a lasting peace to the region? Yeah we did didn't we... international cooperation and accolades ... ya know, it was really nice when adults who actually like sex were in charge of the military and goverment wasn't it?

 

lasting peace? they are still digging up mass graves that happened right under the UN's nose.

Whats wrong you don't get the news in china?

Perhaps if the UN had stepped up and done its job in Iraq you and monkey d1ck wouldn't have to cry like litte girls on a daily basis. Yea, its bush's falt

[MDC 7,882]

My puzzay hurts!

 

pwned