US accuse Iran of supplying bombs to Shiite militants in Iraq.

purple'n'gold

US accuse Iran of supplying bombs to Shiite militants in Iraq.
With the US history of lies and disinformation is this a genuine concern?

Akrasia

it's more lies.

The huge concern is that the U.S. are building up an attack force in the persian gulf with which to start world war 3

DadaKopf

There was a dude from the International Crisis Group on the radio today saying how many, if not most, Shiah groups fighting in Iraq have absolutely no connections to Iran. More than that, some hate them.

So, it seems like more spin and lies to me.

purple'n'gold

DadaKopf wrote:

There was a dude from the International Crisis Group on the radio today saying how many, if not most, Shiah groups fighting in Iraq have absolutely no connections to Iran. More than that, some hate them.

So, it seems like more spin and lies to me.

My sentiments exactly. But this could really get nasty, even the Russians (Putin recently) are getting a tad fed up with the naked aggression that the USA under Bush is demonstrating. Its quiet scary, the guy just keeps looking for more trouble.

DadaKopf

A lot of governments will be hedging come the next presidential election, I'd say. And there's probably more than a little bit of "kick them when they're down" mentality behind it.

I think governments are sensing that American power is on the wane.

Moriarty

The UK armed forces have been saying the same thing for quite some time now.

I wouldn't dismiss the possibility out of hand in any case. Various Iranian groups are mixed up in happenings at a number of levels in Iraq from what I've seen.

Akrasia

Moriarty wrote:

The UK armed forces have been saying the same thing for quite some time now.

I wouldn't dismiss the possibility out of hand in any case. Various Iranian groups are mixed up in happenings at a number of levels in Iraq from what I've seen.

so they should attack Iran and turn a trickle of iranian support for Iraqi militants into a massive flood of anti Western violence across the whole world?

Judt

Akrasia wrote:

so they should attack Iran and turn a trickle of iranian support for Iraqi militants into a massive flood of anti Western violence across the whole world?

I wouldn't say that... Saying that Iran has been providing weapons to some Iraqi insurgent groups, it does not follow that invading Iran is the next logical step.

Personally, I wouldn't dismiss this idea out of hand, but invading Iran is out of the question after the Iraq adventure. The US is just ticked that Iran has been the big winner out of the failed middle-eastern strategy post-9/11. Iran is building its nuclear program, Iran has backed Hezbollah in Lebanon, playing Israel like a fiddle... The US doesn't like Iran, but short of bringing in the draft the US doesn't have the ability to occupy Iran. Invade it yes, but occupy? No way.

As I say, it does not follow from "Iran is providing weapons" to "Invade Iran", particularly considering that Iran holds all the cards. With one missile Iran could cut off 20% of the worlds oil supply, for one...

Akrasia

well i didn't say invade Iran, I said attack it, and it doesn't matter that this is the worst idea of all time, the people who are likely to make that decision are completely bat**** crazy.

Judt

Akrasia wrote:

well i didn't say invade Iran, I said attack it, and it doesn't matter that this is the worst idea of all time, the people who are likely to make that decision are completely bat**** crazy.

And the Iranians are sane?

It depends on what Iran does. If indeed Iran is building the bomb, then we don't need to worry about the US bombing them with B-52's, Israel will nuke Tehran before Iran can nuke Haifa. That's the game that's being played here... the US is just posturing.

Ideo

did the iranians not say last week that if they are attacked they will damage US interests and then the US comes out with this bull****! think ill start building my bomb shelter now...

purple'n'gold

Israel will nuke Tehran before Iran can nuke Haifa.

No, that just would not happen. Israel would not dare do anything like that without the full backing of the USA. If they did, there is a great possibility that Russia would nuke Israel for exploding nuclear weapons in their back yard. Don’t forget Israel is only in its dominant position because of total US backing (and money), on their own they are not that brave.

bk

purplengold wrote:

Israel will nuke Tehran before Iran can nuke Haifa.

No, that just would not happen. Israel would not dare do anything like that without the full backing of the USA. If they did, there is a great possibility that Russia would nuke Israel for exploding nuclear weapons in their back yard. Don’t forget Israel is only in its dominant position because of total US backing (and money), on their own they are not that brave.

I hate to break it to you, but Russia, simply isn't a military power anymore. What is left of the Russian military is focused on defence (and selling weapons to India, China, etc.) and it really has no reason to mess with Israel. A small tactical nuke on Iran would have no effect on Russia. Sure there would be world wide condemnation, but no one would do anything in response other then economic sanctions and many would be quietly pleased (including many Arabic countries).

Anyway Israel using nukes is very unlikely, far more likely would be a conventional attack, like it carried out in 1981.

Judt

purplengold wrote:

Israel will nuke Tehran before Iran can nuke Haifa.

No, that just would not happen. Israel would not dare do anything like that without the full backing of the USA. If they did, there is a great possibility that Russia would nuke Israel for exploding nuclear weapons in their back yard. Don’t forget Israel is only in its dominant position because of total US backing (and money), on their own they are not that brave.

Do you want to bet your last penny on that? Israel went into Egypt without US backing before. Besides, in case you hadn't noticed the US doesn't like Iran. If it doesn't have to do the dirty in Iran then so much the better. The Israeli's would use conventional weapons first, but if they felt backed into a corner then they'd cut through Damascus for a shortcut and damn the consequences. It's that or destruction, for them.

The most likely situation is that Israel attacks Iran with the backing of the US.

Russia? Half their weapons don't work anymore...

purple'n'gold

I have a life, thank you, and far cleverer people than you have underestimated Russia.
Check out this link, posted on yahoo news to-day.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070212/ts_csm/orussiamil;_ylt=AkHYytxXvu58J5jqOvWmY2zMWM0F

FYI

"It depends on what Iran does. If indeed Iran is building the bomb, then we don't need to worry about the US bombing them with B-52's, Israel will nuke Tehran before Iran can nuke Haifa. That's the game that's being played here... the US is just posturing."

It is pretty matter of fact that Israel has the ability to nuke Tehran, before Iran could nuke Israel, since Israel is the only of these two to possess nuclear weapons. The consensus is that Iran is about 10 years (definitely more than 5) from attaining 'the bomb', though no one has much evidence to suggest they intend developing this capability.

The IAEA has yet to state that Iran has violated the NPT, whereas those countries floating all this speculation and insinuation of its mendacity, the UK and US are continually expanding their nuclear capabilities (in addition to providing other countries with the potential). A clear breach of the NPT.

The US 'claims' of Iranian meddling are no doubt intended, in conjunction with scaremongering about nuclear capabilities, to soften public opinion for the option of 'strategic' attacks on Iranian facilities, and it is anyone's guess whether this will be a precursor to all out war.

Clearly the US have been caught in a lie (within a lie no doubt) here as well, now admitting they over egged the attacks on US forces:

http://members.boardhost.com/mediabite/msg/1171301639.html

Israel have said they could attack Iranian facilities alone, though doubtful this will happen given their defeat at the hands of Hezbollah.

These 'claims' are reminiscent of British claims not so long ago, which were revealed to be false. The truth being that the IED technology had links to the British government through alleged IRA channels.

http://members.boardhost.com/mediabite/msg/1171286350.html

bk

purplengold wrote:

I have a life, thank you, and far cleverer people than you have underestimated Russia.
Check out this link, posted on yahoo news to-day.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070212/ts_csm/orussiamil;_ylt=AkHYytxXvu58J5jqOvWmY2zMWM0F

I'm sorry but you are far overstating the capabilities of the Russian Military, here are a few comparisons:

Number of Aircraft Carriers:
US: 12
Russia: 1 (currently out of service for major overhaul and repair, some analysts say it isn't been repaired as it is just to expensive to repair and operate).

Number of Nuclear Sub:
US: SSBN: 18 SSN: 55+
Russia: SSBN: 10 SSN:10

In 2004 a major exercise was held to show how great the Russian Navy was, it didn't look good when two test Nuclear Ballistic Missiles (sans warhead) failed to launch, answering the suspicion that many western analyst had that most of the Russian Navy is just for show.

Yes Russia is having great success selling many weapon systems like the SU-30 to countries like China, Pakistan, etc. But most of the weapon systems they are selling were developed just before the end of the cold war. Little development has happened since then, so while the SU-30K is a very good aircraft, it barely competes with US 4th generation aircraft (like the F15, F16), never mind the large numbers of 4.5 (F/A18 Super Hornet) and 5th generation (F22, F35) aircraft that the US is building.

Judt

purplengold wrote:

I have a life, thank you, and far cleverer people than you have underestimated Russia.
Check out this link, posted on yahoo news to-day.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070212/ts_csm/orussiamil;_ylt=AkHYytxXvu58J5jqOvWmY2zMWM0F

Ohh ye Gods, someone else who has seen my test scores!

That aside, the Russian military is an empty shell. Russian power lies in its control of most of the gas that goes to Europe. They do have sway there, but if you're going to make wild assertions that Russia has any power in the world, at least point to where they have the power. Russia isn't going to nuke the US and A for bombing Iran. They're capitalists now, they know how expensive that business can be. Besides, we'd only laugh at their duds.

For the Iran point, whatever about the US being the current whipping boys, does anyone in the room seriously consider arming the Islamic Republic of Iran with a nuclear bomb to be a good thing? Nukes are no joke, in case you've forgotten from the years of duck and cover.

purple'n'gold

Judt wrote:

Ohh ye Gods, someone else who has seen my test scores!

That aside, the Russian military is an empty shell. Russian power lies in its control of most of the gas that goes to Europe. They do have sway there, but if you're going to make wild assertions that Russia has any power in the world, at least point to where they have the power. Russia isn't going to nuke the US and A for bombing Iran. They're capitalists now, they know how expensive that business can be. Besides, we'd only laugh at their duds.

For the Iran point, whatever about the US being the current whipping boys, does anyone in the room seriously consider arming the Islamic Republic of Iran with a nuclear bomb to be a good thing? Nukes are no joke, in case you've forgotten from the years of duck and cover.

With the greatest of respect and all nonsense aside, do you seriously think the USA is going to allow Israel to start world war 3 ?

Judt

purplengold wrote:

With the greatest of respect and all nonsense aside, do you seriously think the USA is going to allow Israel to start world war 3 ?

Bombing Iran is going to start world war 3 now, is it? People said the same thing to me on September 12th 2001. World Wars are difficult affairs to start. They cost too much money.

InFront

This is a war cry we have seen before:

"They're a threat to security" (this time Iraqi peace, threat to Israel)
"They have the capability to get/ use weapons of mass destruction." (nukes)
"The enemy is evil" (in fairness Ahmadinejad is anti Jewish, but why would he want to wipe a territory claimed by Muslims off the map?)

These are the traditional methods by which people are drawn to fight. The enemy is despicable, he wants to hurt you, he's insane (in this case Ahmadinejad is a blessing). What could be more compelling than a lunatic with a nuke? And most importantly they say 'we've got God on our side'... "God Bless America".

At a recent prayer breakfast with fellow politicians and military officials, among others, he said:

The greatest gift a citizen of this country can give those of us entrusted with political office is to pray for us. And I thank those in our nation who lift all of us up in prayer. (Applause.)

Our troops must understand that every day -- every day -- millions of our citizens lift them up in prayer. (Applause.) We pray for their safety; we pray for their families they have left at home; we pray for those who have been wounded for their comfort and recovery. We remember those who have been lost, and we pray that their loved ones feel the healing touch of the Almighty. During this time of war, we thank God that we are part of a nation that produces courageous men and women who volunteer to defend us.

One thing we haven't really heard yet is the role of the oppressor. That soldiers invading Iran would be rescuing a poor oppressed people who desperately need their help. However we are getting hints of it.

January 29th statement

While Lebanon's friends seek to help the Lebanese government build a free, sovereign, and prosperous country, Syria, Iran, and Hizballah are working to destabilize Lebanese society. Their goals are clear. They foment violence in order to prevent the establishment of a Special Tribunal in response to former Prime Minister Hariri's assassination, to prevent full implementation of U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for Hizballah's disarmament, and to bring down Lebanon's democratically elected government, in violation of its constitution. The United States will continue to support Lebanon's government as it seeks a peaceful and prosperous future for all the people of Lebanon.

I hope that things will fizzle out in the middle east, I'm not sure to what degree that is a realistic idea.

Hobbes

The whole thing is a dog and pony show (Iran supplying weapons). Go read up on it.

First up CIA have said that while the weapons may be coming out of Iran is a serious stretch of the imagination to claim that the Iranian government is funding/supplying these operations.

Secondly the "show of evidence" recently Western press were brought to an area. Told to remove all recording equipment, then were given a show of a powerpoint presentation (with photos) by a person who refused to name themselves to the press or allow them to take their picture.

Add to that no one from the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence or the State Department would take part.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/11/AR2007021100479.html

Sounds like total BS to me.

PixelTrawler

Its war pimp propoganda, pure and simple

Sponge Bob

Joebloggs4817 wrote:

Its war pimp propoganda, pure and simple

It has some basis as long as you realise Iran has 2 governments

1. the religious one in qom with its own forces , the revolutionary guard/pasdaran ?

2. the secular(ish) one in Tehran which also has an army , but its smaller than the pasdaran

so if 1. is ...most likely as the US asserts ...meddling in Iraq and supplying materiel then 2. could deny responsibility and be correct in so doing .

The US has plenty of previous for outright warmongering and in lying to support their case for outright warmongering but I believe they have a case this time .

Note the claim came entirely from the military themselves in Iraq and not from the discredited security apparatus in Washington.

There is an excellent article in the Independent today by Patrick Cockburn who is, however, very scathing about the US claims. He makes an interesting point about 2007 claims juxtaposed with 2003 claims .

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2261526.ece

The US stance on the military capabilities of Iraqis today is the exact opposite of its position in four years ago. Then President Bush and Tony Blair claimed that Iraqis were technically advanced enough to produce long-range missiles and to be close to producing a nuclear device. Washington is now saying that Iraqis are too backward to produce an effective roadside bomb and must seek Iranian help.

I suppose the lies of 2003 are still haunting them

andrew

Why would Iran supply weapons to a country which it was at war with for 8 years in the 1980's? After the war, some in Iran said (and still say) that the day that ceasefire was called was the worst day of their life. On top of that, Iran is a mostly Shi'ite Muslim (89%) country, while Iraq is a mainly Shi'a Muslim country (60%-65%), and they're not exactly fond of each other.

Seems like this is just a continuence of America's propaganda campaign against Iran, a propaganda campaign which started during the Iran Iraq war, during which the Americans supported outright the Iraqis against Iran. While I don't support Iran (what with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being militantly anti-semetic) I don't feel that this accusation has any real substance to it.

Also, Re. Israels response to Iran's attempts at aquiring the bomb, I doubt that Jerusalem would just go ahead and nuke Tehran because they felt threatened. More likely would be a direct attack on their nuclear facilities, with or without American backing. Israel have the most powerful army in the middle east, and have already shown their willingness to stop other nations in the middle east from obtaining nukes. Israel simply wouldn't tolerate nukes in their own back garden. Also, I don't understand why Russia would even come into this discussion, as starting anything in the middle east would be pretty much pointless (and probably impossible) for them to do. And finally, how could a WW3 emerge from a conflict in the middle east? Both preceding world wars involved large parts of the world and large armies on both sides. This is not the case with this 'conflict' or whatever you want to call it.

AbusesToilets

At a recent prayer breakfast with fellow politicians and military officials, among others, he said:

Quote:
The greatest gift a citizen of this country can give those of us entrusted with political office is to pray for us. And I thank those in our nation who lift all of us up in prayer. (Applause.)

Our troops must understand that every day -- every day -- millions of our citizens lift them up in prayer. (Applause.) We pray for their safety; we pray for their families they have left at home; we pray for those who have been wounded for their comfort and recovery. We remember those who have been lost, and we pray that their loved ones feel the healing touch of the Almighty. During this time of war, we thank God that we are part of a nation that produces courageous men and women who volunteer to defend us.

What point are you making here,that Bush is a man with religious convictions? How shocking :eek:
I don't think the US is looking for an excuse to invade or attack Iran.I think they are in the position where it knows that Iran is aiding the insurgents in Iraq but at the moment can do nothing really to stop the Iranians from doing this.Therefore it is putting out this information to the media in order to strengthen it's international standing and hopefully influence world opinion against Iran.Which is important right now, given their current push for nuclear power and more regional influence.
I think this is the best thing that the US can do to counter Iranian intentions;to show Iran as a government intent on fostering and increasing the violence in Iraq and increasing it's chances of an armed confrontation with foreign powers.This all plays to destabilising the current government in the eyes of the burgeoning young political movements in the country,who in turn might succeed in weakening the position of the ruling religious caste.

Moriarty

Hobbes wrote:

First up CIA have said that while the weapons may be coming out of Iran is a serious stretch of the imagination to claim that the Iranian government is funding/supplying these operations.

Link?

Hobbes wrote:

Secondly the "show of evidence" recently Western press were brought to an area. Told to remove all recording equipment, then were given a show of a powerpoint presentation (with photos) by a person who refused to name themselves to the press or allow them to take their picture.

Military intelligence people not wanting to be identified. You're right, they're up to something.

Hobbes wrote:

Add to that no one from the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence or the State Department would take part.

The CIA or any other agency did not take part. I can't find a single mention of them refusing to take part like you imply.

Joebloggs4817 wrote:

Its war pimp propoganda, pure and simple

I'm sure the irony of regurgitating anti-war/whatever propaganda is lost on you too, which is the funniest part of all. Fight propaganda with.. uh.. more propaganda! Surely a formula for success if ever I've seen one.

andrew wrote:

Why would Iran supply weapons to a country which it was at war with for 8 years in the 1980's? After the war, some in Iran said (and still say) that the day that ceasefire was called was the worst day of their life. On top of that, Iran is a mostly Shi'ite Muslim (89%) country, while Iraq is a mainly Shi'a Muslim country (60%-65%), and they're not exactly fond of each other.

.. what?

Shi'ite/Shi'a.. it's different names for the exact same religious denomination.

...

FYI

AbusesToilets wrote:

I think they are in the position where it knows that Iran is aiding the insurgents in Iraq but at the moment can do nothing really to stop the Iranians from doing this.Therefore it is putting out this information to the media in order to strengthen it's international standing and hopefully influence world opinion against Iran.Which is important right now, given their current push for nuclear power and more regional influence.

What information? Supported by what evidence?

From the BBC:

"However the officials who presented the evidence could not make a direct link to Iran.

"The officials said such an assertion was an inference based on general intelligence assessments," stated the New York Times."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6353489.stm

"Current push for nuclear power"!

What's the problem with that then?

InFront

AbusesToilets wrote:

What point are you making here,that Bush is a man with religious convictions?

Sigh. The point I was making, which I don't see how you could have missed, is that countries who want to drum up support for a war (among the other things I mentioned) tend to put God on their side. hence the quote from Bush: "we thank God that we are part of a nation that produces courageous men and women who volunteer to defend us", "God bless America", etc.

The same can be said of Iran. God is a useful tool for drumming up support for a war. That's my point.

andrew

Moriarty wrote:

.. what?

Shi'ite/Shi'a.. it's different names for the exact same religious denomination.

...

Whoops, i ment sunni/shiite. how embarassing. That would make my whole argument about the religious animosity wrong then. The rest still stands - they really don't like each other (iran and iraq that is).
Thanks InFront

InFront

Nevermind:)