What Did You Do In The War On Terror, Daddy

[red states rule]

MM is still ignoring the good news

 

[maineman]

More good news MM can ignore

http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1193127.html

an opinion piece. I understand the writer's point of view. I share his joy at the successes in areas of Baghdad and Anbar. I am not ignoring anything RSR....how about stop ignoring my questions for a change?

 

[red states rule]

an opinion piece. I understand the writer's point of view. I share his joy at the successes in areas of Baghdad and Anbar. I am not ignoring anything RSR....how about stop ignoring my questions for a change?

First Lt. Pete Hegseth served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division, and reports of the progres he SAW - of course you dismiss him since he wants to win the war and not surrender like the Dems want to do

 

[maineman]

First Lt. Pete Hegseth served in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division, and reports of the progres he SAW - of course you dismiss him since he wants to win the war and not surrender like the Dems want to do

I don't dismiss the young officer at all. I said that I shared his joy at the successes in Anbar and parts of Baghdad.

now answer MY questions, or quit asking ME any.

 

[red states rule]

I don't dismiss the young officer at all. I said that I shared his joy at the successes in Anbar and parts of Baghdad.

now answer MY questions, or quit asking ME any.

Perhaps now the San Fran Nan And White Flag Harry will agree with him - and stop trying to surrender

 

[maineman]

OK....now it's your turn to answer a few questions. Try these three on for size and see what you come up with:

1. Who will the government not be able to defend itself against? the sunni insurgents, the shiite insurgents, or AQ?

2. and you are saying that terrorists AND Iran will take over? So I guess, by terrorists, you mean Iraqi shiite insurgents, because it is hard to believe that Iran would chose sides against Iraqi shiites, right?

3. and if we left someday WITHOUT telling them, don't you think they could figure out that we'd gone?

 

[red states rule]

OK....now it's your turn to answer a few questions. Try these three on for size and see what you come up with:

We surrender now like the appeasers on the left want

!) Iran and AQ will move it

2) They will slaugher millions

3) They will have oil wealth to finance their terrorist operations

4) They wil have the country as their base of operations

 

[maineman]

We surrender now like the appeasers on the left want

!) Iran and AQ will move it

2) They will slaugher millions

3) They will have oil wealth to finance their terrorist operations

4) They wil have the country as their base of operations

the "THEY" to which you refer is this supposed alliance between Al Qaeda and Iran. Have I got that right?

And if Iran already has a country, why do they need another country to be the base of their operations?

 

[red states rule]

the "THEY" to which you refer is this supposed alliance between Al Qaeda and Iran. Have I got that right?

And if Iran already has a country, why do they need another country to be the base of their operations?

To expand their power and influence - sort of like what Dems want to do here in America

 

[maineman]

so my questions were:

1. Who will the government not be able to defend itself against? the sunni insurgents, the shiite insurgents, or AQ?

and you seem to indicate that the Iranians will join forces with Al Qaeda and slaughter millions of - shiites? sunnis? you don't really say

2. and you are saying that terrorists AND Iran will take over? So I guess, by terrorists, you mean Iraqi shiite insurgents, because it is hard to believe that Iran would chose sides against Iraqi shiites, right?

and you never did answer that question at all... never did explain why Iran would brutalize the majority shiite polpulation of Iraq

3. and if we left someday WITHOUT telling them, don't you think they could figure out that we'd gone?

and you never did answer this question in the least!

 

[maineman]

you missed this:

the "THEY" to which you refer is this supposed alliance between Al Qaeda and Iran. Have I got that right?

 

[red states rule]

so my questions were:

1. Who will the government not be able to defend itself against? the sunni insurgents, the shiite insurgents, or AQ?

and you seem to indicate that the Iranians will join forces with Al Qaeda and slaughter millions of - shiites? sunnis? you don't really say

2. and you are saying that terrorists AND Iran will take over? So I guess, by terrorists, you mean Iraqi shiite insurgents, because it is hard to believe that Iran would chose sides against Iraqi shiites, right?

and you never did answer that question at all... never did explain why Iran would brutalize the majority shiite polpulation of Iraq

3. and if we left someday WITHOUT telling them, don't you think they could figure out that we'd gone?

and you never did answer this question in the least!

Keep trying to convince the rest of us the terrorists and Iran will have no influence on Iraq if the US surrenders - it is a losing battle

 

[red states rule]

you missed this:

the "THEY" to which you refer is this supposed alliance between Al Qaeda and Iran. Have I got that right?

Correct

 

[maineman]

Correct

so you are suggesting that persian shiites will ally themselves with sunni-wahabbist arabs to take over Iraq? really?

where does Muktada al Sadr play in all of this?

 

[red states rule]

so you are suggesting that persian shiites will ally themselves with sunni-wahabbist arabs to take over Iraq? really?

where does Muktada al Sadr play in all of this?

I have posted many links showing Iran is providing weapons to both sides. If Dems get their way, and the Us surrenders, Iran will move in witrh AQ and take over

Is that to logical for you to understand?

 

[maineman]

Iranian persian shiites will "move in" with arab wahabbist sunnis to rule Iraq?

and where does Sadr play in all of that?

 

[red states rule]

Iranian persian shiites will "move in" with arab wahabbist sunnis to rule Iraq?

and where does Sadr play in all of that?

It seems you have a mental block from accepting Iran is helping the terrorists

Of course, you have a mental block from anything that does not fit your agenda

 

[maineman]

It seems you have a mental block from accepting Iran is helping the terrorists

Of course, you have a mental block from anything that does not fit your agenda

it seems you do not read what I write. I have said over and over and over again that I am certain that Iran is helping terrorist organizations inside Iraq - SHI'ITE TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS!!!

AQ is not one of those types of organizations. AQ is busy killing indigenous Iraqis both sunni and shiite and killing Americans as well. Iran has no reason to support them if they are killing shiites..... nor would Sadr stand for such support.

 

[red states rule]

it seems you do not read what I write. I have said over and over and over again that I am certain that Iran is helping terrorist organizations inside Iraq - SHI'ITE TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS!!!

AQ is not one of those types of organizations. AQ is busy killing indigenous Iraqis both sunni and shiite and killing Americans as well. Iran has no reason to support them if they are killing shiites..... nor would Sadr stand for such support.

Sadr is a terrorists as well - he is wanted for murder

Little Adolph in Iran cares nothing about his power and destroying Amercia

Sort of like the Dems here

 

[Annie]

Iranian persian shiites will "move in" with arab wahabbist sunnis to rule Iraq?

and where does Sadr play in all of that?

I found this related and interesting. Looks like from this, everyone gets to be a bit right:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2085195,00.html

Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq


Simon Tisdall
Tuesday May 22, 2007
The Guardian

US soldiers visit an Iraqi army base in Amiriya, a Sunni neighbourhood in west Baghdad
US soldiers visit an Iraqi army base in Amiriya, a Sunni neighbourhood in west Baghdad. Photograph: Sean Smith


Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.

"Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces," a senior US official in Baghdad warned. "They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government]."

Article continues
The official said US commanders were bracing for a nationwide, Iranian-orchestrated summer offensive, linking al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents to Tehran's Shia militia allies, that Iran hoped would trigger a political mutiny in Washington and a US retreat. "We expect that al-Qaida and Iran will both attempt to increase the propaganda and increase the violence prior to Petraeus's report in September [when the US commander General David Petraeus will report to Congress on President George Bush's controversial, six-month security "surge" of 30,000 troop reinforcements]," the official said.

"Certainly it [the violence] is going to pick up from their side. There is significant latent capability in Iraq, especially Iranian-sponsored capability. They can turn it up whenever they want. You can see that from the pre-positioning that's been going on and the huge stockpiles of Iranian weapons that we've turned up in the last couple of months. The relationships between Iran and groups like al-Qaida are very fluid," the official said.

"It often comes down to individuals, and people constantly move around. For instance, the Sunni Arab so-called resistance groups use Salafi jihadist ideology for their own purposes. But the whole Iran- al-Qaida linkup is very sinister."

Iran has maintained close links to Iraq's Shia political parties and militias but has previously eschewed collaboration with al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents.

US officials now say they have firm evidence that Tehran has switched tack as it senses a chance of victory in Iraq. In a parallel development, they say they also have proof that Iran has reversed its previous policy in Afghanistan and is now supporting and supplying the Taliban's campaign against US, British and other Nato forces.

Tehran's strategy to discredit the US surge and foment a decisive congressional revolt against Mr Bush is national in scope and not confined to the Shia south, its traditional sphere of influence, the senior official in Baghdad said. It included stepped-up coordination with Shia militias such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Jaish al-Mahdi as well as Syrian-backed Sunni Arab groups and al-Qaida in Mesopotamia, he added. Iran was also expanding contacts across the board with paramilitary forces and political groups, including Kurdish parties such as the PUK, a US ally.

"Their strategy takes into account all these various parties. Iran is playing all these different factions to maximise its future control and maximise US and British difficulties. Their co-conspirator is Syria which is allowing the takfirists [fundamentalist Salafi jihadis] to come across the border," the official said.

Any US decision to retaliate against Iran on its own territory could be taken only at the highest political level in Washington, the official said. But he indicated that American patience was wearing thin.

Warning that the US was "absolutely determined" to hit back hard wherever it was challenged by Iranian proxies or agents inside Iraq, he cited the case of five alleged members of the Revolutionary Guard's al-Quds force detained in Irbil in January. Despite strenuous protests from Tehran, which claims the men are diplomats, they have still not been released.

"Tehran is behaving like a racecourse gambler. They're betting on all the horses in the race, even on people they fundamentally don't trust," a senior administration official in Washington said. "They don't know what the outcome will be in Iraq. So they're hedging their bets."

The administration official also claimed that notwithstanding recent US and British overtures, Syria was still collaborating closely with Iran's strategy in Iraq.

"80% to 90%" of the foreign jihadis entering Iraq were doing so from Syrian territory, he said.

Despite recent diplomatic contacts, and an agreement to hold bilateral talks at ambassadorial level in Baghdad next week, US officials say there has been no let-up in hostile Iranian activities, including continuing support for violence, weapons smuggling and training.

"Iran is perpetuating the cycle of sectarian violence through support for extra-judicial killing and murder cells. They bring Iraqi militia members and insurgent groups into Iran for training and then help infiltrate them back into the country. We have plenty of evidence from a variety of sources. There's no argument about that. That's just a fact," the senior official in Baghdad said.

In trying to force an American retreat, Iran's hardline leadership also hoped to bring about a humiliating political and diplomatic defeat for the US that would reduce Washington's regional influence while increasing Tehran's own.

But if Iran succeeded in "prematurely" driving US and British forces out of Iraq, the likely result would be a "colossal humanitarian disaster" and possible regional war drawing in the Sunni Arab Gulf states, Syria and Turkey, he said.

Despite such concerns, or because of them, the US welcomed the chance to talk to Iran, the senior administration official said. "Our agenda starts with force protection in Iraq," he said. But there were many other Iraq-related issues to be discussed. Recent pressure had shown that Iran's behaviour could be modified, the official claimed: "Last winter they were literally getting away with murder."

But tougher action by security forces in Iraq against Iranian agents and networks, the dispatch of an additional aircraft carrier group to the Gulf and UN security council resolutions imposing sanctions had given Tehran pause, he said.

Washington analysts and commentators predict that Gen Petraeus's report to the White House and Congress in early September will be a pivotal moment in the history of the four-and-a-half-year war - and a decision to begin a troop drawdown or continue with the surge policy will hinge on the outcome. Most Democrats and many Republicans in Congress believe Iraq is in the grip of a civil war and that there is little that a continuing military presence can achieve. "Political will has already failed. It's over," a former Bush administration official said.

A senior adviser to Gen Petraeus reported this month that the surge had reduced violence, especially sectarian killings, in the Baghdad area and Sunni-dominated Anbar province. But the adviser admitted that much of the trouble had merely moved elsewhere, "resulting in spikes of activity in Diyala [to the north] and some areas to the south of the capital". "Overall violence is at about the same level [as when the surge began in February]."

Iranian officials flatly deny US and British allegations of involvement in internal violence in Iraq or in attacks on coalition forces. Interviewed in Tehran recently, Mohammad Reza Bagheri, deputy foreign minister for Arab affairs with primary responsibility for Iran's policy in Iraq, said: "We believe it would be to the benefit of both the occupiers and the Iraqi people that they [the coalition forces] withdraw immediately."