Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[Kondor3]

We don't have to go to War with Iran, even though they've earned it with IED weapons and tech that have sent our people home in bags..............

We destroy the Nuclear Sites and or allow Israel to do so.................No need for invasion...........just bust their asses and leave...............

PEACEFUL Nuclear Power......

You guys are a bunch of idiots.............

We don't know all of their nuclear sites. I've read there could be as many a 200 different locations. Some underground and others in mountains where bombs won't reach. You're foolish if you think that's a viable option.

Should we go after the 100 we DO know about?

 

[Faun]

We don't have to go to War with Iran, even though they've earned it with IED weapons and tech that have sent our people home in bags..............

We destroy the Nuclear Sites and or allow Israel to do so.................No need for invasion...........just bust their asses and leave...............

PEACEFUL Nuclear Power......

You guys are a bunch of idiots.............

We don't know all of their nuclear sites. I've read there could be as many a 200 different locations. Some underground and others in mountains where bombs won't reach. You're foolish if you think that's a viable option.

Should we go after the 100 we DO know about?

Why? That doesn't prevent them from developing a nuke. All it does is drag us into war with them.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ChrisL 11068340

This thread has nothing to do with "war." Go start another thread. It's about Iran, Islam and the fact that some morons want to give Iran the materials to make a bomb. #3404

Really? Your side from Netanyahu on down wants war and makes no bones about it? And who wants to give Iran the materials to make a nuclear bomb? Your imagination is working overtime.

DT 10927224

So treaties mean nothing to you. And they mean nothing to iran. So fuck iran. Nuke em. #160

Deltex is much more ambitious than Slyhunter. He's wiping out 70 million Persians and leaving the rest with radiation sickness.

DT 10927430

Suddenly there will be 5 million Persians...and they will have radiation sickness. #179

Slyh 11085619

Sanctions don't work when the players cheat the system. Russia, China, and others trade with these countries we have sanctions against making our sanctions worthless. That leaves us with no alternative but war. #3509

Slyh 11085626

We have the MOAB, which can level a capital city into a parking lot. #3510

Perhaps you are right? This thread is not about 'war' it is about wanting America's military to commit 'mass murder' as seen in this exchange:

Slyh 11142177

It's better that we replace their leaders with those who will make a good deal. #3551

NF 11142942

How do you propose that "we" replace their leaders? #3552

Boy we keep running in circles. Moab their capital buildings and their private homes. #3560

You don't seem to be paying attention to what RW'ers are saying on this thread and others. Why is that?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Debunking – Iran is funding the Taliban:


Eagl 11153315

Right now they are still funding the Taliban while we are still in combat against them #3604

What funding 'right now'? Iran openly is more intent on preventing the Taliban from a return to power specifically in the wake of the P5+1 nuclear framework agreement. India and Iran can provide a positive economic, trade and aid benefit to the Afghan Government's ability to continue to defeat the Taliban as Afghanistan is transitioning to providing its own security with much less reliance on foreign troops as the next few years unfold.

Both Iran and India have an interest in ensuring that Afghanistan does not revert to the Taliban-controlled Pakistani client state that it was in the 1990s. To that end, India and Iran must engage each other to strengthen the hand of the government in Kabul. Further, if a nuclear deal is finalized, the U.S. may be far more open to engaging with the Iranians on Afghanistan, which bodes well for India. Broadly speaking, neither the U.S. nor Iran feels particularly comfortable at the prospect of the reemergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Finally, the deal may also provide the necessary impetus for India and Iran to ramp up cooperation on the development of the Chabahar deep-water port. Chabahar’s strategic location will make it a critical transit point for trade between not only India, Iran and Afghanistan, but also provide connectivity to Central Asia and Europe, via the International North South Transport Corridor (INSTC), which is estimated to be 40 percent shorter and 30 percent less expensive than trade via the Red Sea-Suez Canal-Mediterranean route.

.

How an Iran Nuclear Deal Would Benefit India The Diplomat

 

[NotfooledbyW]

So what happened here?

ChrisL 11047581

I can go track down your hateful posts. Shall I? #3334

NF 11047779

Go for it? #3335

ChrisL 11049254

I will. Don't you worry. #3336

I am still waiting?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ChrisL 10998071

Obama cannot make a treaty with anyone without going through congress. #3194

So why did the Republican controlled Congress do this?

"On Tuesday's Mark Levin: The U.S. Senate has capitulated to President Obama by rewriting the treaty provision of the Constitution. Sen. Bob Corker and Lindsey Graham have dragged the GOP-controlled Congress into a disaster that they’re happy to support. The Senate not only whitewashed the treaty power of the constitution, but also made it impossible for them to stop Obama."

 

[eagle1462010]

Debunking – Iran is funding the Taliban:


Eagl 11153315

Right now they are still funding the Taliban while we are still in combat against them #3604

What funding 'right now'? Iran openly is more intent on preventing the Taliban from a return to power specifically in the wake of the P5+1 nuclear framework agreement. India and Iran can provide a positive economic, trade and aid benefit to the Afghan Government's ability to continue to defeat the Taliban as Afghanistan is transitioning to providing its own security with much less reliance on foreign troops as the next few years unfold.

Both Iran and India have an interest in ensuring that Afghanistan does not revert to the Taliban-controlled Pakistani client state that it was in the 1990s. To that end, India and Iran must engage each other to strengthen the hand of the government in Kabul. Further, if a nuclear deal is finalized, the U.S. may be far more open to engaging with the Iranians on Afghanistan, which bodes well for India. Broadly speaking, neither the U.S. nor Iran feels particularly comfortable at the prospect of the reemergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Finally, the deal may also provide the necessary impetus for India and Iran to ramp up cooperation on the development of the Chabahar deep-water port. Chabahar’s strategic location will make it a critical transit point for trade between not only India, Iran and Afghanistan, but also provide connectivity to Central Asia and Europe, via the International North South Transport Corridor (INSTC), which is estimated to be 40 percent shorter and 30 percent less expensive than trade via the Red Sea-Suez Canal-Mediterranean route.

.

How an Iran Nuclear Deal Would Benefit India The Diplomat

https://info.publicintelligence.net/JIEDDO-IranWeaponsSmuggling.pdf

 

[eagle1462010]

(U) Conclusion (U) Iran provides arms and funding to Afghan insurgents as it continues to do so in Iraq. Iran’s intentions are the same in both Iraq and Afghanistan: to develop, fund and arm proxy networks to leverage against the perceived U.S. aim of pursuing an active regime change doctrine in Iran. Iran’s use of proxy weapons smuggling networks may be unpleasant, but in practice, Iran restrains the full potential of these networks in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran can use its shared borders to more quickly and efficiently fund, train, and arm its proxy networks in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet Iran has deliberately withheld many of the highpowered rockets, SAMs and other munitions that Hezbollah fielded against Israel. Iran’s introduction of EFPs in Iraq and Afghanistan has irritated U.S. military and political leaders enough that an Iranian escalation of weapons is not necessary for Iran to apply an uncomfortable amount of pressure on the United States. (U) Conceding the restrained nature of Iranian meddling in Afghanistan does not imply that Iran’s actions should be acceptable to U.S. policymakers. The United States has been careful to avoid leveling direct accusations against Iran for providing insurgents with weapons and training in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Official U.S. comments concerning the discovery of Iranian-made weapons in Afghanistan are careful to suggest that the Iranian government may not be the direct supplier. This backs Iran into a corner, but allows room for the possibility that sub-state actors such as al-Quds and criminal elements may covertly operate outside of regular Iranian government powerbrokers. Washington may be able to subtly shift Iranian threat perceptions if the U.S. can better define that Sunni fundamentalists pose an ideological threat with no resolution, while fears of U.S. intentions can be systematically disproved. A more difficult hurdle will be shaping an alliance against Sunni fundamentalists in Afghanistan that does not appear to undermine the legitimacy of the Iranian government’s carefully crafted image as the world’s only true Islamic Republic. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is not a majority Shi’a country, and Iran must tread more lightly in supporting Shi’a interests

 

[Care4all]

So the Shiites in Iran are funding the Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan....??????

I find that very hard to believe there is an ounce of truth in that....

 

[NotfooledbyW]

eagl 11153315

Right now they are still funding the Taliban while we are still in combat against them.......#3604.........

eagl 11215012

(U) Conclusion (U) Iran provides arms and funding to Afghan insurgents as it continues to do so in Iraq #3668

Your link is six years old and is quite weak in blaming the Iranian
theocracy for attacks on Americans:

https://info.publicintelligence.net/JIEDDO-IranWeaponsSmuggling.pdf

The U.S. and members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have shown similar reserve when leveling accusations against Iran: demonstrating a severe frustration with Iran’s actions, while implicitly acknowledging Iran’s overall restraint in supporting Afghan insurgents. Anyone familiar with the centers of power within the Iranian government is not surprised by a comment made by the British Ambassador to Kabul in September 2008, when the ambassador noted: "I suspect some of [the Iranian state] agencies genuinely don't know what others are up to. We've seen a limited supply of weapons by a group within the Iranian state, not necessarily with the knowledge of all other agencies of the Iranian state, sending some very dangerous weapons to the Taliban in the south."2 (U) Iran has no interest in creating greater strategic difficulties for U.S. Forces in Afghanistan at this time. The Iranian regime has demonstrated its ability to underwrite militants with a broad array of weapons short of fielding a conventional army. Likewise, Iran has consciously pursued a tract of low-level conflict and minor instability to remind Americans of the potential for true negative Iranian influences in the region if Iran feels existentially threatened.

You cited this: "The United States has been careful to avoid leveling direct accusations against Iran for providing insurgents with weapons and training in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Official U.S. comments concerning the discovery of Iranian-made weapons in Afghanistan are careful to suggest that the Iranian government may not be the direct supplier."


If any of this was going on it was during the Bush Administrations. Why didn't he stop it?

And Bush couldn't get Saddam's second in command al Douri. Its looking like Obama policy got him yesterday, pending DNA reports.

Bghdad, Iraq (CNN)Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, a former top deputy to Saddam Hussein and more recently a key figure in Sunni extremist groups battling the Iraqi government, has been killed in a security operation in that country, Iraqi state-run television reported Friday.

Al-Douri was the highest-ranking member of Hussein's regime to evade capture -- the "King of Clubs" in a deck of playing cards used by American troops to identify the most-wanted regime officials.

He also was a man thought to have led the post-Hussein Sunni extremist group Naqshbandi Army. Military analysis website Globalsecurity.org says the Naqshbandi Army supports ISIS, which has taken over parts of Iraq and Syria.

Al-Douri was killed in an operation by Iraqi security forces and Shia militia members in the Hamrin Mountains between Tikrit and Kirkuk, Iraq, Shia militia commander Hadi al-Ameri said.

That militia is a predominantly Shiite fighting group that worked with Iraqi troops earlier this month to liberate the Iraqi city of Tikrit from ISIS.

The death of al-Douri was also reported by the governor of Salahuddin province, Raid al-Jubouri, who spoke by phone on Iraqi television.


Al-Douri's body arrived Friday in Baghdad, where DNA samples were taken to confirm the identity, said the spokesman of another Shiite militia called Hashd Shaabi in an interview with state-run Iraqiya TV.

DNA test results could be available in 48 hours, Hashd Shaabi spokesman Yousuf al-Kilabi told the outlet.

Iraqi State TV: Terrorist leader killed " class="media__image" src="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/120408015023-iraq-al-douri-large-169.jpg"&gt

Not much of a caliphate your ISIS terrorist thugs put on the map.

 

[eagle1462010]

eagl 11153315

Right now they are still funding the Taliban while we are still in combat against them.......#3604.........

eagl 11215012

(U) Conclusion (U) Iran provides arms and funding to Afghan insurgents as it continues to do so in Iraq #3668

Your link is six years old and is quite weak in blaming the Iranian
theocracy for attacks on Americans:

https://info.publicintelligence.net/JIEDDO-IranWeaponsSmuggling.pdf

The U.S. and members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have shown similar reserve when leveling accusations against Iran: demonstrating a severe frustration with Iran’s actions, while implicitly acknowledging Iran’s overall restraint in supporting Afghan insurgents. Anyone familiar with the centers of power within the Iranian government is not surprised by a comment made by the British Ambassador to Kabul in September 2008, when the ambassador noted: "I suspect some of [the Iranian state] agencies genuinely don't know what others are up to. We've seen a limited supply of weapons by a group within the Iranian state, not necessarily with the knowledge of all other agencies of the Iranian state, sending some very dangerous weapons to the Taliban in the south."2 (U) Iran has no interest in creating greater strategic difficulties for U.S. Forces in Afghanistan at this time. The Iranian regime has demonstrated its ability to underwrite militants with a broad array of weapons short of fielding a conventional army. Likewise, Iran has consciously pursued a tract of low-level conflict and minor instability to remind Americans of the potential for true negative Iranian influences in the region if Iran feels existentially threatened.

You cited this: "The United States has been careful to avoid leveling direct accusations against Iran for providing insurgents with weapons and training in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Official U.S. comments concerning the discovery of Iranian-made weapons in Afghanistan are careful to suggest that the Iranian government may not be the direct supplier."


If any of this was going on it was during the Bush Administrations. Why didn't he stop it?

And Bush couldn't get Saddam's second in command al Douri. Its looking like Obama policy got him yesterday, pending DNA reports.

Bghdad, Iraq (CNN)Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, a former top deputy to Saddam Hussein and more recently a key figure in Sunni extremist groups battling the Iraqi government, has been killed in a security operation in that country, Iraqi state-run television reported Friday.

Al-Douri was the highest-ranking member of Hussein's regime to evade capture -- the "King of Clubs" in a deck of playing cards used by American troops to identify the most-wanted regime officials.

He also was a man thought to have led the post-Hussein Sunni extremist group Naqshbandi Army. Military analysis website Globalsecurity.org says the Naqshbandi Army supports ISIS, which has taken over parts of Iraq and Syria.

Al-Douri was killed in an operation by Iraqi security forces and Shia militia members in the Hamrin Mountains between Tikrit and Kirkuk, Iraq, Shia militia commander Hadi al-Ameri said.

That militia is a predominantly Shiite fighting group that worked with Iraqi troops earlier this month to liberate the Iraqi city of Tikrit from ISIS.

The death of al-Douri was also reported by the governor of Salahuddin province, Raid al-Jubouri, who spoke by phone on Iraqi television.


Al-Douri's body arrived Friday in Baghdad, where DNA samples were taken to confirm the identity, said the spokesman of another Shiite militia called Hashd Shaabi in an interview with state-run Iraqiya TV.

DNA test results could be available in 48 hours, Hashd Shaabi spokesman Yousuf al-Kilabi told the outlet.

Iraqi State TV: Terrorist leader killed " class="media__image" src="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/120408015023-iraq-al-douri-large-169.jpg"&gt

Not much of a caliphate your ISIS terrorist thugs put on the map.

My first response to you is why can't you fathom the Iranian Government playing both sides of the equation? While they don't want the Taliban to control Afghanistan they support them to kill U.S. soldiers and be a royal pain in the ass to U.S. and Coalition Forces in the region.

Secondly, these weapons are produced in Iran and/or from foreign suppliers such as N. Korea, Russia, and etc............To say that the Iranian Government doesn't really know or support these weapons going to the Taliban is Political Two Step BS..............Deny, Deny, Deny but they are doing it anyway............This is the norm over there and even on our side of the equation.

3rd..........you continually challenge ANY DATA that would condemn Iran for their actions.............and I believe that is Politically motivated as you defend Obama's actions and attempt to condemn the EVIL REPUBLICANS, LOL, instead of addressing the facts of the Leadership and goals of Iran.

6 years old...............Unclassified report and I went to DOD sites and Centcom..........showing how Iran is funding and supporting our enemies in that region...........BUT BUSH..............again deflection to defend Obama as the Iranians are still doing this..................I'm not going to go through all of Centcom's reports to get the newer reports to satisfy your BIASED POSITION. Which you will IGNORE ANYWAY.

Under Bush and Obama we have used Drone Attacks in Iran and Pakistan to try and stem the tide of weapons smuggling from the neighboring countries............and insurgents coming in as well. We lost a scout drone in Iran that they now claim to have copy catted and are and gave the drone to Russia for further examination.

Iran has a history of LYING. Their AMBITION IS TO GET A NUKE. They have stated this TIME and TIME again...........Even now under the so called deal they are basically already saying they will never honor it, and STILL PEOPLE LIKE you are pushing for a deal that will DO NOTHING in the END...............

ALL POLITICALLY MOTIVATED...........that will have the same result as CLINTON'S DEAL WITH N. KOREA.

 

[eagle1462010]

So the Shiites in Iran are funding the Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan....??????

I find that very hard to believe there is an ounce of truth in that....

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I'm not saying they want Sunni's to win in Afghanistan...........They support the Taliban to be a thorn in our side.............only enough to keep the region unstable so our influence there is marginalized..............

They openly support Hamas which is Sunni. Because they attack Israel and are a thorn in their side............

So, I don't find it hard to believe they are playing both sides of the equation.

 

[eagle1462010]

Taliban opens office in Iran - Telegraph

Pentagon Iran Giving Lethal Aid to the Taliban to Fight U.S. Washington Free Beacon

Iran’s elite military force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has been supplying various arms to the Taliban as part of Tehran’s mission of eradicating Western forces and preventing the United States from safely establishing permanent bases in Afghanistan, according to the Pentagon’s 2014 “Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan” report, which was published in October.

The arms are being provided by Iran as a supplement to a $1 billion aid program aimed at keeping the Afghan government firmly in Tehran’s corner, according to the report.

Details of Iran’s clandestine support for the Taliban come as the Obama administration quietly continues its efforts to enlist Iran in the fight against the Islamic State (IS).

President Barack Obama secretly wrote to the Iranian Supreme Leader in mid-October to express his willingness to partner with Tehran in the fight against IS (also known as ISIS or ISIL), the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

Iran’s support of terrorism in neighboring Afghanistan highlights the difficulty of attempting to form a military alliance with a rogue country that continues to explicitly fight against U.S. interests.

“The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force provides calibrated lethal aid to the Taliban to attrite ISAF [the International Security Assistance Force] and expedite force withdrawal,” the Pentagon wrote in its latest report.

 

[eagle1462010]

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/afghanistan-security-stability_201410.pdf

5.6: IRAN Iran’s goals in Afghanistan remain focused on maintaining friendly relations with the Afghan central government, preventing a Taliban return to power, and minimizing western presence and influence. Tehran’s strategy includes employing a soft-power campaign to promote a proIranian and pro-Shia sentiment within Afghanistan through a $1 billion donor aid program to upgrade infrastructure, provide humanitarian, cultural/religious support, and economic assistance. Concurrently, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – Qods Force provides calibrated lethal aid to the Taliban to attrite ISAF and expedite force withdrawal. Tehran opposes the establishment of permanent U.S. bases in Afghanistan. However, Iran fears that a precipitous departure of NATO forces will increase instability on its border and perhaps lead to the return of the Taliban. At a minimum, Iran seeks to ensure its security concerns are addressed by maintaining pressure on GIRoA officials and seeking its own security agreement with Kabul. Since 2001, Iran pledged more than $1 billion in aid to Afghanistan and actually paid out more than $500 million. Iran’s reconstruction and development efforts are largely concentrated in western Afghanistan. Iran intends to increase its influence among the local population in order to foster pro-Iranian sentiment. Iran also wants to expand its sphere of influence beyond border 99 regions into other parts of Afghanistan, particularly Kabul. Iran maintains its embassy in Kabul and consulates in Herat, Jalalabad, Kandahar, and Mazar-e-Sharif, and is considering opening additional consulates in Bamiyan and Nimroz Provinces. Iran participates in the regional Istanbul Process. At the same time, Iran continued to provide lethal assistance, including light weapons and training, to elements of the Taliban and other insurgent groups. Since 2007, coalition and Afghan forces interdicted several shipments of Iranian weapons. Beyond economic and security issues, the protracted Afghan refugee situation continues to be a contentious issue between Iran and Afghanistan. Approximately one million registered Afghan refugees and at least 1.4 million Afghan migrants (non-refugees) currently reside in Iran. During this reporting period, Iran did not forcibly expel or return registered refugees. Iran continued to deport undocumented Afghans (non-refugees), although at a slightly reduced pace compared to previous years

 

[NotfooledbyW]

eagl 11216400

My first response to you is why can't you fathom the Iranian Government playing both sides of the equation?

Your first response is a fraud in question form. I 'fathom' what has been described by our government and NATO and posted by you. Where have I denied the veracity of those official governmental reports?

I cited many parts of those reports and I do understand that both eastern Iran and western Pakistan share a border with Afghanistan. And in those two areas across Afghanistan's borders lie some of the worst lawless and ungovernable areas of the world. Lots of bad characters conduct lethal business from those areas.

My problem with your first response is that you don't acknowledge the entire context of the report. So I tried to help you out.

eagl 11153315

Right now they are still funding the Taliban while we are still in combat against them.......#3604.........

.

eagl 1462010

(U) Conclusion: Iran provides arms and funding to Afghan insurgents as it continues to do so in Iraq #3668

.

NF 11216013.

.

Your link is six years old and is quite weak in blaming the Iranian
theocracy for attacks on Americans:

https://info.publicintelligence.net/JIEDDO-IranWeaponsSmuggling.pdf

The U.S. and members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have shown similar reserve when leveling accusations against Iran: demonstrating a severe frustration with Iran’s actions, while implicitly acknowledging Iran’s overall restraint in supporting Afghan insurgents. Anyone familiar with the centers of power within the Iranian government is not surprised by a comment made by the British Ambassador to Kabul in September 2008, when the ambassador noted: "I suspect some of [the Iranian state] agencies genuinely don't know what others are up to. We've seen a limited supply of weapons by a group within the Iranian state, not necessarily with the knowledge of all other agencies of the Iranian state, sending some very dangerous weapons to the Taliban in the south."2 (U) Iran has no interest in creating greater strategic difficulties for U.S. Forces in Afghanistan at this time. The Iranian regime has demonstrated its ability to underwrite militants with a broad array of weapons short of fielding a conventional army. Likewise, Iran has consciously pursued a tract of low-level conflict and minor instability to remind Americans of the potential for true negative Iranian influences in the region if Iran feels existentially threatened.

You cited this: "The United States has been careful to avoid leveling direct accusations against Iran for providing insurgents with weapons and training in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Official U.S. comments concerning the discovery of Iranian-made weapons in Afghanistan are careful to suggest that the Iranian government may not be the direct supplier."

.

Perhaps you will read it this time we can only hope.

 

[eagle1462010]

eagl 11216400

My first response to you is why can't you fathom the Iranian Government playing both sides of the equation?

Your first response is a fraud in question form. I 'fathom' what has been described by our government and NATO and posted by you. Where have I denied the veracity of those official governmental reports?

I cited many parts of those reports and I do understand that both eastern Iran and western Pakistan share a border with Afghanistan. And in those two areas across Afghanistan's borders lie some of the worst lawless and ungovernable areas of the world. Lots of bad characters conduct lethal business from those areas.

My problem with your first response is that you don't acknowledge the entire context of the report. So I tried to help you out.

eagl 11153315

Right now they are still funding the Taliban while we are still in combat against them.......#3604.........

.

eagl 1462010

(U) Conclusion: Iran provides arms and funding to Afghan insurgents as it continues to do so in Iraq #3668

.

NF 11216013.

.

Your link is six years old and is quite weak in blaming the Iranian
theocracy for attacks on Americans:

https://info.publicintelligence.net/JIEDDO-IranWeaponsSmuggling.pdf

The U.S. and members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have shown similar reserve when leveling accusations against Iran: demonstrating a severe frustration with Iran’s actions, while implicitly acknowledging Iran’s overall restraint in supporting Afghan insurgents. Anyone familiar with the centers of power within the Iranian government is not surprised by a comment made by the British Ambassador to Kabul in September 2008, when the ambassador noted: "I suspect some of [the Iranian state] agencies genuinely don't know what others are up to. We've seen a limited supply of weapons by a group within the Iranian state, not necessarily with the knowledge of all other agencies of the Iranian state, sending some very dangerous weapons to the Taliban in the south."2 (U) Iran has no interest in creating greater strategic difficulties for U.S. Forces in Afghanistan at this time. The Iranian regime has demonstrated its ability to underwrite militants with a broad array of weapons short of fielding a conventional army. Likewise, Iran has consciously pursued a tract of low-level conflict and minor instability to remind Americans of the potential for true negative Iranian influences in the region if Iran feels existentially threatened.

You cited this: "The United States has been careful to avoid leveling direct accusations against Iran for providing insurgents with weapons and training in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Official U.S. comments concerning the discovery of Iranian-made weapons in Afghanistan are careful to suggest that the Iranian government may not be the direct supplier."

.

Perhaps you will read it this time we can only hope.

I have read the area in blue.................That is the Political BS I am referring to. That is the Politicians trying to be Politically correct. Even our Military Brass are careful not to be too harsh on Iran. But the Pentagon reports and Centcom reports tell a different story....................Iran has openly supplied our enemies according to these reports............yet we are currently in a so called Nuclear Deal with Iran.................being too harsh may make the deal Obama has sold his soul to fail....................which it is already doing.

Again, perhaps you will read these reports and HOPE you finally recognize Iran as our enemy. And perhaps HOPE you finally recognize that this so called deal with Iran is Only a PIPE DREAM.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

eagl 11216425

Details of Iran’s clandestine support for the Taliban come as the Obama administration quietly continues its efforts to enlist Iran in the fight against the Islamic State (IS). #3673

My problem is that you do not hold Bush accountable at all for 'enlisting' Iran and the Quds Force's trained militia, the Badr Brigades under the political wing of Sayyed Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq,

By 2006 Bush certainly had to know according to reports you are citing that Iran's top leaders were allegedly behind weapons being used to kill US and Coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet he holds hands with Tehran's top leader sent into Iraq in 2003 to work with the US government.

Please note that there were 150,000 US troops in Iraq and 20,000 US troops in Afghanistan when Bush was holding hands with Al-Hakim. There are now zero US combat troops in Iraq right now being threatened. And in Afghanistan our troops are no longer in combat in the lead of the fight with the Taliban. So Iran, if they so wished, have fewer and harder to hit US targets in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Yet you make a big deal of what's past and was potentially a big threat to our troops' safety back in 2006 while the Bush / Hakim love fest in the White House was going on. Your hypocrisy in bringing up Iran's past double dealing is to be expected. You don't appear to view the course of history and historical fact and relevance though any kind of rational or logical lens. You have a good set of blinders strapped to your head. You see only what the conservative political entertainment industry puts straight ahead and only in front of you. You need to look around a bit.


NF 10938780

Do you actually think there is a way to bring the Shiite government of Iraq to join the US military in driving Iranians out of Iraq?

December 2006

President George W. Bush welcomes Sayyed Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, to the White House Monday, Dec. 4, 2006. Said the President, "I appreciate so very much His Eminence's commitment to a unity government. I assured him the United States supports his work and the work of the Prime Minister to unify the country." White House photo by Eric Draper

President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq

That is who brought Iran trained Badr a Militia into Iraq. #45

Bush was watching the Badr militia committing genocide against Sunnis in the Baghdad area while this photo was being shot. Apparently that saved US troops lives by not having to do it directly. Some deal eh?

The Badr Militia was involved in the recent liberation of Tikrit Some of them may have been killed. Would you prefer it were Americans getting killed in that battle instead?

 

[eagle1462010]

eagl 11216425

Details of Iran’s clandestine support for the Taliban come as the Obama administration quietly continues its efforts to enlist Iran in the fight against the Islamic State (IS). #3673

My problem is that you do not hold Bush accountable at all for 'enlisting' Iran and the Quds Force's trained militia, the Badr Brigades under the political wing of Sayyed Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq,

By 2006 Bush certainly had to know according to reports you are citing that Iran's top leaders were allegedly behind weapons being used to kill US and Coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet he holds hands with Tehran's top leader sent into Iraq in 2003 to work with the US government.

Please note that there were 150,000 US troops in Iraq and 20,000 US troops in Afghanistan when Bush was holding hands with Al-Hakim. There are now zero US combat troops in Iraq right now being threatened. And in Afghanistan our troops are no longer in combat in the lead of the fight with the Taliban. So Iran, if they so wished, have fewer and harder to hit US targets in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Yet you make a big deal of what's past and was potentially a big threat to our troops' safety back in 2006 while the Bush / Hakim love fest in the White House was going on. Your hypocrisy in bringing up Iran's past double dealing is to be expected. You don't appear to view the course of history and historical fact and relevance though any kind of rational or logical lens. You have a good set of blinders strapped to your head. You see only what the conservative political entertainment industry puts straight ahead and only in front of you. You need to look around a bit.


NF 10938780

Do you actually think there is a way to bring the Shiite government of Iraq to join the US military in driving Iranians out of Iraq?

December 2006

President George W. Bush welcomes Sayyed Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, to the White House Monday, Dec. 4, 2006. Said the President, "I appreciate so very much His Eminence's commitment to a unity government. I assured him the United States supports his work and the work of the Prime Minister to unify the country." White House photo by Eric Draper

President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq

That is who brought Iran trained Badr a Militia into Iraq. #45

Bush was watching the Badr militia committing genocide against Sunnis in the Baghdad area while this photo was being shot. Apparently that saved US troops lives by not having to do it directly. Some deal eh?

The Badr Militia was involved in the recent liberation of Tikrit Some of them may have been killed. Would you prefer it were Americans getting killed in that battle instead?

Abdul Aziz al-Hakim - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Hakim was an Iraqi forced to flee to Iran. He returned to help govern Iraq and was friendly to the U.S. in the open..................

Iraq is overwelmingly Shiite..........Always has been..............After the War the Majority ruled.

Your position is BUT BUSH............When Bush left office Iraq was intact..............wasn't it.

What happened in Iraq is fools like you voted a chump into office. Iraq's take over happened on Obama's watch and he allowed ISIL to take over Northern Iraq doing nothing to stop it until it was too danged late. Places that Americans shed blood to take.

The problem with Iraq.................IS OBAMA

 

[eagle1462010]

Second part of your statement..........actually the first part...................Shiites were fighting Sunni's and vis a versa...........Shiites from Iran were in the fight with a Shiite in Power in Iraq.................

Should the Iraqi's have voted in a Buddist Monk? Your deflection is noted.

It doesn't deflect that Iraq was intact when Obama came into office.

One note...............Bush knew that Iran was supplying weapons to KILL AMERICANS............so yes he should have done something about Iran before he left office..................and that is to Blow the Hell out of the Iranian Nuclear sites...............and ended this danged discussion before the Chump Obama took control.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

So you have conceded that you were wrong to have asked me this question?

eagl 11216400,

My first response to you is why can't you fathom the Iranian Government playing both sides of the equation? #3671

I see now you wish to shift the discussion back to blaming Obama solely for the Sunni Daesh terrorist scum taking over much of Sunni inhabited Iraq by adhering to Bush's withdrawal plan of 2008. But before we go there your argument on Iran has fallen apart because I do not accept your characterization of what I 'fathom' or don't fathom'.

NF 11217027

Your first response is a fraud in question form. I 'fathom' {the} veracity of those official governmental reports? I cited many parts of those reports and I do understand that both eastern Iran and western Pakistan share a border with Afghanistan. And in those two areas across Afghanistan's borders lie some of the worst lawless and ungovernable areas of the world. Lots of bad characters conduct lethal business from those areas. My problem with your first response is that you don't acknowledge the entire context of the report. So I tried to help you out. . #3675

Do you concede that your 'first response' in #3671 was invalid and wholly distorting my position on that topic? How do we have an intelligent discussion when you distort my position on such matters?

Wanting to jump over to blaming Obama for Daesh when you've been caught making something up regarding this thread is just not going to cut it.