Iranian Forces Crossed Iraqi Border

[red states rule]

I thought libs said Iran was not a problem.........


Iranian forces crossed Iraqi border: report

Jun 25 07:23 PM US/Eastern


Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces have been spotted by British troops crossing the border into southern Iraq, The Sun tabloid reported on Tuesday.
Britain's defence ministry would not confirm or deny the report, with a spokesman declining to comment on "intelligence matters".

An unidentified intelligence source told the tabloid: "It is an extremely alarming development and raises the stakes considerably. In effect, it means we are in a full on war with Iran -- but nobody has officially declared it."

"We have hard proof that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps have crossed the border to attack us. It is very hard for us to strike back. All we can do is try to defend ourselves. We are badly on the back foot."

The Sun said that radar sightings of Iranian helicopters crossing into the Iraqi desert were confirmed to it by very senior military sources.

In response to the report, a British defence ministry spokesman said: "There is evidence that explosive devices used against our troops in southern Iraq originated in Iran."

"Any Iranian link to armed militias in Iraq either through weapons supply, training or funding are unacceptable."

Britain has about 7,100 soldiers in Iraq, most of whom are based in the southern city of Basra and surrounding areas, though the government has pledged to reduce that to between 5,000 and 5,500 this year.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070625232254.etwt6z5u&show_article=1

 

[red states rule]

I know - libs will say its Bush's fault

 

[maineman]

I have never said that Iran would not be a problem.

When you re-empower the shi'ite majority in Iraq, it is inevitable that they will align themselves with their shiite brethren to the east.

We ought not to be surprised that Iran is now asserting greater influence on Iraq.

 

[mattskramer]

I know - libs will say its Bush's fault

First of all, the Iraq invasion and occupation was not necessary. Secondly, Bush clearly blundered. He probably did not plan ahead for the civil war and insurgency. When the war started he did not supply nearly enough men and weapons. It is a mess but we did enough. Bush’s old nemesis, Saddam, is dead. Iraq has a new government. (These two events took more death than was necessary.) Now it is time for us to pick up our stuff and reposition our troops elsewhere. To do so would not be to surrender to anything. It would be to end our participation in a mess that we never should have gotten involved in to begin with. We would simply leave the Iraqi’s to settle their own problems while we redirect our resources to intelligence and border security.

 

[90K]

I have never said that Iran would not be a problem.

When you re-empower the shi'ite majority in Iraq, it is inevitable that they will align themselves with their shiite brethren to the east.

We ought not to be surprised that Iran is now asserting greater influence on Iraq.

You are correct in that assumption Maine Man about the influence Iran would have with other Shia's in the region.

 

[uscitizen]

So what we crossed Iraq's border too.

 

[90K]

I believe intended point here is to point out the religious issue that will become more of a issue between Shias and Sunnis. If the US had never gone into Iraq and Saddam either died or was killed somehow this very situation would have happened due to religious tension in that part of the world.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

The question i have for you is. Will the persian shiites, align themselves with arab shiites?

Just a question?.

if a civil war breaks out, I mean worse then now, what should we do ?

I have never said that Iran would not be a problem.

When you re-empower the shi'ite majority in Iraq, it is inevitable that they will align themselves with their shiite brethren to the east.

We ought not to be surprised that Iran is now asserting greater influence on Iraq.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

maineman, are you aware, millions of cambodians were murdered after we left vietnam?. 3 million to be exact, but nobody brings that up.

any comment?

 

[red states rule]

maineman, are you aware, millions of cambodians were murdered after we left vietnam?. 3 million to be exact, but nobody brings that up.

any comment?

Do you think libs care about the people of Iraq? To libs they do not give a nshit how many people die if they get their surrender bill passes

All they care about is their political power

 

[maineman]

maineman, are you aware, millions of cambodians were murdered after we left vietnam?. 3 million to be exact, but nobody brings that up.

any comment?

my comment: Pol Pot's genocide inj the killing fields of Cambodia had little or nothing to do with America leaving Vietnam.


Are you aware that hundreds of thousands of americans died from smoking related illnesses after we left vietnam? any comment?

 

[red states rule]

my comment: Pol Pot's genocide inj the killing fields of Cambodia had little or nothing to do with America leaving Vietnam.


Are you aware that hundreds of thousands of americans died from smoking related illnesses after we left vietnam? any comment?

Yea right MM. Libs attempt to rewrite history to cover their mistakes

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Are you talking about smoking?, or the orange agent thing?. Im a big young so forgive my ignorance buddy.

my comment: Pol Pot's genocide inj the killing fields of Cambodia had little or nothing to do with America leaving Vietnam.


Are you aware that hundreds of thousands of americans died from smoking related illnesses after we left vietnam? any comment?

 

[red states rule]

Are you talking about smoking?, or the orange agent thing?. Im a big young so forgive my ignorance buddy.

No, it is MM's ignorance

 

[maineman]

Yea right MM. Libs attempt to rewrite history to cover their mistakes

no rewrite necessary. Pol Pot was an indigenous Cambodian phenomenon. His carnage was not multiplied by America's departure from the region, unless, of course, you are suggesting that we should have expanded our already disasterous involvement in the area to include all of Southeast Asia.

 

[red states rule]

no rewrite necessary. Pol Pot was an indigenous Cambodian phenomenon. His carnage was not multiplied by America's departure from the region, unless, of course, you are suggesting that we should have expanded our already disasterous involvement in the area to include all of Southeast Asia.

What disasterous involvement? The US military never lost a military battle in Viet Nam

 

[maineman]

What disasterous involvement? The US military never lost a military battle in Viet Nam

So ...you are suggesting that if we had expanded our efforts in Vietnam to include all of southeast asia, that we could have prevented Pol Pot's genocide?

 

[maineman]

What disasterous involvement? The US military never lost a military battle in Viet Nam

and when I look on that black wall and see the high school classmates of mine and the upperclassmen who had been my squad leaders and mentors among the 56K dead americans, I call our involvement in a civil war in THAT country disasterous.

 

[red states rule]

So ...you are suggesting that if we had expanded our efforts in Vietnam to include all of southeast asia, that we could have prevented Pol Pot's genocide?

Lets see, with all the US troops there...............

 

[maineman]

so...even though you were most likely not alive then, your neocon talking heads have convinced you that expanding the war in Vietnam to include Laos, Cambodia and Thailand was the correct use of a US military filled with draftees? have I got that right?