U.S. ties Iranian leader to bombs killing U.S. troops

I am upset when anybody's weapons kill American soldiers. That doesn't mean it is an act of war.

And if it is an act of war, in this case it is a retaliatory act by Iran. Our weapons were killing Iranians first. It doesn't matter that I am rooting for the Americans. It doesn't change what the facts are.

There is no such thing as its only a crime or an act of war when person x does it. If person y does it then it is perfectly alright and should be ignored, and not considered a crime or an act of aggression.

Your stance on the issue holds no logic. I understand being upset that people killing American troops are being supplied. I am upset by that as well. But it doesn't change the facts or order of events.

 

LOL!!!

The plagiarist is questioning my morals.

 

But to answer your question.

This president deserves no benefit of the doubt when it comes to providing evidence that another government is involved with attacking US troops. He used a criminally false pretence to get us into Iraq and now he is trying to deflect the mess he's has created by fobbing off another lie about Iran.

Once I see definable proof that the government of Iran is directly responsible for supplying weapons to insurgents’, then we might be able to have some kind of discussion about how to handle it.

 

The Boy Who Cried Wolf keeps coming to mind with this administration.

Maybe if they hadn't lied so much about Iraq people would be quicker to believe them about Iran. Maybe Iran really is the driving force behind Shiia insurgents. This administration will have a hard time making the case though, because their credibility is totally shot.

That is one of the risks of dishonesty.

 

The problem is they don't really have to make the case if they really want to bomb Iran.

 

If I have a really good friend who while camping sees a cougar and decides to go and poke the cougar with a stick. The cougar takes a big swipe at him. Do I declare war on cougars and condemn them as evil?

The problem that I see with the rush to war with Iran is a failure to consider both their POV and also what brought us to the position where we feel war is inevitable. As a society we like to preach responsibility and that we need to be accountable for our actions the problem that the idea that the US is always right means that we often fail to take responsibility on a national level and our policy becomes self-righteous where everything is another country's fault.

Don't get me wrong I love this country and still would place this country above other countries. At the sametime though I'm not going to so blind myself with patriotism to the point that I don't recognize that our leaders and government isn't infalliable and that there are legitimate concerns of other countries regarding us.

The current Iranian regime is an oppressive backward @ss theocracy with a loony President. That doesn't mean that they don't have legitimate concerns regarding their survival when a country that has explicitly advocated overthrowing them, and has done a terrible job with regime change so far, is on their doorstep.

 

basso, it it right or wrong to supply weapons and munitions that kill soldiers of a nation?

It is a simple question and I ask even though it is doubtful you will answer it.

 

That wasn't the question I asked, though it is kind of an answer.

So you have two(or more) different ideas of what right and wrong are. One idea of right and wrong for America, and a different set of rules for right and wrong for others.

Thanks for making that clear.

 

How aggressive you defend yourself. Shoot first ask questions later, huh Bosso?

And just in case you REALLY want to know what I meant...I am talking about how when he DOES go back to visit, people don't have the same image of America compared to when he was growing up. Image does matter. Why have all the hate because of the stupid misguided policies of this country?

We don't need to bomb countries to show how tough we are as a nation. Bombs or not. Iraq War or not. We are still THE strongest power in the world. I would love for someone to justify to me that Iran is a threat when the mere breath of them using that CRAPPY, UNPRECISE weapon they can develop in the next decade would totally piss off a country that has some 3500 nuclear missiles, unmeasureable total military might and knowing that pissing us off will put that country back into caveman days within 45 minutes!!!! Not to mention allies like Britain who would get to them faster than we can!

By the way, W does suck. My worst mistake in the last 10 years was voting for this guy. But... I am sure you can defend that point with the same aggressiveness and stand right along the other 20 percent who agree with you in the country.

 

By the way, notice how Bosso agrees with every article that carries HIS and the administrations point of view?

Coincidence, I am sure.

But lets bring some sanity and look at these quotes. Close your eyes, B:

Yet a NEWSWEEK investigation has also found periods of marked cooperation and even tentative steps toward possible reconciliation in recent years—far more than is commonly realized. After September 11 in particular, relations grew warmer than at any time since the fall of the shah. America wanted Iran's help in Afghanistan, and Iran gave it, partly out of fear of an angry superpower and partly in order to be rid of its troublesome Taliban neighbors.

How about this:

The secret history of the Bush administration's dealings with Iran is one of arrogance, mistrust and failure. But it is also a history that offers some hope.

Keep reading:

For Iran's reformists, 9/11 was a blessing in disguise. Previous attempts to reach out to America had been stymied by conservative mullahs. But the fear that an enraged superpower would blindly lash out focused minds in Tehran. Mohammad Hossein Adeli was one of only two deputies on duty at the Foreign Ministry when the attacks took place, late on a sweltering summer afternoon. He immediately began contacting top officials, insisting that Iran respond quickly. "We wanted to truly condemn the attacks but we also wished to offer an olive branch to the United States, showing we were interested in peace," says Adeli. To his relief, Iran's top official, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, quickly agreed. "The Supreme Leader was deeply suspicious of the American government," says a Khameini aide whose position does not allow him to be named. "But [he] was repulsed by these terrorist acts and was truly sad about the loss of the civilian lives in America." For two weeks worshipers at Friday prayers even stopped chanting "Death to America."

I am sure we still have this goodwill.

How about this:

The fear dissipated after Sept. 20, when the FBI announced that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks. But there was new reason for cooperation: for years Tehran had been backing the Afghan guerrillas fighting the Taliban, Osama bin Laden's hosts. Suddenly, having U.S. troops next door in Afghanistan didn't seem like a bad idea. American and Iranian officials met repeatedly in Geneva in the days before the Oct. 7 U.S. invasion. The Iranians were more than supportive. "In fact, they were impatient," says a U.S. official involved in the talks, who asked not to be named speaking about topics that remain sensitive. "They'd ask, 'When's the military action going to start? Let's get going!' " Opinions differ wildly over how much help the Iranians actually were on the ground. But what is beyond doubt is how critical they were to stabilizing the country after the fall of Kabul.

Again, looks like things could of gotten done after 9/11. But who cares. Keep your eyes closed, B:

A month later Tehran backed up the political support with financial muscle: at a donor's conference in Tokyo, Iran pledged $500 million (at the time, more than double the Americans') to help rebuild Afghanistan.

What does Bushy do after all this:

In a pattern that would become familiar, however, a chill quickly followed the warming in relations. Barely a week after the Tokyo meeting, Iran was included with Iraq and North Korea in the "Axis of Evil." Michael Gerson, now a NEWSWEEK contributor, headed the White House speechwriting shop at the time. He says Iran and North Korea were inserted into Bush's controversial State of the Union address in order to avoid focusing solely on Iraq. At the time, Bush was already making plans to topple Saddam Hussein, but he wasn't ready to say so. Gerson says it was Condoleezza Rice, then national-security adviser, who told him which two countries to include along with Iraq. But the phrase also appealed to a president who felt himself thrust into a grand struggle. Senior aides say it reminded him of Ronald Reagan's ringing denunciations of the "evil empire."

One more:

It would be another war that nudged the two countries together again. At the beginning of 2003, as the Pentagon readied for battle against Iraq, the Americans wanted Tehran's help in case a flood of refugees headed for the border, or if U.S. pilots were downed inside Iran. After U.S. tanks thundered into Baghdad, those worries eased. "We had the strong hand at that point," recalls Colin Powell, who was secretary of State at the time. If anything, though, America's lightning campaign made the Iranians even more eager to deal.

Bushy...such a joke. Diploamcy is so overrated like the diplomacy that got the North Koreans to at the very least, BLINK!

But who cares. This is just the left wing media at it again.The Rove fans will spin this and say "This ****ing Dominican is off his rocker and supporting IRAN!!!????"

I am presently looking for some Rush Limbaugh quotes to balance...

 

Was there some kind of secret email this morning basso?

via tpm --

So this whole fiasco in Iraq was really just the first front in the war on Iran? It's all becoming clear now...

 

Pace once again shoots down basso's wet dream.


U.S. general: No evidence Iran is arming Iraqis

Pace contradicts claims by other U.S. military, administration officials

JAKARTA, Indonesia - A top U.S. general said Tuesday there was no evidence the Iranian government was supplying Iraqi insurgents with highly lethal roadside bombs, apparently contradicting claims by other U.S. military and administration officials.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. forces hunting down militant networks that produced roadside bombs had arrested Iranians and that some of the material used in the devices were made in Iran.

“That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this,” Pace told reporters in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta. “What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17129144/

 

more from josh --

In most of the press reports I've seen on the administration's no-names-allowed press briefing on Iranian arms transfers to Iraq, reporters have noted skepticism about the administration's credibility. But I've seen few press reports which specifically note what seems to be the biggest hole in the administration's argument -- namely, that Iran supports the Shi'a militias but most of our troops are being killed by Sunni insurgents. As Juan Cole notes, the numbers simply don't add up. That doesn't mean that Iranian made weapons aren't killing American troops. What it suggests is that they're getting into insurgent hands through black market channels rather than through the Iranian government itself. (Consider: How many weapons in Iraqi insurgent and militia hands do you think were made in the USA?)

Perhaps there's some reason why this seeming gap in the administration argument isn't really a gap at all. But it at least seems worth a lot more explanation. And I'm not seeing it.


-- Josh Marshall

 

basso, I am not defending Iranian actions, though we don't even know exactly what they are. I am saying that if they are supplying groups with weapons that kill American soldiers they aren't doing anything different than what the U.S. is doing, since the U.S. is supplying funding, and giving safe haven to groups doing that to Iran.

I don't have a problem with bringing anything that Iran is doing to harm our troops into the spotlight.

But to pretend like it happens in a vaccum, and that it is only an act of war when one side does it, is disingenuous.

To pretend like we don't have to or shouldn't abide by the same rules as other nations is arrogant, and a horrible way to conduct foreign policy.