Posted on 08/10/2005 7:06:56 AM PDT by Wiz
WASHINGTON - US intelligence believes that a cache of manufactured bombs seized in Iraq about two weeks ago was smuggled into the country from Iran by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, an intelligence official said Tuesday.
"We believe they came from Iran's Revolutionary Guards," the official told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The find is significant not only because of the Iranian connection but also because it indicates manufactured bombs are now being introduced in a conflict that has seen the use of mainly improvised explosive devices.
(Excerpt) Read more at iranfocus.com ...
You are right too. The only holding the Iranian population back is their own army. We eliminate their army, what holds them back?
Wow. Just wow. We haven't even stabilized all of Afghanistan, and we aren't even close to stabilizing all of Iraq, and you're suggesting we are failing in that mission on purpose-- part of a clever ruse to trick Iran prior to our assault on them?
Iran, actually, is -more than- three times bigger than Iraq (1.636 million sq km of land vs. 432,162 sq km. Nearly 3 times more people, too. They have a ridiculous number of draft-eligible young men. And, the Iranians are far crazier than the Iraqis or the Taliban-- they, by the thousands, crossed Iraqi minefields in the Iran-Iraq War, so the mines would be "disabled" for attack by Iranian soldiers. Poison gas didn't even deter their desire to give their lives for Allah. We'll have suicide bombers in every town in America-- the Iranians have the terrorist connections to pull off all kinds of chaos against us.
Nothing will happen.
We're afraid of taking Iran on, apparently.
That some FR folks missed some days in school when World Geography was studied?
There wasn't much evidence that the Iraqis would pick up arms and fight the Ba'athists, and you've seen how that turned out. There's even less evidence that the Iranians will welcome an American military assault and pick up arms in war against the mullahs.
Keep trying. 68M in Iran, 26M in Iraq. Maybe you meant penis size or something.
Uhh....where do you get that?
It is larger both in land area and population.
We aren't fighting Iraqis much anymore. They do not make a majority of the insurgent forces. We are fighting the turds from next door (Iran, Syria)and from all around the Mid-east.
Iran is bigger in population and land area and they have more advanced weaponry and they are more homogeneous and they are more fundamentalist, and they are more experienced in guerrilla tactics and they have a perfect demographic size of young males suitable for defending the homeland, but check out the logistics-- those "logistics" really weigh heavily in the direction of us whipping these joker's asses.
If you can find 10,000 troops that aren't needed to keep parts of Iraq stable, they will end up in the Sunni Triangle, where order is nonexistant.
Iran knows that the greatest enemies of the US are here. It is well aware that unless that RAT's nest is cleaned out the ability of the US to act in a sustained way is very limited.
Until the traitors at home are dealt with our enemies are not afraid to interfere with our foreign policy aims.
When CBS/ABC/NBC/NYT/WP are smokings ruins then our foreign enemies will be in trouble.
because of the other war with the Global Leftists.....
See this:
***************************************
Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left (Hardcover)
**************************************
Davis Hanson, Author, Ripples of Battle
An original look at those who want us to fail in the Middle East, both at home and abroad.
Great points! Tear out their military infrastructure and that government falls like a house of cards. I think the administration is setting them up for this. The world needs a demonstration on what US firepower is all about. They have only seen a small demonstration so far. Massive air campaign with JDAMS will wreak havoc like you wouldn't believe.
"It is larger both in land area and population."
Maps tend to show the truth of the matter. What is not shown in the map is the large mountain range that is located along the western border region. And a lot of mountains within the country eastward. Many areas condusive for placing underground bunkers, defense grids (ga radar/SAM sites), etc.. Those taking the cakewalk approach either seem to think it is a hollywood picture. They don't seem to realize one would have to basically have a full air/ground war to remove Iran's military,industrial capabilities as has been mentioned by a few folks here. Cyclopdia-Squid for instance.
Those that think one can send in some Special Ops teams to take out the military and government, simply do not have any idea as to what they are talking about. Taking a armored Division into Iran as suggested by one person who made it sound like it is equivelant to the whole third Army which is obviously totally inaccurte, think folks, dozens of armored divisions where under the Patton's 3rd Army, along with some 200,000 infantry plus, depending one what months, and who was borrowing who's divisions, thinks one armored division could take out Iran is again hollywood. To travel those thousands of miles of roads through high mountain passes, etc., would be total hell on our guys.
Iraq was a cakewalk. BECAUASE it was in a flat alluvian plane. The road grid as is allowed our armor, infantry, and light armored recon units etc., to quickly, take out the remaining enemy forces our Air element did not already deal with. Think Afghanistan. Think very difficult air/ground operations to remove sometimes only a few individuals. Iran would be a very difficult country to disarm. Then you have the same deal as others have mentioned so ably, where you have to deal with the total population. Do folks here realize their are over a million Arabs in Persia, that constantly give the government trouble? Do you realize if we went into Iran, they would be fighting us much like the insurgency in Iraq. If perchance 50% of the Iranians that want freedom, just stayed in place, and did nothing you still have a few million Muslims that hate us, will fight to the end just like in Iraq. So perhaps, IMHO, we should realize GWB and the DoD have very good reasons not to "just go in to Iran". It would have to be a fully planned war. The logistics of course would be a bit easier since we are already in Iraq. But don't think it would be a cake walk.
Nuclear option. That is for those that have not a clue as how things work. They with surely most of our symphathies, have no option in their thinking. They think one can just drop perhaps a hundred thermal nuclear devices on key cities, and above ground military installations, defense grid structures, hundreds of key industrial sites that contain nuclear and weapon program materials and personel, etc., and not have world opinion against us.
It has always been a rather complicated world. Things are not as easy as one may believe. Now, should we go through the same basic scenario for Syria? Of course they would fold quite quickly, admitably for a number of good reasons, but still, think how many fresh troops would be required. Do we want really want to fight three seperate wars at the same time? For those of you that insists we can just grab some Battalions out of Iraq and march into Syria and Iran and defeat them.
OK.
PUT UP. Give us a good analysis, troop movements, who can be freed up and why. How many fresh divisions must be sent? Give us a good feel as to the balance of naval/airforce pre-emptive airstrikes, number of cruise missiles verse stealth aircraft requirements to go in to remove lots of stuff prior to any ground engagement. It is so easy to say well just send in a divison or worse some (what does some mean) special ops teams to take out a whole country.
Obviously Ernest my verbosity is not directed at you.
Opinions, we all got'em. Some of us are better at remembering Geography then others...but my point on logistics still stands IMHO.
With Irag...we were forced to make a feignt from the North (using Airborne Troops and Kurdish Pershmerga, which Saddam bought) and approach Bahgdad from the South with the 3rd ID in a two pronged assualt using combined forces from Marine and Army elements b/c Turkey denied the 4ID access to their ports, effectively eliminating another front in the War...but the US military talked up a compromise with Turkey to throw off Saddam for several weeks before the War (military deception)
However, with Iran...we have the ability, whether you wish to believ it or not, to make a multi-front incursion from Iran and from Irag...also using Air Assets out of the bases we have in the "Stahns"...
Sure Insurgents have the appearence of destablizing Iraq and Afgahnistan...simply because the major media loves showing car bombs...etc...and yes, IMHO, the determination of the enemy was partly misjudged...but the enemy always has a vote.
Remember, neither you nor I are sitting in Bush's morning security briefings nor are we a decision maker at CENTCOM in TAMPA or QATAR...so who knows? I only point to the Rhetoric coming from Washington, namely Rummy's briefing on C-Span, the posturing of US troops in the region, namely the increase in boots on the ground, and the current elected leader in IRAN (Who has been confirmed by both the DOD and DOS as a terrorist.)
Thanks.
Soon, it'll become this kind of problem for Iran:
F-15E Strike Eagle
Read recanting posts...hahahahahah, happens. Forgot the Irag was the smaller of the two in both land and pop, but neverthless strategically and logistically it's a better fight.
Sorry incursion into Iran from Ira"q" and Afganistahn...hahahaha must drink more coffee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.