Posted on 12/27/2006 7:06:03 PM PST by jmc1969
I'm stunned this is in the NYT; it's probably the only newsworthy thing they've reported in a month of Sundays.
We have solid evidence since years,but if it needs a "smokin' gun" to get hard on Iran, so shall it be.
Punish them for their support of terror, end their reign of fear and stop their rush to nuclear weapons!
So...what are we gonna do except gripe about it? Our future government is worried about big oil and the enviroment.
Somehow this is Bush's fault.
Time to target Amaduncijabberwakki.
This guy has had a lot of contact with Pres Bush, PM Blair as well as being a high official in the current Iraqi government.
How does the Iranians being in his compound bode for him in the future?
BTTT
The spin is that the war in Iraq is "taking too long" but the war against Saddam is over. It was followed soon after by a separate war. Just as the Cold War followed on the heels of WWII and WWII sprang up as a result of WWI.
Iran was preparing for it the moment we started planning to remove Saddam from power. Iran has been involved for several years already in supplying, training, and organizing insurgents against us, as well as making many, many allied government plants - and we ain't talking about ferns.
Their meddling to kill our men is declaration of war, even in our times. What other excuse do we need to bomb their facilities into the dark ages?
Hakim has always been in bed with Iran even more then Sadr.
The reason the WH has been looking at helping to create a coalition government with his party in the lead is unlike Sadr he has not been believed to be behind attacks on US forces.
The reason these raids happened were likely to see if in fact his militia has been working with Iran to kill Americans. If this is the case then the US might as well support an Iraqi Army coup of the government to put the seculars in because it means both the biggest Shia parties the SCIRI and the Sadrists are working with Iran to not only kill Sunni civilians, but kill our troops.
That's interesting. I hadn't thought of a secular coup by the Army...he populace would probably never stand for it, especially after it would be denounced by sistani.
I wouldn't be surprised at all, if Hakim himself turned in those four Iranians. Everyone is doing everything to get more power... Hakim is usually the "Iranian guy", but he is now being courted by us, since he is the "non-violent" alternative to the "other Iranian guy" Sadr. The religious Shia need to have a part of the power-cake somehow, and it's better to have Hakim then Sadr.
To finish the confusion: I thought the Iranians were invited by the Iraqi President!?
bttt
If the past several years have shown anything it is that the power in Iraq is not in the hands of the people it is in the hands of those with the best weapons and those willing to use those weapons.
I'm sick to death of stories like this. "Having proof" means jack. We either do something about it or we don't. This isn't a debating society. If we're not gonna do a damn thing about it, it would be less damaging to our honor to just keep our mouths shut and pretend we don't know anything about Iran's involvement (like how Clinton approached terrorism in general, in the 1990s). These recurrent, impotent statements that we "have proof" of Iran's involvement (as if anyone sincerely has doubts) have only one effect: they make us a laughingstock.
"..Iranians and Iraqi militiamen.."
Are they the same as terrorists? If so, then say so.
Seems to me those Senators are a serious part of the problem in this case.
I was perplexed that it was reported the Iraqi govt invited the Iranians. Is that false, true?
We need some Ethiopians on our side. I wonder if they wouldl become a state and we could give, oh, Massachusetts to Africa or Russia.
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.