Debate and Discussion

Iran on the world stage
Phantom Penguin at 3:56PM, Feb. 11, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
Its becomeing increasingly obvious that the Iranian government is giving weapons to insurgent groups to in Iraq. Iran hasn't made a comment about it yet, but do they really have to?

Iran seems to be the superpower in the Muslim world, doing what the US did during the Cold War. Not fighting their enemy directly, just supplying groups that are. Uniformed IRG soldiers were spotted amoung Hezzbollah fighters during the recent Israeli-Lebanon war. And Sunburn anti-ship missles were fired at Israeli naval ships.

When i was in Iraq we took tons of indirect fire from the Iranian border. But weren't allowed to fire back. These weren't Insurgent-sized morter attacks either, they were full scale artillery barrages that caused us to fall back from our tank fighting postions.

What could be done to stop this from happening without attacking them?
We are already in Iraq, and can't just pick up and run. If we attack them we will probably create a world war three.
The region is just getting hotter and hotter these days.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
ozoneocean at 4:33PM, Feb. 11, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,117
joined: 1-2-2004
I say leave them alone. They have ties to the Shiite community that the US has directly put in power, that's their link. Nothing to to with the “terrorists” and all that crap that keeps getting put on them, they've got as much against the pro Sadam, ALQaida and Sunni rebels as anyone else. When all's said and done Iran hates the US with good reason, but they value stability on their doorstep WAY more than any foreign forces, or even Quislings like the Saudis.

The trouble here is that the US is just plain hostile to Iran. Iran is probably the only country that could help properly stabilise Iraq if the US would let it, but that wouldn't be strategically advantageous to the US, so current situation is getting worse because of unrealistic strategic goals and bad planning. The current idea seems to be to blame Iran for all the instability which is as MORONIC an idea as the one about Iraq having WMD, but they think it'll give them a bit more justification in people's eyes if they take action against Iran, as well as help curry favour for said action from other Nato and UN allies.

It's Pathetic really… A transparent, sad, stupid situation. They've got more and more reason to want nuclear weapons in order to dissuade attackers: what the US is doing just makes it much less likely that the nuclear issue will be resolved peacefully. Realistically, Iran has more justification for a nuclear deterrent than any other country on the earth at present, seeing as they are probably the most directly threatened.
…people seem to forget that Israel has a population of a few million Palestinians and Israeli Arabs, this makes it VERY unlikely that any Arab (or Persian ;)) country would strike them with nuclear weapons.
-not to mention any of Islam's holiest sites.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
Phantom Penguin at 5:13PM, Feb. 11, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
I think its getting closer and closer to a “cold war” type situation. I don't think of Iran as the ‘bad guy’ that most everybody else does. I really don't think Iran could stop the violence in Iraq any better then we could. Simply because the factions are getting years of repressed violence out on each other. But it might help. Who knows. It won't happen because niether side will work together.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
Charlox at 8:52AM, Feb. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 9
joined: 1-8-2007
Phantom Penguin
Its becomeing increasingly obvious that the Iranian government is giving weapons to insurgent groups to in Iraq. Iran hasn't made a comment about it yet, but do they really have to?

That doesn't make sense because it isn't obvious. First off, the insurgency in question that are being supplied are supposedly sunni while the Iranian gov't is predominantly Shi'ite. To many of us we can't seem to grasp the difference between the two but in most cases they don't particularly get along very well. Also, weapons like IEDs can be easily made with readily available materials within Iraq and knowledge on how to make such weapons could be supplied from any number of sources.

“U.S. general: No evidence of Iran giving arms to Iraqis”


It's just the typical propaganda machine trying to further demonize Iran, like what they did with Iraq. We'll be seeing even more fabricated evidence and assumptions in the next few months. The current administration already has a history of fabricating evidence. With the failures in Iraq, it's highly unlikely and extremely stupid if this administration starts another war.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:40AM
Phantom Penguin at 8:59AM, Feb. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
Generally speaking, The generals have no idea whats really going on. The same week i was fighting the biggest urban battle the army as ever been involved in, the general was saying the city was under control.

Truck loads of morters and rifles don't just run away from the IRG with no one telling them to. I know the IEDs can be made out of anything that will blow. But 155mm rounds are used alot. The Iraqi army never used 155mm guns, but the Iranian IRG uses 155mm indirect fire weapons. something isn't adding up.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
Charlox at 9:36AM, Feb. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 9
joined: 1-8-2007
What I'm trying to say is that this isn't exactly the “smoking gun”. It also seems to me that it would be pretty stupid of the Iranian gov't to be doing this especially at a time when its under international scrutiny for its nuclear program. I can't say I'm well informed on the issue but does the possibility exist that the insurgency might be getting these weapons from other sources?
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:40AM
Phantom Penguin at 1:56PM, Feb. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
Not really. Iran is one of two countrys in the middle east that field that size gun, the other being Afgahnistan. But they are Iranian made rounds, from this year.

Iran really doesn't care (obviously with its comments of the holocaust and vocal support of the Insurgents) what people think when it comes to the US. They know the UN is nothing to fear and we won't attack them.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
ozoneocean at 2:28PM, Feb. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,117
joined: 1-2-2004
What about this:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0214/p99s01-duts.html
Sunni militants have claimed responsibility for terrorist attacks inside Iran.
Yeah, it does happen… ;)
The trouble stirred up In Iraq would definitely contribute to the problems and instability within countries like Iran. And looking at how these insurgent groups and real terrorist groups (ie. NOT people who're just rebels) operate in that region I'd say that they do so without government support from anyone. From what we've seen they can rely on extensive networks, getting money and therefore weapons through religious and political charities as well as corrupt minor officials in governments and militarys. Looking at the fact that the US officials in Iraq just seemed to have “lost” several BILLION dollars of Iraqi money (from oil revenues), it seems that a fair whack of it very probably went to insurgent groups, and ended up paying for a lot of the weapons they're using… The money that didn't go right into the pockets of corrupt “defence contractors” that is.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
Phantom Penguin at 4:03PM, Feb. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
I'm not saying they are simply GIVING the weapons away. With the amount of cash those groups have i'm sure they are buying it.

I heard about the attack on the RG soldiers. I think it odd that it happens after they have been accused of supporting the insurgents. odd no?
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
ozoneocean at 4:14PM, Feb. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,117
joined: 1-2-2004
Phantom Penguin
I heard about the attack on the RG soldiers. I think it odd that it happens after they have been accused of supporting the insurgents. odd no?
Not really, they have attacks in those countries all the time: Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Algeria, Libya, Lebanon, Egypt etc. The attacks aren't coincidental, more like the fact that news services chose to report it at that time…

They'd generally rather exclusively report on attacks by Muslim extremist groups on Western targets; either countries like Israel or Western targets within those countries. It gives us a very distorted picture of the world, as if Muslim extremists ONLY hate the West and not the truth that they generally have problems with the governments within their own countries and attacks against Western targets aren't really their objectives at all (usually), except for Al Quaida which is just plain insane… (as far as I know)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
Phantom Penguin at 6:35PM, Feb. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
I know most groups have a deep hatred for the saudi government. If i remember right Al-quida wanted to overthrow the saudis before 9/11
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
Charlox at 7:17PM, Feb. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 9
joined: 1-8-2007
Phantom Penguin
I know most groups have a deep hatred for the saudi government. If i remember right Al-quida wanted to overthrow the saudis before 9/11

They weren't very fond of saddam's gov't either…and not many approve of the current gov't since they see it as a puppet gov't.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:40AM
Phantom Penguin at 3:02PM, Feb. 15, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
Charlox
Phantom Penguin
I know most groups have a deep hatred for the saudi government. If i remember right Al-quida wanted to overthrow the saudis before 9/11

They weren't very fond of saddam's gov't either…and not many approve of the current gov't since they see it as a puppet gov't.

Some people think the US is a puppet government to the Jews.
It doesn't mean their right.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
ozoneocean at 3:18PM, Feb. 15, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,117
joined: 1-2-2004
Israel doesn't have an occupation force in the US though does it?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
Phantom Penguin at 6:26PM, Feb. 15, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
ozoneocean
Israel doesn't have an occupation force in the US though does it?

I never said it made sense did i?
=P

Malaki doesn't seem to like what the US is doing and often speaks out. Bad puppet! bad!
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
ozoneocean at 9:54AM, Feb. 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,117
joined: 1-2-2004
If he didn't make some show he'd get assassinated, or at least thrown out (talking about his own people here). He pays lip service to what his people want, but you'll notice that he doesn't actually do anything. ;)
For all his being able to decide if the occupation force stays or goes, do you really think they'd leave if he told them to?
The obvious reality is the occupation fore can do what it like in his country and he hasn't got any say about it.
But I doubt he'd stay in power more than a few hours if they suddenly did leave, (although that wont happen).

A puppet government in this case means being the locally acceptable face of an occupation force… Which is what puppet governments usually are: If it wasn't for that force backing them up, they would be in power, so they need the force, and so the force has free reign.

-edit- More terrorist attacks in Iran: link
Near a place called “Blast” funnily enough…
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved