*5th* helicopter shot down in *3* weeks!

[nullzero]

CNN updated its article 7 die from chopper crash .

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/07/iraq.main/index.html

 

[Lemon law]

I see that the thread title got edited---to include the fifth chopper---what was not edited out was the trollish original assumption of the thread.
Namely that what got any of these helicopters could be traced to Iran---or came from Iran--or signals increased Iranian involvement in the Iraq war.

Any questions of Iranian involvement are not even being touched on this thread---its simply many bridges too far as many posters point out.

Its also important to point out---that if Iran wanted to---it could be exporting such missiles in vast quantities---and then we would have thread titles like the 301'st helicopter is shot down---so lets cool it with the Iran stuff----GWB&co will try to sell you a war with Iran is likely coming to a television screen near you---don't be as gullible as you were on Iraq.

 

[nullzero]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I see that the thread title got edited---to include the fifth chopper---what was not edited out was the trollish original assumption of the thread.
Namely that what got any of these helicopters could be traced to Iran---or came from Iran--or signals increased Iranian involvement in the Iraq war.

Any questions of Iranian involvement are not even being touched on this thread---its simply many bridges too far as many posters point out.

Its also important to point out---that if Iran wanted to---it could be exporting such missiles in vast quantities---and then we would have thread titles like the 301'st helicopter is shot down---so lets cool it with the Iran stuff----GWB&co will try to sell you a war with Iran is likely coming to a television screen near you---don't be as gullible as you were on Iraq.

I edited it to keep upto date on number of helicopters shot down. I noted this with * * to show that it was updated. I am not saying for sure Iran is supplying the weapons, I leave it up as a question to let the readers decide themselves. I stated more then likely they are getting arms from underground weapon smugglers.

 

[jpeyton]

Bush's Reaction

 

[Lemon law]

To nullzero,

Who writes---I edited it to keep upto date on number of helicopters shot down. I noted this with * * to show that it was updated. I am not saying for sure Iran is supplying the weapons, I leave it up as a question to let the readers decide themselves. I stated more then likely they are getting arms from underground weapon smugglers.

Sorry--I don't buy it---you plant the assertion that its Iran---and then plead its only something you leave up
to the reader---as a responsible OP--you should edit that Iran connection out in the thread title--by then th damage is done.

 

[MadRat]

Perhaps he's a protagonist that can't seem to discern when reality for the reader mismatches the belief of the reader.

Seriously, Iran doesn't have the smart missiles that the russians have. The solid state optical seeker operates across a vast spectrum and is not easily charmed by flares, shiny chaff, and ir strobes. You can bet that the army makes sure they load up on their countermeasures and makes the best out of the situation. You'll probably not even hear about the solution they come up with because these kinds of things get dealt with procedurally and tactically, not stuff you read about in the papers because its boring stuff.

 

[Arglebargle]

The Iranians are undoubtedly supplying weaponry to their like minded friends in Iran, just as the Syrians and Saudis are. This is most likely for aid in the ongoing civil war, but you can't expect the more agressive zealots not to use them on the American occupying force.

And certainly, I am sure that the shadey arms networks are in full vigor, feeding the market in Iraq. And it is not like there weren't enough uncontrolled armament to begin with. Lots of oil money from both sides to fuel that market. Any weapons system available is probably being funneled into the area, and its use tested against our troops.

Unfortunately, institutional memory in the military forgot most of the chopper tactics lessons it learned the hard way in Vietnam. You would hope that some of that got better after the early parts of the occupation. Still, you now have the added problem of equipment being pushed passed their intended field deployment. The US military was not set up to have 150K troops deployed for this many years. And the plan was to only have 40k or so troops in Iraq at the end of the first year. Oops.

 

[nullzero]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To nullzero,

Who writes---I edited it to keep upto date on number of helicopters shot down. I noted this with * * to show that it was updated. I am not saying for sure Iran is supplying the weapons, I leave it up as a question to let the readers decide themselves. I stated more then likely they are getting arms from underground weapon smugglers.

Sorry--I don't buy it---you plant the assertion that its Iran---and then plead its only something you leave up
to the reader---as a responsible OP--you should edit that Iran connection out in the thread title--by then th damage is done.

I left it upto the readers to believe if the Iranians are giving weapons to the insurgents. Lets face it though, the chance of Iran supplying weapons to insurgents is very high. The fact that Iran shares a massive border with Iraq, and there is Iranian allied factions in Iraq. Its a been reported that Saudi Arabia was caught giving money and weapons to Sunnis. So it wouldnt be to far fetched that the Iranians were doing the same to support Shite Iranian friendly factions.

 

[Narmer]

So many helicopters getting shot down since those Iranian diplomats were taken hostage by G.I.s. Hmmm...

 

[MadRat]

You may have got it wrong, though, the groups claiming to do the most public of the shootdowns - the ones on video - were supposed to be Sunni. The saudis, jordanians, and syrians - like the other 80% of the rest of the middle east - all support the sunni insurgency. The saudis benefit hugely if they can drive the americans off their peninsula and out of iraq. Saudis would then be catapulted to a leadership role to balance back against the 'iranian threat' placade being put on by our administration. Think about it, the saudis have always been a bunch of pasty faced backstabbing bastards.

 

[strummer]

Originally posted by: nullzero

I left it upto the readers to believe if the Iranians are giving weapons to the insurgents. Lets face it though, the chance of Iran supplying weapons to insurgents is very high. The fact that Iran shares a massive border with Iraq, and there is Iranian allied factions in Iraq. Its a been reported that Saudi Arabia was caught giving money and weapons to Sunnis. So it wouldnt be to far fetched that the Iranians were doing the same to support Shite Iranian friendly factions.

You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.

What possible reason would the Iranians have for arming a Sunni insurgency? You do know that the insurgency is comprised of Sunnis - don't you? Would the Iranians arm the Shi'ite militias - no doubt they would. But the last time I checked I don't think the former Baathists (i.e. insurgents) had access to helicopters or planes or other air assets, so why on God's green earth would the Iranians arm the militias with SAMs. The Iranians have already won in Iraq, they know this and they know they are playing with house money at this point - no need to proliferate weapons that they absolutely want to maintain control over. They are not dumb.

Again - what possible reason would the Iranians have for arming the insurgents? If anybody is arming the Sunni's it is the Saudis and maybe the Syrians. Both these Sunni majority cultures that are terrified of a Shi'ite tiger stalking to their northern and eastern borders, respectively.

Throw sh1t out there and see if it sticks - I guess that's the name of the neocon / warmongers game right now. You guys are so f'in delusional. We attack Iran and gas goes to $8 dollars a gallon all over the globe. Do you think the far east financiers of our national debt are going to be happy about that? Also - we attack Iran and I guarantee you that the Iranians will arm the Iraqi Shi'ite militias with not only SAMs, but more importantly, with anti-tank weapons easily capable of neutralizing our main battle tanks. And that as they say - will be ballgame over in Baghdad. We already know from the little dance the Israelis had with Hezbollah this past summer how effective the Iranians home grown anti tank weapons are.

See - if you guys would get your heads out of your hind quarters you could apply a little logic and see that if the Iranians were really arming the insurgency, they would be arming them with anti-tank weapons. That's what would really cripple the occupation and hurt the US the most. In an urban setting like Baghdad, Iranian anti-tank weapons would be even more effective than they were in the hills of southern Lebanon.

The only thing that could trump the strategic error of invading Iraq would be the strategic error of attacking Iran. You need to do a little critical thinking and get away from the Fox News / Dick Cheney propaganda.

 

[nullzero]

Originally posted by: strummer

Originally posted by: nullzero

I left it upto the readers to believe if the Iranians are giving weapons to the insurgents. Lets face it though, the chance of Iran supplying weapons to insurgents is very high. The fact that Iran shares a massive border with Iraq, and there is Iranian allied factions in Iraq. Its a been reported that Saudi Arabia was caught giving money and weapons to Sunnis. So it wouldnt be to far fetched that the Iranians were doing the same to support Shite Iranian friendly factions.

You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.

What possible reason would the Iranians have for arming a Sunni insurgency? You do know that the insurgency is comprised of Sunnis - don't you? Would the Iranians arm the Shi'ite militias - no doubt they would. But the last time I checked I don't think the former Baathists (i.e. insurgents) had access to helicopters or planes or other air assets, so why on God's green earth would the Iranians arm the militias with SAMs. The Iranians have already won in Iraq, they know this and they know they are playing with house money at this point - no need to proliferate weapons that they absolutely want to maintain control over. They are not dumb.

Again - what possible reason would the Iranians have for arming the insurgents? If anybody is arming the Sunni's it is the Saudis and maybe the Syrians. Both these Sunni majority cultures that are terrified of a Shi'ite tiger stalking to their northern and eastern borders, respectively.

Throw sh1t out there and see if it sticks - I guess that's the name of the neocon / warmongers game right now. You guys are so f'in delusional. We attack Iran and gas goes to $8 dollars a gallon all over the globe. Do you think the far east financiers of our national debt are going to be happy about that? Also - we attack Iran and I guarantee you that the Iranians will arm the Iraqi Shi'ite militias with not only SAMs, but more importantly, with anti-tank weapons easily capable of neutralizing our main battle tanks. And that as they say - will be ballgame over in Baghdad. We already know from the little dance the Israelis had with Hezbollah this past summer how effective the Iranians home grown anti tank weapons are.

See - if you guys would get your heads out of your hind quarters you could apply a little logic and see that if the Iranians were really arming the insurgency, they would be arming them with anti-tank weapons. That's what would really cripple the occupation and hurt the US the most. In an urban setting like Baghdad, Iranian anti-tank weapons would be even more effective than they were in the hills of southern Lebanon.

The only thing that could trump the strategic error of invading Iraq would be the strategic error of attacking Iran. You need to do a little critical thinking and get away from the Fox News / Dick Cheney propaganda.

Did I ever say Iran was giving money and weapons to Sunni insurgents? The insurgency is made up of Shites as well. You dont remember the Sadr revolt? After the U.S. shut down Sadr organization buildings and newspaper, Sadr followers attacked U.S. forces across Iraq and many U.S. convoys as well, there are many shite factions that broke off from the main factions and are now operating as seperate terrorist and insurgent groups. Not to mention we have killed scores of Sadr followers through out the War in Iraq so they view the U.S. as a enemy just as much as the Sunni Insurgents. Helicopters and Jets are one of the main tactical advantages we hold over the Insurgents, Militias and other factions in Iraq. Shite militias would love to have SAMs in their position so they would have the capability to counter Apaches and Cobras if the U.S. ever launched another massive raid into Shite urban areas to shut down the militias and faction groups.

Definition of a "Insurgency"

An insurgency, or insurrection, is an armed uprising, or revolt against an established civil or political authority. Persons engaging in insurgency are called insurgents, and typically engage in regular or guerrilla combat against the armed forces of the established regime, or conduct sabotage and harassment in the land in order to undermine the government's position as leader.

This sounds like Al Sadr and his fanatical followers to me. Undermining the government and the previous uprising with Sadr against the U.S.

 

[nullzero]

Another helicopter shot down under investigation looks like its another Blackwater one shotdown 1/30.

"The U.S. military is investigating the circumstances surrounding a civilian helicopter that went down January 31, making it the sixth helicopter incident in a span of less than three weeks, a U.S. Embassy spokesman said Thursday."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/08/iraq.main/index.html

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: nullzero
Interesting article follow up to the helicopters getting shot down. It seems the U.S. is changing helicopter tactics due to these events.

*4 helicopters were lost to hostile fire, military says for first time
*Crashes came after insurgents said they had new anti-aircraft weapons
*Al-Jazeera airs video showing one of the helicopters being hit
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/04/iraq.helicopter.ap/index.html

It does seems the insurgents have recieved new and improved Anti Air weapons and training including where the aircrafts weakspots are.

And I suppose those new and improved weapons are coming from the stocks "looted after the initial invasion", huh?

Let's address some idiocy here:

I find it unlikely that Iranian (Soviet) weapons would take out Apaches that easily. It was most likely a Stinger.

Why on Earth would you say that? Russian-designed MANPADS are quite effective against helicopters, Apaches or otherwise. As are Chinese. Ergo, as are Iranian since those morons can't make anything themselves that actually works.

They haven't been caught with iranian equipment yet.

Yes, they have.

AK47s were selling for $210 days after baghadad was taken over and now they are selling for +$675-800.

Bullsh!t. AKs were selling for around $100 when I was there last year, according to some AFOSI agents I worked with. If those chicken reporters left the Green Zone, they'd know that, too. While prices have increased, that's good news because it means that weaponry is becoming more scarce.

What possible reason would the Iranians have for arming a Sunni insurgency? You do know that the insurgency is comprised of Sunnis - don't you? Would the Iranians arm the Shi'ite militias - no doubt they would. But the last time I checked I don't think the former Baathists (i.e. insurgents) had access to helicopters or planes or other air assets, so why on God's green earth would the Iranians arm the militias with SAMs. The Iranians have already won in Iraq, they know this and they know they are playing with house money at this point - no need to proliferate weapons that they absolutely want to maintain control over. They are not dumb.

All right, last moronic comment to address then I'm headed to bed.

You do know the insurgency is composed of a variety of different groups, both Shiite and Sunni, and the largest groups are in fact, Shiite. Before you start spouting off as some authority, why don't you try reading some actual facts on the insurgency. Two groups you need to look at: Badr Corps and Mahdi Militia (or Mahdi Army or Jaysh Al-Mahdi). The Sunnis are highly fragmented between former regime elements, Al Qaida, and run of the mill Sunni insurgents, and the alliances among them are tentative and shifting, both to counter the US and the Shiites.

As for the Iranians in Iraq, it's painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain that the Iranians are aiding the militias in Iraq. Do a search for Explosively Formed Projectile (EFP), which were used by Hezbullah against Israel, and guess who arms Hezbullah? Now, we've captured IRGC officers engaged in supporting activity to Iraqi insurgents, but I guess they were just on holiday in sunny Iraq. Why would the Iranians give the Shiite militias MANPADS? To down American helos. Why would they want to do that? Because they don't like us and want us out of the region.[/u]

HOWEVER, the curious thing is what will happen with Iran's influence when the dust settles in Iraq? Iraqis, including the Shiite, are Arab (apart from the Kurds and Turkomen), and Arabs have a long distrust of the Persians. I've not seen one iota of a shred of evidence to suggest that Iraqi Shiites would welcome Persians into their country once Iraq is standing on its own, and we are gone. I've been trying in vain to find a book which could shed some light on it, but I haven't looked at State Department reports which might have some insight. Muqtada al-Sadr can be a complete nimrod, but I have a serious problem assuming that he's too stupid to understand the consequences of selling out to the Iranians wholeheartedly. My best guess is that both JAM and SCIRI are using Iranian money and equipment to improve their standing in the country and not to pave the way for an Iranian takeover. Also, don't forget that Iraqi Shiites are split between JAM and SCIRI, and they do NOT get along when push comes to shove.

Lastly, no Arab country would allow Iran to take over Iraq -- not the Saudis, not the Kuwaitis, not the Syrians, not the Egyptians. Do you want to guess how "restive" Al Anbar province would be if the Iranians were in charge, and what the security situation in Baghdad would look like? Plus, if the Iranians start to waltz over the border in any way, we'll have a sweet excuse to start reducing their order of battle on a grand scale, including their nuclear sites. We annihilate their expensive toys, trash their pipelines, POL storage, and oil platforms, and then they don't have the money to replace their losses. Saudi and Kuwait could increase production to reduce the price hike -- the Saudis don't like the price going too high, or it encourages alternative energy sources.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: nullzero
Interesting article follow up to the helicopters getting shot down. It seems the U.S. is changing helicopter tactics due to these events.

*4 helicopters were lost to hostile fire, military says for first time
*Crashes came after insurgents said they had new anti-aircraft weapons
*Al-Jazeera airs video showing one of the helicopters being hit
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/04/iraq.helicopter.ap/index.html

It does seems the insurgents have recieved new and improved Anti Air weapons and training including where the aircrafts weakspots are.

And I suppose those new and improved weapons are coming from the stocks "looted after the initial invasion", huh?

Let's address some idiocy here:

I find it unlikely that Iranian (Soviet) weapons would take out Apaches that easily. It was most likely a Stinger.

Why on Earth would you say that? Russian-designed MANPADS are quite effective against helicopters, Apaches or otherwise. As are Chinese. Ergo, as are Iranian since those morons can't make anything themselves that actually works.

They haven't been caught with iranian equipment yet.

Yes, they have.

AK47s were selling for $210 days after baghadad was taken over and now they are selling for +$675-800.

Bullsh!t. AKs were selling for around $100 when I was there last year, according to some AFOSI agents I worked with. If those chicken reporters left the Green Zone, they'd know that, too. While prices have increased, that's good news because it means that weaponry is becoming more scarce.

What possible reason would the Iranians have for arming a Sunni insurgency? You do know that the insurgency is comprised of Sunnis - don't you? Would the Iranians arm the Shi'ite militias - no doubt they would. But the last time I checked I don't think the former Baathists (i.e. insurgents) had access to helicopters or planes or other air assets, so why on God's green earth would the Iranians arm the militias with SAMs. The Iranians have already won in Iraq, they know this and they know they are playing with house money at this point - no need to proliferate weapons that they absolutely want to maintain control over. They are not dumb.

All right, last moronic comment to address then I'm headed to bed.

You do know the insurgency is composed of a variety of different groups, both Shiite and Sunni, and the largest groups are in fact, Shiite. Before you start spouting off as some authority, why don't you try reading some actual facts on the insurgency. Two groups you need to look at: Badr Corps and Mahdi Militia (or Mahdi Army or Jaysh Al-Mahdi). The Sunnis are highly fragmented between former regime elements, Al Qaida, and run of the mill Sunni insurgents, and the alliances among them are tentative and shifting, both to counter the US and the Shiites.

As for the Iranians in Iraq, it's painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain that the Iranians are aiding the militias in Iraq. Do a search for Explosively Formed Projectile (EFP), which were used by Hezbullah against Israel, and guess who arms Hezbullah? Now, we've captured IRGC officers engaged in supporting activity to Iraqi insurgents, but I guess they were just on holiday in sunny Iraq. Why would the Iranians give the Shiite militias MANPADS? To down American helos. Why would they want to do that? Because they don't like us and want us out of the region.[/u]

HOWEVER, the curious thing is what will happen with Iran's influence when the dust settles in Iraq? Iraqis, including the Shiite, are Arab (apart from the Kurds and Turkomen), and Arabs have a long distrust of the Persians. I've not seen one iota of a shred of evidence to suggest that Iraqi Shiites would welcome Persians into their country once Iraq is standing on its own, and we are gone. I've been trying in vain to find a book which could shed some light on it, but I haven't looked at State Department reports which might have some insight. Muqtada al-Sadr can be a complete nimrod, but I have a serious problem assuming that he's too stupid to understand the consequences of selling out to the Iranians wholeheartedly. My best guess is that both JAM and SCIRI are using Iranian money and equipment to improve their standing in the country and not to pave the way for an Iranian takeover. Also, don't forget that Iraqi Shiites are split between JAM and SCIRI, and they do NOT get along when push comes to shove.

Lastly, no Arab country would allow Iran to take over Iraq -- not the Saudis, not the Kuwaitis, not the Syrians, not the Egyptians. Do you want to guess how "restive" Al Anbar province would be if the Iranians were in charge, and what the security situation in Baghdad would look like? Plus, if the Iranians start to waltz over the border in any way, we'll have a sweet excuse to start reducing their order of battle on a grand scale, including their nuclear sites. We annihilate their expensive toys, trash their pipelines, POL storage, and oil platforms, and then they don't have the money to replace their losses. Saudi and Kuwait could increase production to reduce the price hike -- the Saudis don't like the price going too high, or it encourages alternative energy sources.

I suggest you read this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960641/site/newsweek/

There is zero hardcore evidence to suggest Iran is involved inside Iraq.

 

[nullzero]

Bullsh!t. AKs were selling for around $100 when I was there last year, according to some AFOSI agents I worked with. If those chicken reporters left the Green Zone, they'd know that, too. While prices have increased, that's good news because it means that weaponry is becoming more scarce.

Im quoting what the New York Times stated in there article. Where is your proof that AK 47s are selling for $100 as the most current prices? (maybe broken ak47s...) Also this is horrible news that AK47 prices are going up because that means the supply of weapons will increase to catch up with demand. The guns are not getting more scarce its the people using them that is increasing.

 

[OrByte]

why is it that all the news reports say the choppers 'crashed' ?

are they crashing or are the being shot down? isn't that a bit deceptive to say the crashed when in fact they are shot down??

why would the media do that?

 

[senseamp]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOtZNDh2-Bo
Nothing new, except 20 years ago, the Americans were the ones giving missiles to the terrorists.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: nullzero

Bullsh!t. AKs were selling for around $100 when I was there last year, according to some AFOSI agents I worked with. If those chicken reporters left the Green Zone, they'd know that, too. While prices have increased, that's good news because it means that weaponry is becoming more scarce.

Im quoting what the New York Times stated in there article. Where is your proof that AK 47s are selling for $100 as the most current prices? (maybe broken ak47s...) Also this is horrible news that AK47 prices are going up because that means the supply of weapons will increase to catch up with demand. The guns are not getting more scarce its the people using them that is increasing.

Where is my proof? See, I was actually there, and I talked with guys who routinely go outside the bases and work with Iraqis on a daily basis. I suppose that proof isn't as good as a NYT reporter who sits in the Green Zone and gets third hand reports. :roll:

There's no need for supply to go up -- there are plenty of weapons in the country already, though many are older (which is why the US military has contracted to bring in other weapons for the Iraqi military and police -- newer, better ones). You do know that every single household in Iraq has an AK or an equivalent, right? It's allowable under Iraqi law, and our troops and the Iraqis do enforce it if they find any additional weapons beyond that allotment. AKs aren't that much of a concern anyway. Belt-fed machineguns, mortars, sniper rifles, and explosives are far more deadly.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: nullzero
Interesting article follow up to the helicopters getting shot down. It seems the U.S. is changing helicopter tactics due to these events.

*4 helicopters were lost to hostile fire, military says for first time
*Crashes came after insurgents said they had new anti-aircraft weapons
*Al-Jazeera airs video showing one of the helicopters being hit
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/04/iraq.helicopter.ap/index.html

It does seems the insurgents have recieved new and improved Anti Air weapons and training including where the aircrafts weakspots are.

And I suppose those new and improved weapons are coming from the stocks "looted after the initial invasion", huh?

Let's address some idiocy here:

I find it unlikely that Iranian (Soviet) weapons would take out Apaches that easily. It was most likely a Stinger.

Why on Earth would you say that? Russian-designed MANPADS are quite effective against helicopters, Apaches or otherwise. As are Chinese. Ergo, as are Iranian since those morons can't make anything themselves that actually works.

They haven't been caught with iranian equipment yet.

Yes, they have.

AK47s were selling for $210 days after baghadad was taken over and now they are selling for +$675-800.

Bullsh!t. AKs were selling for around $100 when I was there last year, according to some AFOSI agents I worked with. If those chicken reporters left the Green Zone, they'd know that, too. While prices have increased, that's good news because it means that weaponry is becoming more scarce.

What possible reason would the Iranians have for arming a Sunni insurgency? You do know that the insurgency is comprised of Sunnis - don't you? Would the Iranians arm the Shi'ite militias - no doubt they would. But the last time I checked I don't think the former Baathists (i.e. insurgents) had access to helicopters or planes or other air assets, so why on God's green earth would the Iranians arm the militias with SAMs. The Iranians have already won in Iraq, they know this and they know they are playing with house money at this point - no need to proliferate weapons that they absolutely want to maintain control over. They are not dumb.

All right, last moronic comment to address then I'm headed to bed.

You do know the insurgency is composed of a variety of different groups, both Shiite and Sunni, and the largest groups are in fact, Shiite. Before you start spouting off as some authority, why don't you try reading some actual facts on the insurgency. Two groups you need to look at: Badr Corps and Mahdi Militia (or Mahdi Army or Jaysh Al-Mahdi). The Sunnis are highly fragmented between former regime elements, Al Qaida, and run of the mill Sunni insurgents, and the alliances among them are tentative and shifting, both to counter the US and the Shiites.

As for the Iranians in Iraq, it's painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain that the Iranians are aiding the militias in Iraq. Do a search for Explosively Formed Projectile (EFP), which were used by Hezbullah against Israel, and guess who arms Hezbullah? Now, we've captured IRGC officers engaged in supporting activity to Iraqi insurgents, but I guess they were just on holiday in sunny Iraq. Why would the Iranians give the Shiite militias MANPADS? To down American helos. Why would they want to do that? Because they don't like us and want us out of the region.

HOWEVER, the curious thing is what will happen with Iran's influence when the dust settles in Iraq? Iraqis, including the Shiite, are Arab (apart from the Kurds and Turkomen), and Arabs have a long distrust of the Persians. I've not seen one iota of a shred of evidence to suggest that Iraqi Shiites would welcome Persians into their country once Iraq is standing on its own, and we are gone. I've been trying in vain to find a book which could shed some light on it, but I haven't looked at State Department reports which might have some insight. Muqtada al-Sadr can be a complete nimrod, but I have a serious problem assuming that he's too stupid to understand the consequences of selling out to the Iranians wholeheartedly. My best guess is that both JAM and SCIRI are using Iranian money and equipment to improve their standing in the country and not to pave the way for an Iranian takeover. Also, don't forget that Iraqi Shiites are split between JAM and SCIRI, and they do NOT get along when push comes to shove.

Lastly, no Arab country would allow Iran to take over Iraq -- not the Saudis, not the Kuwaitis, not the Syrians, not the Egyptians. Do you want to guess how "restive" Al Anbar province would be if the Iranians were in charge, and what the security situation in Baghdad would look like? Plus, if the Iranians start to waltz over the border in any way, we'll have a sweet excuse to start reducing their order of battle on a grand scale, including their nuclear sites. We annihilate their expensive toys, trash their pipelines, POL storage, and oil platforms, and then they don't have the money to replace their losses. Saudi and Kuwait could increase production to reduce the price hike -- the Saudis don't like the price going too high, or it encourages alternative energy sources.

I suggest you read this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960641/site/newsweek/

There is zero hardcore evidence to suggest Iran is involved inside Iraq.

Why not try reading something other than the typical shoddy reporting that Newsweek is known for these days? Here's one. Do you deny reports that American forces have captured several Iranians and still have them in captivity? The connection is there, but you are too blinded by your politics to admit the facts. There are other facts as well, but I cannot divulge them. I wonder why no one has declassified them though, but I can guess the reasons.

 

[AndrewR]

No evidence here! US military provides evidence tying Iranian weapons to IRGC Quds Force.

Looks like those links keep getting more and more solid...

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
No evidence here! US military provides evidence tying Iranian weapons to IRGC Quds Force.

Looks like those links keep getting more and more solid...

Yeah

A) Iran exports billions of dollars worth of weapons to more than a handful of nations. That's like me finding an M-16 inside Sudan and blaming the U.S for arming the rebels.
B) The Newsweek article pretty much made it clear those weapon parts could have come from Mom and Pop stores in Tehran, or anywhere else for that matter.
C) The 3 Iranians captured in Iraq were captured in the Kurdish area of Iraq. Iran has ever right to be doing information gathering there. in that part of Iraq. Kurds are blowing themselves up inside Iran. Also, they were invited.... so...

You can continue to believe Bush propaganda all you want.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: AndrewR
No evidence here! US military provides evidence tying Iranian weapons to IRGC Quds Force.

Looks like those links keep getting more and more solid...

Yeah

A) Iran exports billions of dollars worth of weapons to more than a handful of nations. That's like me finding an M-16 inside Sudan and blaming the U.S for arming the rebels.
B) The Newsweek article pretty much made it clear those weapon parts could have come from Mom and Pop stores in Tehran, or anywhere else for that matter.
C) The 3 Iranians captured in Iraq were captured in the Kurdish area of Iraq. Iran has ever right to be doing information gathering there. in that part of Iraq. Kurds are blowing themselves up inside Iran. Also, they were invited.... so...

You can continue to believe Bush propaganda all you want.

A) You're equating an M-16 to an EFP weapon? How ignorant are you of military weaponry?
B) You trust Newsweek? The same rag which been caught lying several times over the past several years and is easily one of the most biased magazines published? They are not known for their objectivity. In addition, you underestimate the ability of the military to conduct forensic analysis. I've seen the lab where they do the work in Baghdad. What do you bet the Newsweek reporters didn't bother to visit?
C) Do you even know that the Quds Force is? Or the IRGC? Do you honestly believe they are the only operatives inside Iraq? Did you happen to forget about the Iranians captured at al-Hakim's compound IN BAGHDAD?

You can continue to deny all the facts that you want, but it just makes you look like a political hack.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
You trust Newsweek? The same rag which been caught lying several times over the past several years and is easily one of the most biased magazines published? They are not known for their objectivity. In addition, you underestimate the ability of the military to conduct forensic analysis. I've seen the lab where they do the work in Baghdad. What do you bet the Newsweek reporters didn't bother to visit?
to deny all the facts that you want, but it just makes you look like a political hack.

You trust the Bush Administration, the ones who used hand picked faulty intel to convince the American Public to support the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

You have to admit that with their track record it only makes since that a lot of people are skeptical of these reports.

 

[Lemon law]

If you lived in an apartment complex and had a complete nutjob of a next door neighbor---you would be visiting that neighbor and getting some intel on exactly how nutty that neighbor is so you could make some predictions on what the danger level is to you . And you might well move out to some dwelling far away if the danger level got high enough.

Substitute Iran for you in this analogy, and you get the idea.---except Iran can't simply pack up and move. But If Iraq goes civil war, Iran will certainly suffer in the process. So its in Iran's interests to have a stable Iraq. And its also in Iran's interests to have friendly relations with those who are likely to be the power brokers in a new Iraq.

And its been pointed out Iran, like the US, makes and exports weapons. So its almost a certainty that both US and Iranian arms will turn up in insurgent hands. What is a TOTAL CERTAINTY IS THE FACT THAT IRAN COULD EASILY ARM THE INSURGENCY IN A BIG WAY---AND THAT IS SIMPLY NOT HAPPENING.

So this whole thread is based on a phony premise---its not Iran---its just an outgrowth of the insurgency---use some common sense and don't let GWB&co. sell you on a war with Iran.