Reid may move to cut Iraq war funds

[GaryC 7]

Gary,

You believe that Iran is ultimately behind the insurgency? Ridiculous.

The insurgents have been proven to hail from Egypt, Saudi, Pakistan, Syria and elsewhere.

Iran is acting on opportunity. The weak bastards that they are.

They are funding and arming the insurgency. They are playing one side against the other. They are like the devil whispering in the ear of both sides egging them on to more violence.

[William33 110]

Gary,

You believe that Iran is ultimately behind the insurgency? Ridiculous.

The insurgents have been proven to hail from Egypt, Saudi, Pakistan, Syria and elsewhere.

Iran is acting on opportunity. The weak bastards that they are.

They are funding and arming the insurgency. They are playing one side against the other. They are like the devil whispering in the ear of both sides egging them on to more violence.

I think this is a possibility, yet again, we are dealing with an international audience of azz holes.

Is Iran supporting insurgency? I am absolutely sure of this.

Are they the primary supporter? Who knows, no one has been able to prove that theory.

In any case, they need to watch their step, or GW will atack them next. God help us all!!

Edited April 3, 2007 by William33

[GaryC 7]

Pentagon suggests Iran is training Iraqi insurgents

Voice of America

By Robert Raffaele

Washington, D.C. - A senior military spokesman says there is clear evidence that Iran has directly aided insurgents in Iraq. Those comments follow Iraq's deadliest month since the U.S.-led invasion, in terms of civilian casualties.

In the Baghdad neighborhood of al Mashtal Thursday, there were the familiar scenes that have become daily reminders of Iraq's insurgency -- burned out cars, wounded rushed to hospitals, and U.S. and Iraqi troops cleaning up the mess after another suicide bombing. One car blast about 100 meters from the al-Rashad police station killed two civilians and injured at least five others.

Sectarian violence in Iraq culminated in nearly 3500 deaths last month, making July the deadliest month there since the U.S.-led invasion in March of 2003.

U.S. and Iraqi officials have accused foreign fighters, especially from Jordan and Syria, of playing a large role in the bloodshed. Now a senior U.S. military official says there is clear evidence that Iran has a direct hand in sectarian violence.

Brigadier General Michael Barbero made that accusation to reporters at the Pentagon Wednesday. He said U.S. troops in Iraq have had no direct contact with Iranian fighters. But he says there is a clear link between the violence and Iran.

"Iran is definitely a destabilizing force in Iraq,” he said. “I think it's irrefutable that Iran is responsible for training, funding, and equipping some of these Shia extremist groups and also providing advanced IED technology to them."

General Barbero declined to say what policy the U.S. should adopt to deal with any Iranian connection to Iraq. But he said any military action that neutralizes the nation's Shia extremist groups will go a long way toward eliminating Iran's influence.

"We have a very adaptive, intelligent ruthless enemy, and they will adapt to our measures,” said the general. “And there's a saying at the tactical level -- the enemy has a vote. Well, the enemy in Iraq has a vote, too, and they're going to adapt, and we have to adapt along with them and we have."

General Barbero said he is encouraged by the job of Iraqi security forces. He says two-thirds of security in Baghdad is now handled by Iraqi units. But despite what he called positive signs, he would only say he is "cautiously optimistic" about Iraq's progress toward a stable future.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/arti...hp?storyid=8361

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think we "played into their hands" when we declared war on Iraq. Set a chain of events into motion...

No, I don't agree with that. Iran seized upon an oportunity when they saw it. It is really the only thing I fault Bush for. I still think the war was the right thing to do but Bush screwed up by not taking Iran into consideration when they had the Iraq war won. They kept acting like the insurgency was home grown when in reality it was being fueled by Iran. Remember that blue mosque that started the real sectarian fighting? There is very strong evidence that Iran did that just to get the violence started again. I firmly believe that if Iran had stayed out of things Iraq would be a lot more stable today and our troops would be coming home as victors right now.

Ultimately that comes down to planning. Noone it seems took the regional impacts seriously when they embarked upon that course of action. Failing to provide enough troops to properly secure the country was one huge mistake that fouled things up from the start. Disbanding the Iraqi army was another.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In any case, they need to watch their step, or GW will atack them next. God help us all!!

The possibility of that is next to nil. I can't see the US electorate allowing Bush to do that, nor senate or congress ratifying any proposals of that sort. The unilateral card expired with Iraq - presently the US doesn't have the land forces to commit to that sort of conflict (and Iran will be a whole different kettle of fish than Afghanistan and Iraq - in other words, their armed forces are not peasants armed with sticks and 20 year old rifles, or severely limited by the previous Gulf War). Whatever happens with Iran - it will be done by the international community, not America acting alone.

[Marc and Olga 0]

I agree that Iran is going to be Public enemy #1 for one real reason. They are funding at least some of the insurgancy. Many of the more powerful EID's have been tied to them and they are doing everything they can to fuel a civil war there. They hope that if they keep Iraq destabilized we will eventually loose our nerve (Reid and his friends) and leave. Then they can walk in and take over. That has been their plan for some time now and the Dems are playing into their hands.

For the first time on this subject I agree with you Gary... to a point...I doubt that Iran is involved as some would like us to believe only because there are people that would love to see us go to war with them next...that scares the bejebus out of me!

I did not (and I think the rest of the country did not) vote to LEAVE Iraq immediately but remember at the time of the elections, Bush and his cronies were spouting out the blurb "Stay the course"? I vote that I did not want to "Stay the course" not that I wanted us out ASAP, heck I never wanted us to go in there in the first place but it is too late for that and I agree we must fix what we broke! Staying the course was not working, I wanted to see something different, something bush put forth AFTER the elections!

I believe if he had of rid his administration of Rumsfeld before the election many people would have decided to stay republican, especially with Gates as Defense Sec! I do believe that and the Republicans have every right to claim that he cost them the election!

Then again if he had of "stayed the course" on OBL we never would have entered Iraq...