Should the U.S. launch covert strikes on Iran???
 

Considering the new findings and developments surrounding Iran, do you think the U.S. should sit quiet, just keep an eye on them, or launch strategic covert opperations?

It just seems to be getting messier and messier over there.



Discuss, and keep it civil.

:popcorn:

NO Stop the maddness.!!!!!!

No.

We haven't really even begun the politcal finger-shaking process. There's enough new developments to require a new, formal process of telling them to f-off before we start dropping A-Teams in and commencing airstrikes.

War is politics by another means, but is also the final means.

Edit: ANYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE IS A POOPY HEAD!

Sorry - couldn't keep it civil!

What we should do is to close the borders.

Hahaha... I like that one. :)

nincompoop. Now that's funny. Almost as funny as politicians.

:iagree: :withstupi :cussing:

Here we go again...:tsk:

:iagree:

Iran has done nothing to us. They are minding their own business. The latest news about them doing stuff in Iraq is true, and it has been with the approval of the Iraqi government.

Whether or not our government likes it, the Iraqi Prime Minister is a Shia muslim who spent much of his life living in exile in Iran and Syria when Saddam Hussein was in power, and thus he is very friendly with those two governments, as he should be since they are Iraq's neighbors.

America telling Iran to stay out of Iraq's business and then proceeding to put a large naval presence in the Persian Gulf would be like China telling the U.S. to stay out of Mexico's business and then moving a large Chinese naval fleet into the Gulf of Mexico. What right do we have to do that?

Until Iran does something that the Iraqi government complains about, we have no business telling them to stay out of Iraq's affairs.

And as for the other issue, the nuclear program, as has been discussed before, the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty gives all non-nuclear states the right to develop nuclear energy. So far I have not seen any hard evidence that they are doing anything other than that. I have only heard baseless allegations. When someone presents some evidence that they are violating this international treaty, then I will agree that action should be taken (the same sort of action that should be taken against North Korea, Israel, India and Pakistan -- the other countries who have violated this treaty).

Enough with the bias discussion. Similar situations should be treated similarly. What is good for one country, is good for all countries in the same situation. Stop with the double standard!!

you full of it......Iran is actually suplying with weapons to the insurgents not just small arms weapons but also weapons that penetrates the armor vehicles to kill US SOLDIERS.

No but Israel should, as should Saudi Arabia....bout time the "allies" did something :)

I agree with Eric and above, NO MORE FRIGGIN WARS!

Oh trust me, you'll see more wars in your time.

Hello nuclear weapons in Iran, goodbye Israel. Sometimes countries need to be pro-active not re-active.

B

So we should drop a bomb to end the war in Iraq like we did to Japan, treat all enemies the same? sounds like you have a bit of a double standard as well.

Kinda like when the US sold weapons to Iran And Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war?

These discussions are pointless.:rolleyes:

Well . . . we are already there. . . hmmmm?

Dammit! I want gas back at 1.25 a gallon.

Why would Iran give arms to the Sunni insurgents that are trying to overthrow the Shia-dominated Iraqi goverment?

The current Iraqi govenrment is very pro-Iranian. All the top members of the government were living in exile in Iran during Saddam's regime.

Accept for the fact that the Iraqi government is backed by the US.

I think one of the things discovered was that Iran was supplying both sides.

So you think we should wait until they have a nuclear weapon?

Aren't they already blocking inspectors?

Do you think if they had a nuclear weapon they would use it on Israel or the United States?

Kind of like asking someone "Do you still beat your wife?"

No, I don't think Iran is developing nuclear weapons.



No.

Prior to the UN Security Counsel passing sanctions against them, all their nuclear facilities were open to all UN inspectors. Since the passing of the sanctions, they have refused to allow American and British inspectors into the country, but have continued to allow all others. Their reason is legit as the US had spies in the Iraqi UN inspection team, and then used information gathered by them to select targets to bomb later on, a clear violation of the terms of the NPT. The situation got so bad, that members of the inspection team, including the head of the inspection team, resigned claiming that the spies were putting their life in danger.

The UN has 180+ other countries to select inspectors from. The inspection team does not need to have Americans and British members. Would the US allow North Korean or Iranian inspectors to inspect our facilities? Or would Israel allow Syrian inspectors to inspect their facilities? Doubtful.


I think there is a better chance of aliens attacking us than Iranians.

Yes, but if you remember, the party that won the elections was not the one that our government preferred. The party that won is the party that the Iranians supported, and that is why the current government has been so friendly to Iran.

If they had intelligence that Iran was arming the insurgents that they are fighting, do you think they would continue to be so friendly towards them? al-Maliki, the Prime Minister of Iraq, is good buddies with the Iranian regime. He has already made all kinds of trade deals with them, including the opening of an Iranian National Bank in Baghdad. And according to memos issued by al-Maliki's office last week, those military advisers that we arrested last week were invited by his government.

Iranians would never directly attack the US on our own soil however they have already and will again attack us on foreign soil. As for the "beat your wife" comment, wtf are you saying :) It doesn't make any sense.

The only portion I would agree with is the inspector portion as I'm sure we were spying on other groups. However I fully believe that Iran is looking for weapons capabilities, hence their underground "nuclear facilities". There would be no other point if not weapons oriented.

Of course the Iraqi government wants to be friends with Iran. If they aren't they will be destroyed seconds after the US military pulls out.

That is the benchmark of all questions: "Do you still beat your wife?" Whether you answer "yes" or "no", you admit to having beat your wife.

Very much like the question I was asked above: "So you think we should wait until they have a nuclear weapon?" Regardless of how I answer that question, the assumption is that they are developing a nuclear weapon.

In the next Global Warming thread, remind me to ask "So you think we should wait until the sea level rises 50 feet worldwide before we do something?" :nanana:

How about the more logical reason, which is that the Prime Minister and most of his supporters were friends with Iran before they even became Iraqi leaders. ;)

I think my response was more logical then that ;)

Nah, just neat way of avoiding a question and confusing a statement to make it harder for others to follow your thought process. If you do actually believe that Iran isn't after a nuclear weapon....then I wish you were right.

:iagree:

You mean you hope I am right. ;)

That was my understanding as well! :popcorn:

Absolutely NOT! Why be covert about it? :confused:

No, because I don't believe you are right.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Not to mention Iran is already taking equal pot shots back at the US. Wish some wouldn't make Iran out to be a casual observer in the situation :(

Of course they are not a casual observer. Don't you think all this violence going on in Iraq affects them? Iraq is their next door neighbor. Since the war started in 2003, millions of Iraqi refugees have fled across the border into Iran. In 2004, many of them started returning home, but in the last year, hundreds of thousands have fled again, most going to Syria and Iran.

To put this in perspective, how would you react if a country from the other side of the world invaded Mexico to overthrow their corrupt government and "liberate" the Mexican people, and then told the United States we should mind our own business and not meddle in Mexico's affairs, while this other country continued to have over 100,000 soldiers stationed at military bases all over Mexico?

Ever heard of "role reversal", or the saying "treat others how you would want to be treated"? Read the analogy I just gave and tell me how you would view the invading country? Hopefully that is how you view the actions of the United States in Iraq.

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

The media fails to mention that Iran exports hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment each year. The very weapons they find inside Iraq have been exported to numerous countries.

It's like finding an M-16 inside China and blamming the U.S for arming China.

Also the majority of attacks against the U.S are from Sunni insurgents. Loyal Saddam Baith party members. Iran has no business with these people nor do they arm these people.

All evidence suggests Iran is not involved inside Iraq. More things are coming across the border from Syria and Saudi Arabia than from Iran. Yet the Bush administration blames everything on Iran because they want to make Iran seem horrible.

Where are the Iranians involved inside Iraq? Do they have a teleporting machine? The only Iranians the U.S has captured that are linked to the govt. are Iranians caught inside Kurdish territory. The very territory that has terrorist bombing Iranians inside Iran and inside Turkey. The very part of Iraq Turkey was threatening sending tens of thousands of troops if the suicide attacks did not stop. Iranians have been fighting Kurdish resistance fighters and establishing command centers near the border there for years. This time Iran had permission from the Iraqis to establish a command center inside the Kurdish territory.

Yet another change of topic to confuse a situation....

"All evidence", wow, didn't know you were involved in the situation and had active knowledge of all evidence. Sorry. Iran is definitely working in Iraq right now, even the Iraqi leadership asked Iran not to wage a battle against the US via Iraq. I guess they just did a preemptive strike, since there was "no evidence" and everything.

Here's a different perspective on the current violence:

Official Lies Over Najaf Battle Exposed

NAJAF, Iraq - Iraqi government lies over the killing of hundreds of Shi'ites in an attack on Sunday stand exposed by independent investigations carried out by IPS in Iraq.

Conflicting reports had arisen earlier on how and why a huge battle broke out around the small village Zarqa, located just a few kilometers northeast of the Shi'ite holy city Najaf, which is 90 km south of Baghdad.

One thing certain is that when the smoke cleared, more than 200 people lay dead after more than half a day of fighting Sunday Jan. 28. A US helicopter was shot down, killing two soldiers. Twenty-five members of the Iraqi security force were also killed.

"We were going to conduct the usual ceremonies that we conduct every year when we were attacked by Iraqi soldiers," Jabbar al-Hatami, a leader of the al-Hatami Shi'ite Arab tribe told IPS.

"We thought it was one of the usual mistakes of the Iraqi army killing civilians, so we advanced to explain to the soldiers that they killed five of us for no reason. But we were surprised by more gunfire from the soldiers."

The confrontation took place on the Shi'ite holiday of Ashura which commemorates Imam Hussein, grandson of the prophet Muhammad and the most revered of Shi'ite saints. Emotions run high at this time, and self-flagellation in public is the norm.

Many southern Shi'ite Arabs do not follow Iranian-born cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. They believe the religious leadership should be kept in the hands of Arab clerics. Al-Hatami and al-Khazaali are two major tribes that do not follow Sistani.

Tribal members from both believe the attack was launched by the central government of Baghdad to stifle growing Shi'ite-Sunni unity in the area.

"Our convoy was close to the al-Hatami convoy on the way to Najaf when we heard the massive shooting, and so we ran to help them because our tribe and theirs are bound with a strong alliance," a 45-year-old man who asked to be referred to as Ahmed told IPS.

Ahmed, a member of the al-Khazali tribe said "our two tribes have a strong belief that Iranians are provoking sectarian war in Iraq which is against the belief of all Muslims, and so we announced an alliance with Sunni brothers against any sectarian violence in the country. That did not make our Iranian-dominated government happy."

The fighting took place on the Diwaniya-Najaf road and spread into nearby date-palm plantations after pilgrims sought refuge there.
"American helicopters participated in the slaughter," Jassim Abbas, a farmer from the area told IPS. "They were soon there to kill those pilgrims without hesitation, but they were never there for helping Iraqis in anything they need. We just watched them getting killed group by group while trapped in those plantations."

Much of the killing was done by US and British warplanes, eyewitnesses said.

Local authorities including the office of Najaf Governor Asaad Abu Khalil who is a member of the pro-Iranian Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) had claimed before the killings that a group of primarily foreign Sunni fighters with links to al-Qaeda had planned to disrupt the Ashura festival by attacking Shi'ite pilgrims and senior ayatollahs in Najaf. The city is the principal seat of religious learning for Shi'ites in Iraq.

Officials claimed that Iraqi security forces had obtained intelligence information from two detained men that had led the Iraqi Scorpion commando squad to prepare for an attack. The intelligence claimed obviously had little impact on how events unfolded.

Minister of Interior Jawad al-Bolani announced to reporters at 9am Sunday morning that Najaf was being attacked by al-Qaeda. Immediately following this announcement the Ministry of National Security (MNS) announced that the dead were members of the Shi'ite splinter extremist group Jund al-Sama (Army of Heaven) who were out to kill senior ayatollahs in Najaf, including Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

Iraq's national security advisor Muaffaq al-Rubaii said just 15 minutes after the MNS announcement that hundreds of Arab fighters had been killed, and that many had been arrested. Rubaii claimed there were Saudis, Yemenis, Egyptians and Afghans.

But Governor Khalil's office backed away from its initial claims after the dead turned out to be local Shi'ite Iraqis. Iraqi security officials continue to contradict their own statements. Most officials now say that the dead were Shi'ite extremists supported by foreign powers.

The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has a pattern of announcing it is fighting terrorists, like its backers in Washington. Many Iraqis in the south now accuse Baghdad of calling them terrorists simply because they refuse to collaborate with the Iranian-dominated government.

www.antiwar.com - sure they are unbiased.

Show me one piece of evidence that proves it.

The Iraqi government's evidence was "we assume"

When you find that one piece of fact that links Iran to Iraq be sure to share it with us.

Show me evidence that proves they aren't. You can't so don't front as though lack of evidence makes it so.

So you are basing your strong opinion based on assumptions rather than facts.
Gotcha.

Exact same thing you did, you just took the other position. So congratz. My opinion came off no stronger then the "no evidence" opinion you shared. You have no facts to back up your side, just suggestions...reports and ideas.....same as my opinion.

As I said earlier, the US shouldn't launch any strikes on Iran......if that is done the "allies" (aka SA) should do it.

My facts are there are no facts.

Which means since there are no facts the issue needs to be dropped.

Thats like me saying, the U.S was behind 9/11. Prove to mee they weren't. The people who believe it have no facts to back up their bogus claim, just a bunch of assumptions.

Nobody listens to them because they have zero facts.

OK.

Good article on the way Iran has worked in the past to "battle" the US.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051901761.html

It discusses the "non presence" of Iran in Iraq, but also delves into the ideas that Iran doesn't usually put "troops on the ground" when fighting the US interest.

So based on the "past", Iran should attack the U.S ASAP because the past has shown the U.S has made it possible for tens of thousands of Iranians to die. Almost all of them civilians.

So with those assumptions, the U.S must be behind the terrorist attacks inside Iran. Yes, there are terrorist attacks inside Iran and since the U.S is next door and has attacked Iran in the past indirectly, they must be behind them.

Where are you going, you have completely left the topic? In the need to defend your opinion against mine via assumption junction. I tried to drop an actual article pertaining to the original topic of this thread. Where do you want to take it.....I already agreed with your "no facts are facts" disclosure.

Isn't this proof that Iranians are in Iraq?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2355951.shtml

Sounds pretty proof-positive to me, and from a liberal network even! Will this convince the anti-American socialists on this board? Not a chance...

I thought you would like that article. They agree with you that it is the Iranians causing the trouble in Iraq. Did you read the article?

Oh...and BTW, that article was not written by antiwar.com. They just reprinted it. If you click the link and look at the bottom, it is an Inter Press Service article (http://www.ips.org/)