astralis

it wouldn't be surprising at all if the iranian government was indeed wholly complicit with all this. i'm really inclined to believe it, simply because discomforting america would certainly be in iran's national interest. they're trying to walk a fine line between discomforting america and enraging her to the point of invasion.

however, regarding the evidence presented thus far, why has it been so relatively weak, despite all the ground info we're getting? there's the problems which wabpilot has identified. also, of the recent helicopter shootdowns, apparently all but one of the shootdowns was via machine-gun fire, and machine-guns are something iraq is not really running low on, apparently.

bluesman,

regarding

the president is not so sure on that point...

“We know that. And we also know that the Quds Force is a part of the Iranian government. That’s a known. What we don’t know is whether or not head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds Force to do what they did.”

and neither is gen. pace.

“It is clear that materials from Iran are involved...But I would not say, based on what I know, that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.”

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Shek

ChosenOne,
You didn't post that ALL weapony came from Iran. You posted exactly what your second paragraph above reads. You didn't misstated anything in your original post.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Shek

So all Shia groups are the same? Does Iran support Iyad Allawi; he's a Shia, afterall?

Do you discount the chemical analysis of the munitions that are marked with the English characters?

Shek

Who's proposing that Iran is a linchpin or some major factor behind the Sunni insurgency? Maybe I'm missing out on a thread, but from where we were last discussing this, the conversation seemed to revolve around whether it was plausible for Iran to provide some support where it furthered their interests. I proposed that providing 50-100 BCUs for manpads would further Iranian interests without creating your "wild animal" scenario. Tell me how this would not be true? How would 50-100 BCUs create a "wild animal"?

Notice that I am not asserting that they are linked, simply that this is quite plausible to the extent that I stated.

As far as Saudi aid to the Sunni insurgency, there is no doubt that there are private petrodollars funding it. As far as official funds going to the insurgency, I'd find that equally if not more plausible as my Iranian scenario above.

Lastly, as far as why the US is pushing the Iranian card right now, I think that we may be looking to far down the road. I think that it could very well be to play up the importance of stabilizing Iraq by demonstrating how there are proxy wars being fought that we don't want to blow up if we were to redeploy prematurely. Instead of a strategy to double down by signaling an Iranian-centric action (e.g. bombing of nuke facilities), it could simply be a device to try and push the Democrats that are opposing Iraq into a corner. How can you talk tough about Iran and the current regime and its pursuit of nukes while allowing them to strengthen their foothold in Iraq and be complicit in US deaths while supporting a withdrawal from Iraq? Can you have it both ways? I'm thinking that it's a strategy to create space for freedom of maneuver over Iraq.

Bluesman

Because stating anything else in public (vice Cabinet or National Command Authority discussions, which, thank Gawd, we're not privy to) means they've got to do something decisive and difficult about it.

I would bet my life that behind closed doors, this question is answered in a completely different way by both men.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

wabpilot

The Bushies have already fouled up the intelligence once. I have zero faith in their ability to get it right now. Are they producing bogus evidence? You raised that point. Not me. I just do not trust the Bush administration's analysis on Iraq or anything to do with Iraq. They have been so wrong so often that no rational person can trust them. The evidence you seem to think is so strong simply does not add up.

wabpilot

If you believe Iran, or any other source provided "all" of anything in Iraq then you are simply ignoring the obvious. Such a statement is completely illogical. Try to come up with something serious, or quit wasting the bandwidth.

Shek

Re-read the original post. You misinterpreted it, and still are! You are the bandwidth thief here

Shek

So you disagree with the chemical analysis performed on the ordnance?

wabpilot

I am not saying that Iran is not arming certain Shia groups. I am saying that the presser has not presented proof of that allegation. I have serious doubts that it is Iranian policy to arm any other than selected Shia groups. And, until someone produces proof or a reasonable character, I am not inclined to believe any acqusations against Iran.

Bluesman

The 'Bushies' didn't foul up the intel; the counter-Bushies at CIA did, though. And 'fouled up' doesn't equal 'faked up', which is what you're alleging, regardless of your claim, below.

Your faith is not required for facts to be facts.

No, YOU raised it, with your publicly-displyed skepticism. The only way that what has been presented to you is NOT true is that there is a nefarious plot afoot to decieve us all. Well, that's too ludicrous for rational adults to believe.

Fair enough. They've gotten enough wrong for people of good will to disagree with just about anything labeled as 'analysis' for the entire duration of the Iraq War, and I certainly won't find fault with well-meaning critics of good faith that don't trust what sometimes appears even to us supporters to be a farcical black comedy. (Leaving aside, for the moment, that NO war effort EVER goes so smoothly that some criticism isn't possible, but one must have some historical perspective to understand that if the citizenry's expectation is a flawless and perfect war effort, we'll defeat ourselves every single time...and that's a LOT of what's going on right now.)

But what you suppose is the absolutely ridiculous proposition that you're being actively LIED TO in an attempt to prepare for an unnecessary strike at Iran. For too many reasons to list, that is simply mad. That's not what's happening here.

It certainly DOES add up, but you're being stubborn about believing it.

wabpilot

You read it again. The author admitted his mistake. Now you need to.

Bluesman

You're not, huh? Because of their sterling record over the last 25 years, no doubt.

Here's the truth about Iran: far more than any other single entity on the planet, that government in Iran is THE foremost sponsor of terrorism throughout the world.

But in YOUR world, you'd rather believe the ayatollahs than your own President. Well, isn't THAT precious?

Bluesman

Nope; his post was correct. You didn't read and comprehend what's been posted. I laid it out for you. You still don't get it, though.

wabpilot

So you have no other evidence.

You keep raising the issue not me. Look at the evidence. There are inconsistencies that you refuse to explain. Lacking explination you attack the skeptic. All you have to do is offer reasonable explination for the inconsistencies. You have not, so I must assume that you cannot.

Why is that ridiculous? The Bush administration track record suggests that when confronted with a critical decision such as going to war, it will produce a lot of bogus charges like the Powell speech to the UN to support the march to war. Is this just another example? I do not know, but having been fooled once, I hold the Bushies to a much higher standard than I once did.