Petraeus: Iran Behind Green Zone Attack
March 25th, 2008 at 09:09am Mark Noonan
From the BBC:
Gen David Petraeus told the BBC he thought Tehran had trained, equipped and funded insurgents who fired the barrage of mortars and rockets.
He said Iran was adding what he described as “lethal accelerants” to a very combustible mix.
There has as yet been no response from Iran to the accusations…
…In an interview with BBC world affairs editor John Simpson, Gen Petraeus said violence in Iraq was being perpetuated by Iran’s Quds Force, a branch of the Revolutionary Guards.
“The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for example… were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets,” he said, adding that the groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds Force.
“All of this in complete violation of promises made by President Ahmadinejad and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts.”
This makes sense - the Iranian leadership cannot afford American victory in Iraq, cannot afford a vibrant Iraqi democracy and would very much prefer some President other than John McCain in January, 2009…so, stirring up as much trouble as possible is in the Iranian government’s interest.
However this particular incident comes out, we must keep in mind that Iran’s government (to be very clear that its not the Iranian people) is an absolute and implacable enemy of the United States and its allies. We might not ever have to fight the Iranians (and I pray God this is so - Iran is America’s natural ally in the region, and it would give me great pain to see American soldiers fighting Iranian soldiers, spilling excellent Iranian and American blood due to the folly of a corrupt few in Tehran), but we must be on our guard at all times - and be ever willing to take the fight directly into Iran, if need be.
Entry Filed under: Foreign Affairs, War on Terror
66 Comments
1. js | March 25th, 2008 at 9:14 am
We may not have a choice.
Its our obligation to defend Iraq at this point, and that includes Irans actions which are an act of war.
2. Sunny | March 25th, 2008 at 9:21 am
“and would very much prefer some President other than John McCain in January, 2009…” Mark
And you know this how???
3. Magnum Serpentine | March 25th, 2008 at 9:21 am
We have no obligation to defend, Iraq, absolutely none. There is absolutely no reason to go to war with Iran, except as a distraction for george and to please the oil barons.
4. Diane Tomlinson | March 25th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Sam I have to say I’m with you there. If there would be one way to kill off the Right Wing of American politics it would be if Bush ordered attacks on Iran. The business of America is business. It would be hard to watch them slip their own heads in the noose and jump all at once from their high pedestal. That 250/barrel figure is not off the mark either so that would put the price of gasoline expressed in real dollars at just under $7 a gallon for regular off refinery pipe at Colonial and about 7.50 at the pump for 87 octane.
Crazy talk!
5. Canadian Observer | March 25th, 2008 at 10:08 am
How does that work, exactly? Can GWB declare war with Iran without some sort of approval from the appropriate governmental bodies?
6. Zach | March 25th, 2008 at 10:12 am
And you know this how???-Sunny
Oh yeah, I’m sure Iran is just dying to share a border with a stronger Iraq with a stronger army..
Come on man. Quit trying to be an aggravation to this blog.
7. neocon | March 25th, 2008 at 10:16 am
I think it is best that we worry more about the price of oil and how much tyrants and dictators like us, rather than securing the peace and liberty of people around the globe. Thanks Sam & Diane.
8. Casper | March 25th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Since Iran’s president was treated like a rock star during his visit to Baghdad while our president has to sneak in and out of the country, I kind of wonder who Iraq will ally themselves with in the long run.
9. Zach | March 25th, 2008 at 10:26 am
“If there would be one way to kill off the Right Wing of American politics it would be if Bush ordered attacks on Iran.”
Maybe it might work the other way around though…
I dont know about you, but I’m not partial to standing by nothing while our soldiers are being killed by Iranian made (bombs) and supplying and funding insurgents. Are you? It seems that everytime someone spouts about 4,000 soldiers dying in Iraq, that same person doesnt want to mention that a number of those soldiers were being killed by Iranian supplyed items….Just a thought
Bush ain’t got the politcal gravitas to do anything about them anymore anyway..
You’re right though Diane and Sam…F*ck 250$/per barrel!
10. DM | March 25th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Mark, really, do we have to be subjected to this kind of trash from Sam and the likes in order to participate in B4V?
Their posts are usually way off topic, carry on with hate filled lies, often directed personally at you and add NOTHING in the way of discussion.
11. sam | March 25th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Deleted - off topic; commenter to be banned.
12. Joe | March 25th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Gee DM. Do you want just a blog where everyone agrees with one point of view?
How boring would that be?
On topic….
Gee, what if Bush actually was willing to discuss current issues with the iranian brass? You know… hold talks? Maybe work something out to try and get them to stop helping Al Quaeda… ooops… sorry, John McCain moment there…. get them to stop helping the “extremists”.
I have to believe more good could come out of talks than from sabre-rattling.
13. lilly06 | March 25th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Sam:
Its unfair to say that it ‘doesn’t matter how many soldiers are killed in Iran’
The American soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan are there because they are following orders. In most cases, alot of them don’t necessarily agree with the war and are tired of seeing their comrades die in battle.
I put the blame entirely on a greedy administration that care nothing for the suffering of the American troops.
Blame the Bush administration for the soldiers suffering but don’t blame the soldiers, its not their fault.
14. DM | March 25th, 2008 at 11:53 am
”… Mark Noonan advocates the killing of other people’s children via war”
” …he spews his uneducated ideas, and advocates the killing of americans and iranians…”
”… you and I both know you don’t give a rats ass about freedom or justice, you just want to dominate the world…”
These are just a few of the incredibly ridiculous lies that Sam feels so free to throw about.
Joe, it is not my personal wish to only include points of view that I agree with, but I would find it much more appealing if those with opposing views would provide discussion using facts and opinions that had relevance. Both you and Sam seem incapable reasonable discussion and would be 2 of the first people I would ban if this were my blog.
15. Joe | March 25th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Deleted - off topic.
16. lilly06 | March 25th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
DM,
Sorry but we don’t live in a dictatorship and Joe and Sam should be free to express opposing views no matter how much you disagree with them.
In most cases, their responses are intelligent and there are many occasions where Mark has provided opinions based on ‘adapted truths’.
I understand that it might be frustrating that their opinions are quite hard hitting but it is healthy to offer an alternative view to the same issues affecting Americans today.
Sam: I would agree that you tone down some of your views though. You can be angry with the politicians and the government but their actions don’t always reflect the view of
Americans citizens.
17. lilly06 | March 25th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I think Joe’s points have been valid, don’t know about Sam’s though. His views are kind of extreme.
18. Zach | March 25th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
“Do you remember that prior to the U.S. invasion and occupation that Iran had ZERO say in anything in Iraq? Does anyone remember that? Iran and Iraq were enemies.”
Hey, if Sadaam lived next door to you, would you go walking around in his backyard?
Yeah..Me Neither
Of course Iran is emboldened. You think the US is gonna rain mustard gas over Iranian civilians?
You think Sadaam gave two shits about the terms of engagment? You think he cared about killing men, women, and children?
How about the UN? You think cared what anyone in the UN thought about him or Iraq?
Iran is emboldened because they know that they can f*ck with us, and the US doesnt have the fire in the belly to deal with them. As long as we’re bogged down in Iraq, we ain’t gonna anything about’em
But hey it’s ok. They’re just OCCUPATION forces right?
19. Zach | March 25th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Well I think that pretty much speaks for itself.
Thankyou Sam
20. Nate | March 25th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
so bush can start another war and leave 3 or more fronts for the next president — hooray!
and since you criticized the msm for the almost 4000 stories, well, today, 032508, it is 4000 from the usa pending dod confirmation (4308 for the entire coalition).
http://icasualties.org/oif/
21. DM | March 25th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
”… it is like a train wreck.”
”This blog is seriously like a train wreck.”
”I hate to talk for all Dems, but I for one, come to this site to see what foolishness is spewed from you wackos.”
”Mark, comment #21 OBVIOUSLY shows how this blog has become a complete train wreck.”
”This blog is a friggin’ train wreck.”
Joe, these are just a few of your post denigrating this blog. It really gets tiring to read your repetitious complaining. Like I said, I come here in hopes for insightful discussion of which, IMHO you offer little. Your statements from above come across as someone with little respect for others with and no real interest in debate, only a chance to trash a blog with views opposing to yours.
”Sorry but we don’t live in a dictatorship and Joe and Sam should be free to express opposing views no matter how much you disagree with them.” - lilly06
And what you fail to grasp is this blog is privately owned where the authors are Conservative minded and where you and I are guest. Mark and Matt have given us an opportunity to interact in political / religious / national-international discussions where everyone with similar and dissimilar points of view can be state and discuss them. That does not mean you or anyone else gets to freely post whatever you want.
I have absolutely no problem with opposing views to my own. I even disagree with the blog authors at times. If you don’t like others point of view at least offer something meaningful as to why. It must be a grownup thing – where some people haven’t gotten there yet.
22. DM | March 25th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Joe
Thank you for at least having the courage to distance yourself from what Sam post. That’s a start.
23. SteaM | March 25th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
A war with Iran would probably require us to reinstate the draft. How do you think the American public would react to this?
24. Some Assembly Required | March 25th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
DM, I’m sorry but I have to call you out on your self-rightous stint here. First let me say some of the stuff sam has posted I do not agree with. However if your going to go on about blog etiquette you cannot just limit it to Sam and Joe. Some of the comments I have read from neocon, keefer (aka. flavor of the week), js, Freedom1 and FMRMarine are frankly appalling at times. Mind you we all have our moments, but singling out two people on this blog is ridiculous.
Back on topic. The US funds and supplies various countries with weapons and munitions. Shoot there was recently a blunder where ballistic missile triggers were accidentally sent to Tawian. Sh$$ happens. To attack Iran because they are supplying terrorists would be the greatest hypocritical move the US could make. The only way I see a justification for military action is if Iran invades Iraq and in the process kills US military personal on the ground. Or of course an attack by them on US soil (highly unlikely).
25. sam | March 25th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
you may not agree with soldiers getting shot at..but the reality is they VOLUNTEERED and they are soldiers.
they arent there to be parking police, they are there to occupy a land that is not theirs. Its that simple.
Ideally, i would like them not to be shot at, but the only way thats happening is if they get out and get out fast. But until that happens, I will have no remorse if more US soldiers are killed because of the ignorance of their leaders.
26. lilly06 | March 25th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
DM,
Although I completely agree with what you say, there have been many times that I have read this site and opinions have been offered with little help or relevance to the topic offered.
I’m okay with opposing views keeping in mind respect for the American people as they don’t have the choice in most cases about what is decided by policians.
Comments that pick on soldiers who inexcusable even if a person is a foreign national. Go and ask the average American in the street and they won’t have a clue about 75% of all the decisions on international policy taken by the US government.
27. Joe | March 25th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
you believe what you want. Just pointing out the difference between you, me and the Bush/McCain-backers on this site.
You want them out and don’t care if they are shot at.
I want them out but while they are there, if they are shot at, I get pissed.
They want them to stay and if they are shot at, they get pissed.
Now we know where everyone stands.
28. DM | March 25th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
SAR,
My initial issue was related directly to what Sam posted. Joe involved himself where he seemed to think I only wanted other peoples view similar to my own, which is kind of funny as it appears he too took exception to some of what Sam wrote.
lilly06,
Thanks for your last post. This blog and everyone with an “honest” interest would be well served to keep those things in mind.
29. navydad | March 25th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Ahh…Sambo’s back with the same old hate America rhetoric. Blogging from your cushy little pad down at college ..eh Sambo. Ever get that degree in bomb making???
How bout this http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020262.php
This my friends, is why no one should ever believe a word Sambo spews or that the Iranians are our allies…period. His kind condones this type of action…..what a puke!
30. lilly06 | March 25th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
To be fair, I don’t believe Joe has agreed with Sam’s extremist views.
He just shared his own opinions. There is nothing wrong with that.
31. Zach | March 25th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
“Zach, your posts also are sounding a bit crazy. Sounds like you are saying we should “take care of” Iran.”-Joe
I’m sorry but I just dont like the idea of our soldiers being killed *indirectly* by Iran and no one does anything about it.
Do I think it’d be a good idea to invade Iran?-Hell No
Would I support strategic airstrikes to give off a warning signal to Iran?-Right now?, No I wouldn’t. But I do think more economic pressure needs to be applied.
A message needs to be sent to them. It doesnt have to be a military signal either..Does that sound crazy to you Joe?
Not all republicans are warmongers..
32. Some Assembly Required | March 25th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
“….Go and ask the average American in the street and they won’t have a clue about 75% of all the decisions on international policy taken by the US government.” - lilly
Sadly I couldn’t agree more. People in general, specifically Americans, are uninterested in anything that goes on which doesn’t affect them personally. I think this is a part of the reason why there is such hatred and contempt for the US today. People in Europe and the middle east have been dealing with terror attacks for centuries yet the US goes apesh$@ because of 9/11. That attack was atrocious don’t get me wrong, but to people who see bombings everyday of the week does it really compare…
People also forget sometimes the military is the best option for some young people. People who cannot afford college or are not eligible for student loans. A full ride with the military is often an offer which they cannot turn down.
33. sam | March 25th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I agree with that last statement by Assembly required.
The military has traditionally been for people who are looking for ways to improve their life. People who are poor, don’t have educations or need money for college after the army are a perfect example.
its those people I feel bad for, but at the same time, they volunteered knowing they could be killed in action. So really, I don’t feel sorry for them, i feel sorry for their families and the circumstances they have been placed in.
As far as iran goes, its all rhetoric, the US won’t do anything. watch and see…..
34. Joe | March 25th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Zach,
I agree with you. I am just saying you sounded like you were for bombing them in post #25.
I completely agree that more economic pressure and open negotiations would be nice.
Those that are doing the sabre-rattling is what is pissing me off with regards to Iran.
35. SteaM | March 25th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Does Iran’s president have the ability to obtain a nuke and use it even though the Iran’s actual leader, the ayotollah (sp?) has condemded their use by Iran?
Doesn’t the supreme leader make those decisions not the president?
36. Dennis | March 25th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Sam stated one incontestable truth about the US military in Iraq: “They are there to occupy a land that is not theirs. Its that simple.”
That might not be their motivation, or even fall within the awareness of many young American kids in Iraq who believe they are there for patriotic reasons. But the fact is, they are a heavily armed military force who invaded another sovereign nation that posed no threat to the US, who killed countless civilians and wrecked the security and infrastructure of that nation in doing so.
And the US has not - in six years! - been able to establish security or get the physical infrastructure (clean water, sanitation, electricity, fuel, hospitals, police etc) even back to pre-invasion levels.
Now there are millions of refugees, most Christians have abandoned Iraq because freedom of religion is permanently gone and the great unspoken reason for the tenuous peace that currently exists is because ethnic cleansing and sectarian separation has already taken place. And yet rival groups are still being paid to not attack each other. In other words, things are much more f***ed up than anyone in the military chain of command dares admit.
And the only way the Bush admin can keep from being held accountable for mayhem is to continue pouring billions of American taxpayers’ dollars a week into that black hole, borrowing billions more from the Chinese, and praying the economy doesn’t melt down before they can escape and blame the consequences of their actions on their successors.
Meanwhile (back full circle) those occupying military forces will be targets of legitimate Iraqi anger. Nobody wants our troops to be shot at, but some nationalistic Iraqis who have lost everything and want only to see the ones they believe opened all this suffering on them to leave - hence sniper attacks and roadside bombs should come as no surprise.
You can’t even call them all bad guys, if you pull back and try to see it through their eyes. Imagine how it would feel if a heavily armed occupying army of, say, Chinese troops came over here with shock and awe to collect on their debt, killing many thousands, bursting into homes at all times day or night to strip search and humiliate poeple at random - and by all this claimed to be giving us a lesson not about democracy, but fiscal responsibility?
“But America deserves it, they needed to be liberated from their irresponsible, unethical capitalistic system,” they might argue - just as we presumptiously argue how much the Iraqis needed our democracy, delivered by such tender mercies and at such terrible cost.
37. FmrMarine | March 25th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
samthesham;
>>>PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE attack Iran. I can’t wait for that theater, wow, 250 dollar oil per barrel, regional war in the middle east….Chinese pissed off cause oil prices are rising…WOW, can’t wait for that one….<<<
OR better in your eyes.
Let them build nukes, attack Isreal with them, have Isreal return, in overwelming force.
Ignite a possible nuclear exchange between the superpowers.
No problem = NO OIL
and
NO civilization left to use it……..you are SOOOOO tuned in samtheSHAM!
38. FmrMarine | March 25th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
zach;
“Not all republicans are warmongers..”
NONE of us are, We ALWAYS have to END the wars the democRATS start.
check out history.
39. Rich | March 25th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
“so what iran is killing the OCCUPATION forces.”
Diane: This is a person you are agreeing with. Time for you to get some new friends.
40. SteaM | March 25th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
That’s what I was referring to in my above question. Can they actually build nukes and then deploy them when their Supreme Leader of Iran has condemned their use?
Anyone with some knowledge of the Iranian government/power structure able to answer my question?
41. NeoClown | March 25th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Dubya says No Nukes For Iran.
Armadinajad thumbs his nose at Dubya and cranks up his nuke program.
Armadinajad comes all the way to the US and thumbs his nose at Dubya and Dubya cowers in his bunker.
Armadinajad supplies IED’s that kill American troops and Dubya does nothing.
Armadinajad drops mortor rounds into the Green Zone and Dubya does nothing.
42. kimberly4victory | March 25th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
SteaM, you’re right. Khomeini is such a peaceful guy. He has no idea why they are building a nuclear bomb, uh plant.
From one of his lovely speeches: “Why do you only read the Quranic verses of mercy and do not read the verses of killing? Quran says; kill, imprison! Why are you only clinging to the part that talks about mercy? Mercy is against God.
Neoclown: And, just what are you suggesting? War with Iran? Be careful, your neorad friends might label you a warmonger.
Bush is pushing Saudia Arabia and Egypt to join Bashrain in going to Iraq to meet with the government. These possible meetings could give Iran pause in their current interference. Who knows?
I still believe we should assist those who want to overthrow Khomeini and his evil gang of followers. Some time ago, I read on an Iranian blog, that if 10,000 or more Iranians decided to demonstrate, the Republican Guard would lay down their arms and probably join them or run away.
All is not lost with Iran. It (the current dictatorship) could fall without the US firing one shot.
43. Almiranta | March 25th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
sam, if you are a ‘foreign national’ in this country, please take note of the fact that whatever border restrictions we do have are designed to keep people out, not in—if you hate the United States so much, just don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Also, as a ‘foreign national” who has come to this clearly identified conservative blog, uninvited, only to spew a bizarre mixture of hatred and nonsense, you should know that even a modicum of fact and reason would make your unsolicited posts less obnoxious.
Take a moment to think about how you would feel if any of us went into your country, uninvited, and then proceeded to attack it constantly, even if we were correct in our assertions—–and how much more offended you would be if we simply lied and invented and exaggerated so we could further trash your native land.
Yep, that’s exactly how we feel about you.
44. Almiranta | March 25th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Of course, Diane T is quite the cheerleader for sam, and lilly seems to like him enough to say, of him and Joe, “….their responses are intelligent…”
So I guess sam has found his niche–or hole, or gutter, or feverswamp of Liberal loathing.
This fascinated me. Casper, who is a teacher and who, one would hope, has the ability to make sense sometimes, says: “Since Iran’s president was treated like a rock star during his visit to Baghdad while our president has to sneak in and out of the country, I kind of wonder who Iraq will ally themselves with in the long run.”
It’s such a weird and bizarre way of looking at things, I kinda think he must have heard a Ranty Rhodes rant and kinda maybe sorta got the gist of what she was saying.
But anyway, Casper: If the Iranians are as foolish and emotion-bound as the typical American Lefty, they will definitely go for ‘rock star’. It will definitely be all about image and superficial glitter.
If they are logical and intellectual, they will like the idea that a president of a country understands his obligation to do whatever he can to ensure the stabilty and continuity of its leadership, and will prefer a leader who puts this responsibility above any desire to act like a ‘rock star’ and be greedy for the limelight.
We saw this after 9/11, when the Lefties here in the US were outraged that our president put the continuity of the government first, after being so pleased with 8 years of showboating and strutting to gain the adulation of those who think leadership is just one big popularity contest.
So, just like it is here, it will be a contrast between the shallow and the serious, the star-struck and the studious.
Guess we’ll just have to wait and see, won’t we, just as we will here in the good old U S of A—serious leadership or Obamapalooza.
45. Tractatus | March 25th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
So, just like it is here, it will be a contrast between the shallow and the serious, the star-struck and the studious.
You are so clearly not on the side of those equations that you think you are, ‘Ranty. But hey, self-awareness has never really been your thing.
Do you really think the fact that Iran’s president was given the full red-carpet treatment while our president has to slip in unannounced is meaningless? You don’t think that says something about which one is better liked? And do you think your weirdo spin actually made some sort of salient point?
Wait a minute, I get it now…you’re trying to be Stephen Colbert’s replacement, aren’t you? It’s the only thing that makes this post (and most of your others) make sense.
46. Casper | March 25th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
“It’s such a weird and bizarre way of looking at things, I kinda think he must have heard a Ranty Rhodes rant and kinda maybe sorta got the gist of what she was saying.’
I’m assuming you are referring to someone on Air America. Since I don’t listen to Air America (tried it once for two nights three or four years ago, didn’t like “:it), I guess I must have come up with it on my own.
“But anyway, Casper: If the Iranians are as foolish and emotion-bound as the typical American Lefty, they will definitely go for ‘rock star’. It will definitely be all about image and superficial glitter.”
Actually, it was the Iraqis that treated him like a rock star. You know, the ones we liberated.
“We saw this after 9/11, when the Lefties here in the US were outraged that our president put the continuity of the government first, after being so pleased with 8 years of showboating and strutting to gain the adulation of those who think leadership is just one big popularity contest.”
I think what most people were upset with, was attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. As for Clinton, he was a pretty bad president too.
My questions to you is;
Do you think Iran is stronger now than it was five years ago? If so, don’t think our occupation of Iraq might have had something to do with it?
47. congressive | March 26th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Deleted - paranoid ravings.
48. neocon | March 26th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Mark,
Somehow the level of discourse needs to rise on this blog or we risk losing the many commentators that have frequented in the past. People like sam, SAR, tractutus, SteaM, Christian Wright etc, have denigrated the quality of this blog. The one liberal i did enjoy reading was Rico and now he’s even gone. Retired Spook was one of my favorites and he seems to be absent, and Daesins gone but at least Almiranta is still around and it’s good to Kimberly back.
I feel like I am in a time warp every time I read one of the juveniles liberals posts here. They bring nothing to the table but tired old porpaganda and insults. Playground stuff. Ban some of them or risk losing all intelligent commentators.
49. neocon | March 26th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Oh I forgot congressive. He’d be the first on my list.
50. kimberly4victory | March 26th, 2008 at 12:32 am
neocon: Thanks … it’s good to be back. :-) Rico, Daesins, and Retired Spook are definitely missed.
Even if Mark and Matt decide not to ban any of the trolls (and yes, congressive is one nasty troll), deleting some of their childish comments would definitely be nice.
51. TheHarbinger | March 26th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Deleted - off topic.
52. Mark Noonan | March 26th, 2008 at 3:23 am
neocon,
We have noticed and are taking action. Please report anything you consider abusive to the abuse link.
53. Diane Tomlinson | March 26th, 2008 at 4:57 am
[Waving hysterically]
I know this one. The answer is the Supreme Leader as head of the armed forces is the only person in Iran who can authorize the use of military force. In that context the answer since the Ayatollah Khamenei has called their use an abomination is no they would not. Now I’m sure every wingnut here is going to say what about Ahmadinejad but really he is the straw man the media likes to use to sell ad time. The guy has only an advisory power and no control over any of their military. Iran is at least five years from having a test load of fissile material and then five more from weaponization. Honestly who has the right to tell any country they can’t have nuclear weapons?
54. Christian Wright | March 26th, 2008 at 6:31 am
And now for something completely different…
a link to reality
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/26/iraq.military
55. FoolYouTwice | March 26th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Rico wasn’t a liberal. He stated many times that he was a conservative. Basically, anyone that doesn’t share your same point of view you have a problem with. Especially if they act in the same manner that you do on this blog, then you really hate them. Amazing how you are unable to see this.
56. kimberly4victory | March 26th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Whatever you say, DT. After all, Khomeni is such a wonderful, nice, sweet, loving old man.
LMAO.
I don’t recall Rico stating he was a conservative … I think he said he was an independent. I could be wrong …
Fool you twice … are you some assembly required and third eye blind … and ?
57. FoolYouTwice | March 26th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
no kimberly, i am not either of those people. Rico stated he was a conservative multiple times, but seemed to give up restating this fact as everyone here just labeled him a liberal because he dared to disagree with the conservatives on the site. He actually made them think through their opinions and thus, he must be an evil liberal.
58. SteaM | March 26th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Ok, so Ahmadinejad has limited power. The Supreme Leader, who is not Ahmadinejad, is the only one who can authorize military force. So why are we focusing on Ahmadinejad if he has no power?
59. MorrisMajor | March 26th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Of course, most of Iraq is Shiites, Iraq just welcomed an embassy from Iran with open arms, and ff given a chance, will bond with Iran and create even a bigger monster. Petraeus is caught in the middle of a very poorly thought out political dilemna. But it had to be liberals at fault, cause they have to feel that they are doing something noble and important by starting the mess to begin with. right? Cons are too politcally astute and intellectual to ever get us into this kind of mess, right.
60. kimberly4victory | March 26th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
“So why are we focusing on Ahmadinejad if he has no power?”
I think Ahmadinejad is the talking piece for Khomeini. The nutjob may not have the power but he sure can speak out both sides of his mouth, can’t he!
Did anyone see the reporting about Iranian men wearing their hair long and “in fashion”? They are defying the Supreme Leader by doing so. It’s these young people who will some day run Iran. I say, the sooner the better.
Morris: I believe Iraq has asked ALL nations to have an embassy in their country, not just Iran. The leader of Bashrain recently visited there and is contemplating an embassy, but no reporting on that.
Don’t ya think we need to give this “new” country a chance at democracy?
61. Some Assembly Required | March 26th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
“Don’t ya think we need to give this “new” country a chance at democracy?”
Kim, I agree. The problem is you cannot force democracy on anyone. If it is forced it is truly not democracy. The US should not tell them what to do, but give them guidance and assistance if they need it. (This is going on now to an extent) This does not mean paying everyone off. The Iraqi people need to work things out for themselves much like the forefathers of the US did. Otherwise government there will fail.
With regards to Iran, I think this is where Obama’s plan of sitting down with enemies of the US without preconditions is key. A better understanding of Iran and what the US could do to facilitate their own change without military action is of the utmost importance for future relations.
62. kimberly4victory | March 26th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
From what I’ve read from Iraqis themselves (on their blogs and different news articles), a majority seem like they are very hopeful and excited about the future of their country.
And yes, any time we can use diplomatic measures in lieu of military is good (you know, we did try with Saddam for years and 14 resolutions later). Of course, Saddam was an idiot and even told the CIA he hoped to restart his WMD program. Geez, some people just never learn … and look where he is now!
I am hoping, and I really can’t believe for one minute our president would go to war with Iran, we can do something with Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Talking with them might be an option. However, I am not betting my house on it doing any good. Sad, because I am typically an optimist, but in the case of having anything good come from talking to Iran, I’m a pessimist. :-(
Do you have any thoughts on the young people of Iran revolting? I might bet my money on them before anything else.
63. congressive | March 26th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Who wrote this:
Jesus Christ, the Messiah…
He was a messenger of peace, devotion and love based upon monotheism and justice. He was raised in His Mother’s hand – Virgin Mary… – that Almighty God stood her as impeccable and exalted her above the women of the world. The Mother and the Son that in the Divine Sight are reputable and prestigious. And they are positioned by God – The All Wise- at a sublime level.
There’s no doubt, after God – the Peerless Creator, the Beneficent, the Merciful – created the human beings, did not forsake them on their own. By sending and assigning the emissaries – prophets and messengers - along with the righteous individuals, and on top of that, by providing and utilizing the mankind with the gifts of intellect and human nature, they are guided in the right path – in order to achieve the complete perfection. The human generations – one after another – were not created to live in anguish, intimidation, skirmish, aggression, oppression, and misery. And without enjoying an amity and fraternity atmosphere - replete of love and justice – depart this life and leave it for the next generations.”
Petraeus? - It is VERY “on topic.” Anyone?
64. Diana Powe | March 26th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
kimberly4victory,
You might find it useful to compare and contrast your experience of “very hopeful and excited” Iraqis with the two Iraqis interviewed by Charlie Rose on the fifth anniversary of our invading Iraq. It is the interview from March 19, with the link labeled as “Continued discussion about the war in Iraq”.
http://www.charlierose.com/schedule/
65. Jeremiah | March 27th, 2008 at 12:21 am
He actually made them think through their opinions and thus, he must be an evil liberal.
FYT,
Regarding Ricorun…No, however, he leans more Left than center. Just my personal opinion, after reading many of his posts…he tends to side with much of what I don’t agree with, regarding moral issues and such.
–Jeremiah–
66. Mark Noonan | March 27th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Congressive,
The “President” of Iran penned that missive - which is all fine and dandy, and great that he shows proper respect for the Blessed Virgin, but he’s also theologically unsound (Moslems failing to understand just what “Messiah” actually means and thus rejecting the truth of the Holy Trinity)…meanwhile, I can’t see how this relates to the subject at hand.