Cheney: "Iran is fishing in troubled waters inside Iraq."

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by thehangingman, Jan 14, 2007.

  1. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/14/US.iraq.ap/index.html

    The White House also said Sunday that Iranians are aiding the insurgency in Iraq and the U.S. has the authority to pursue them because they "put our people at risk."

    "We are going to need to deal with what Iran is doing inside Iraq," national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.

    Added Cheney: "Iran is fishing in troubled waters inside Iraq."

    The U.S. military in Baghdad said five Iranians arrested in northern Iraq last week were connected to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard faction that funds and arms insurgents in Iraq.

    "We do not want them doing what they can to destabilize the situation inside Iraq," Cheney said.
     


  2. Oh gee, isn't Cheney the guy who was in charge of falsifying up all that fake intelligence to begin with. Calling farm tractors WMD trailers infront of the whole UN. LOL! Oh yeah, he's the one everyone should believe. ROTFLMAO!! :D
     
  3. In 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq it was no surprise to myself. The question of "why" had already been answered and I had understood.

    The key is to listen to the formalized public speeches of the President and you will always get hints about what is to come next. In the "Axis of Evil" speech, it was apparent that Bush was creating a logic to invade Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

    This same speech was very similiar to FDR's speech just before we got involved in World War II. FDR wanted to war against both Germany and Japan, although, Germany had never attacked the United States. In fact, at the time, the public just wanted to go to war with Japan. However, FDR had reasoned that Germany was a wreckless state and they would eventually attack the United States just like Japan.

    So Bush had reasoned (in the "Axis of Evil" speech) that it was logical to go to war with Iran, Iraq and North Korea even though there was no evidence to suggest that any of these states were a part of the 9/11 attack. He reasoned that these were wreckless states that would do anything and that we must attack them first or else we will be attacked eventually.

    I have studied closely the most current Bush speech and have concluded that an action against Iran is in the future. Im not sure if that action will be a full out invasion, but it will be of a military nature. In fact, the current administration has committed acts of war against Iran. Arresting and detaining diplomats in Iraq. Invading the grounds of an Iranian diplomatic mission (which is technically the territory of Iran).

    The movement of the second carrier into the area was not just a routine switch as some have theorized. In Bush's current speech, he clearly stated that the move was purposeful.

    When the United States had invaded Iraq, I didnt want to believe it. I looked at it on television and denied it. However, when examining Bush's past speeches, I knew and understood the reasoning.

    While I dont agree with Iran on some grounds and the memory of blindfolded prisoners will always be fresh in my mind, I fully believe the solution is not to constantly provoke these guys. In the end, there is one man who leads Iran and if you provoke him then he will make trouble.

    At some point, we have to forget about the horrid past in order to find resolution. For example, Vietnam. The US has now put the conflict in the past and has open diplomatic relations with the country. In the same way, the US has to forget about the blindfolded prisoners and approach Iran with open hands instead of closed fists.

    Although I disagree with Bush, I believe that he will approach Iran in a provocative manner. The Bush speech has told us what is to come. A second carrier, more troops on the ground and the arrests of Iranian diplomats. This sounds more like the closed fist approach then the open hand.


     
  4. MattF

    MattF

    Considering Bush will also plow forward no matter what Congress says or does shows a lot...
     
  5. ron2368

    ron2368

    Who would have thought that Iran would eventually get involved in Iraq? Good thing Bush has a plan to win this thing otherwise we would be screwed.
     
  6. I don't understand how we are "constantly provoking these guys". They are the ones sending arms and money to insurgents in Iraq and killing our troops. They are the ones who support hamas and hezbollah. They are the ones who are developing nuclear weapons and threatening Israel, the US and gulf countries.

    What would you suggest we do? Surrender the entire Gulf area to them as their area of influence?

    I would hate to see us get into a full blown military confrontation with them, because it would likely consolidate the Iranians behind the current regime, which has considerable internal opposition. There is plenty we can do short of that however, and it is surprising that the administration has not pursued it. We could have armed and supported insurgents inside Iran, for example. We could have targeted some of their more unpopular leaders. Certainly we can shut off their oil exports, although that would likely mean shutting off the entire gulf to tanker traffic.

    As for carrier groups in the gulf, I would think that we would want to move them out of the gulf if we were going to attack iran. They are vulnerable to Iranian subs and missiles in the gulf, less so outside in the Indian Ocean. If we attacked Iran and ended up losing a carrier or two, the pressure for a nuclear strike on Iran would be immense.
     
  7. I wonder who was supplying saddam with weapons during the Iraq-Iran war?
     
  8. RobMc

    RobMc

    The only war the US has won since WW2 was in Grenada wasn't it?

    What makes anyone think they can sort out Iran. The sooner they realise that is utter bollocks the better.

    But how long would it take to come up with plan B.

    Current experience shows that all we've had so far with Iraq is the "James Cameron plan" - "more is more and more is never enough".
     
  9. Yes, let's annex that area and call it the Persian Purchase. Think we can get away with paying a few million for it?
     
  10. It worked for Israel
     
    #10     Jan 16, 2007