Evidence Iran helping Iraq Insurgency

[ParanoiA]

All of the demonizing and resistance to the Iraq war seems to come from this supposed "failure" mentallity, which is being exploited by Iran and the Iraq insurgency. So, if this evidence exists and there's truth to this, then when we talk about troop withdrawels and so forth, aren't we allowing the enemy's plan to work? Aren't we falling for it?

 

 

I mean, if you know their intent is to make you believe you're losing and destroy your morale, then why would you believe you're losing and destroy your morale?

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17064803/

[the tree]

All of the demonizing and resistance to the Iraq war seems to come from this supposed "failure" mentallity, which is being exploited by Iran and the Iraq insurgency.

I'm sorry but I really don't know what you mean. The resistance to the Iraq war was largely because of the motives behind it, and the demonising is because it went ahead despite the resistance.

[ParanoiA]

I'm sorry but I really don't know what you mean. The resistance to the Iraq war was largely because of the motives behind it, and the demonising is because it went ahead despite the resistance.

 

Actually, there wasn't that much resistance. See, I forgot about alot of that as well. But, was listening to Rush's fill-in today at lunch and I'd forgotten how on-board the democrats were on the whole thing - just read some of Hillary's comments from around that time. The resistance grew as time went by and no WMD's were found.

 

But anyway, what I keep hearing in the media is that folks want out of there, now. I keep hearing it's another vietnam. I keep hearing it's a failure. I keep hearing the Iraq government is a joke. I keep hearing everything the enemy wants us to hear... I'm wondering if their plan is working great.

[Pangloss]

There was resistance, and it wasn't just the far-left, anti-war crowd. It was far more substantial and realistic than what we saw during the run-up to invading Afghanistan. You're forgetting the whole "give them more time" argument that was common at the time, and the fact that voting for war was considered a bargaining chip for negotiations on the WMD issue as well as a support-the-troops issue.

 

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, on how that all went down. Whoever coined the phrase "hindsight is 20/20" was clearly not interested in political debate. (chuckle)

[ParanoiA]

Well sure there was a ton of resistance in the media. That's what I remember. People at work, the news, the union - all seemed resistant or at least not participating in the chorus.

 

But political leaders were all about taking care of Iraq. Iraq was a big issue far before Bush junior got elected. After I got back from lunch, I checked wikipedia to see what they had on it...here's an excerpt:

 

Prior to the election of George W. Bush as president, many in the Clinton administration and in Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, postulated that Saddam had a program to produce weapons of mass destruction and the willingness to use them. [citation needed] They felt that he should be removed from power. In 1998, with the passage of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338), it became official United States policy to work for the overthrow of Saddam's regime. The act stated: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." The act was unanimously approved by the Senate with the strong support of the Clinton administration.

 

Major American news organizations, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post ran news stories in the 1990s (as well as after Bush's election) about the danger of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, and they editorialized that the problem was an urgent one that the president (Clinton, then Bush) needed to address seriously.

 

I wonder how many people realize that 1) Regime change and 2) installation of a democratic government and 3) weapons of mass destruction, were all discussed and implemented as part of US policy before Bush even announced he would run for president - let alone be in office.

 

There's more to that article, obviously, but I think people forget how much and how long Iraq was in our targets before 9/11.

 

The resistance we're experiencing now, is resistance that found its courage only after military action was implemented and it was clear it wouldn't be a cakewalk.

 

Like I said...there wasn't that much resistance, prior to invasion.

 

Edit: Forgot to add the link... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

[ParanoiA]

Major American news organizations, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post ran news stories in the 1990s (as well as after Bush's election) about the danger of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, and they editorialized that the problem was an urgent one that the president (Clinton, then Bush) needed to address seriously.

 

And isn't it interesting that the same news agencies that fry GWB daily, and hung him out to dry over non-existant WMD's are the same news outlets that stirred the fury to begin with?

 

You see how the business of media plays its role in these things? If you agree with nothing else I say, at least understand that they are a corporate business as at&t, halliburton, microsoft...and just like any business, they'll do just about anything to make money.

[Sisyphus]

I mean, if you know their intent is to make you believe you're losing and destroy your morale, then why would you believe you're losing and destroy your morale?

 

So, wait. You want to me to intentionally change my own perception of reality because it's too close to what the enemy wants me to believe? Isn't that a bit Orwellian? Not to mention ridiculous?

[gcol]

Both Iran and powerful factions within Iraq consider they have a common enemy. Why is it surprising for them to cooperate? It would be illogical for them not to. With Saddam removed, one of Iraq's "natural" enemies disappeared. It has therefore identified a new enemy and customer base for its arms industry, two requirements it has learned from the U.S. industry.

 

Now I do not wish Iran well in any of its activities, but it beggars belief that anyone can find them surprising.

 

To defeat your enemy, you have to understand them and imagine yourself in their shoes. Is this perhaps a secret of military strategy taught only in staff college?