Majority of Iraqi insurgents come from US "allies"

[bascule]

Surprise surprise... the war on terror is f*cked

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2215380,00.html

 

Why is it we're drumming up war with Iran when the Saudis are and have always been the problem? Oh right, oil...

[Fred56]

I read a "doomsdayer" guy's blog about the M.E., the war, the oil, and how the whole thing is a Zionist campaign to finally get the "promised" land -the whole goddam land and nothing but, that is...

But there is the US dependence on that oil stuff in there too, so supposedly the Zionists have the US fighting the good fight, so to speak.

[ecoli]

Surprise surprise... the war on terror is f*cked

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2215380,00.html

 

Why is it we're drumming up war with Iran when the Saudis are and have always been the problem? Oh right, oil...

 

I wonder how much of the militant equipment is paid for by US funds, either by direct aid or through oil money.

[Pangloss]

Surprise surprise... the war on terror is f*cked

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2215380,00.html

 

Why is it we're drumming up war with Iran when the Saudis are and have always been the problem? Oh right, oil...

 

I just knew there was a reason we invaded Venezuela. Thank goodness that awful Chavez came to power and gave us our pretext!

[iNow]

Non-sequitur Pangloss.

 

The Saudis own something on the order of 10% of the US. They also are a major source of problems for the both the US and the international community. However, for several years the US leadership has been trying to strengthen relationships and bonds among the Saudis, but I think most of those deals are with large powerful families instead of with the US and it's people.

 

Iran is definitely an issue to consider, and a group on which to keep close watch, but they are not the current threat... yet. The Saudis, however, are a bit like our drug dealer. Not exactly a wonderful guy, and can't be trusted a whole lot, engage in lots of deals and actions with which we thoroughly disagree, but they have what we want so we must tip toe around to ensure we don't piss them off and get cut off.

[Fred56]

I'm listening right now to the Beeb story about the new surveillance systems that will be able to passively identify any individual (via cctv image, gait analysis, height), and track them, not just locally, but by keeping a profile, that will eventually give "them" (do I really have to say) a vast profile database of anyone who has ever walked through London say, (or wherever else they plan to deploy this). Guess why they think they need it.

I guess we all just smile and wave, folks...

[iNow]

From the article:

 

US officials have also long complained about Iranian interference in the affairs of its neighbour, accusing Tehran of shipping weapons for militants over the border. However, any assistance does not appear to extend to people, the paper said, reporting that, of around 25,000 suspected militants in US custody in Iraq, 11 were Iranian. No Iranians were listed among the fighters whose details were found.

[Pangloss]

This information is not news. Iran supports the shiite side of the conflict. These other countries support the sunni side of the conflict. Why is any of this considered a surprise? Haven't we known all along that the Saudis and their money and madrassas were supporting the Sunni insurgents? How does this let Iran off the hook, exactly?

 

Sounds like we're being fed a "leave Iran alone" agenda here, perhaps in response to the "do something about Iran now" agenda coming from the White House.

[bascule]

This information is not news. Iran supports the shiite side of the conflict. These other countries support the sunni side of the conflict.

 

If that's the case, then Saudi Arabia supports the Wahhibist side of the conflict... the ideology of the 9/11 hijackers. That's not to mention that over 3/4ths of them were Saudi nationals...

[Pangloss]

Right. Which is the Sunni side.

[bascule]

Right. Which is the Sunni side.

 

By that rationale, shouldn't there be no problem because they're all on the Muslim side?

[Sisyphus]

The Saudi government isn't involved though, right? So we don't exactly have a situation where our allies are backstabbing us. Just that our popularity is even worse there then it is in the "enemy" nations. And that the economies we've been busy propping up are funding the people trying to kill us, which I guess makes economic sanctions on Iran seem kind of silly.

[Pangloss]

By that rationale, shouldn't there be no problem because they're all on the Muslim side?

 

 

Not only do you know better than that, you're the one who actually STARTED the discussion on this web site about differences between Sunnis and Shiites and how Americans don't recognize the difference.

[bascule]

The Saudi government isn't involved though, right?

 

They're involved through inaction. One would hope that our "allies" in the war on terror actively pursue domestic terrorism.

 

Iran, the country that the neocon chickenhawks are rallying a war against, is doing a better job at that than our "allies" like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

 

The best way to fight terrorism is to promote an international sentiment towards control and containment of domestic terrorism and terrorists.

 

Not only do you know better than that, you're the one who actually STARTED the discussion on this web site about differences between Sunnis and Shiites and how Americans don't recognize the difference.

 

And you're oblivious to my point that you're glossing over an important distinction

[Pangloss]

And you're oblivious to my point that you're glossing over an important distinction

 

Your "important distinction" between Wahabbis and Sunnis is irrelevent to the issue of who is supporting Sunni insurgents because we already agree that "Wahabbi" Sunnis are doing so.

 

We also know that Iran is supporting the Shiite insurgents.

 

So your "news" is actually spin -- the spin that Iran's support for terrorism somehow doesn't matter (and we should stop paying attention to it) because Saudi Arabia is doing the same. You seem to be saying that two wrongs make a right, so leave Iran alone:

 

Why is it we're drumming up war with Iran when the Saudis are and have always been the problem?

 

Sorry, not buying it.

 

-------

 

BTW, to iNow, 60 Minutes showed direct Iranian personnel involvement in Iraq two weeks ago, interviewing a high level Iranian official who *stipulated* his presence in Iran at an insurgents location just before a US Army raid. They're not admitting to weapons, though, and I thought your point about the "drug dealer" was a good one (and thought provoking).

[ecoli]

You seem to be saying that two wrongs make a right, so leave Iran alone:

 

I agree that 'two wrongs don't make a right' but I think we have demonstrated pretty poor judgment when interfering with nations we deem to be terrorist threats. I would say we should steer clear of any military involvement on that aspect alone. I would even question our ability/motives in coming up with sanctions against Iran as well...

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure what you mean by "poor judgement". Do you mean that we misidentified them as terrorist nations? What nations have we identified as terrorists threats who later turned out not to be?

[ecoli]

I'm not sure what you mean by "poor judgement". Do you mean that we misidentified them as terrorist nations? What nations have we identified as terrorists threats who later turned out not to be?

 

How about Iraq? There still is no clear connection between Iraq and 9/11 attacks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/140133_bushiraq18.html

 

Since it's called the war on terror, we feel justified in attacking anybody who we decide to call a 'terrorist.' Whether or not they were involved in an attack against us or not. Perhaps there are links between Al queda and Sadaam... but enough to justify a full scale invasion of the country? I'm not so sure...

 

 

Also, I'm not so sure our mission in Iraq is very successful... What do you have to say to this: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/246289/Basra_attacks_down_90_since_British_troops_left

According to the British, attacks in Basra (against Iraqi military) are down 90% since their troops pulled out.

[bascule]

So your "news" is actually spin -- the spin that Iran's support for terrorism somehow doesn't matter (and we should stop paying attention to it) because Saudi Arabia is doing the same. You seem to be saying that two wrongs make a right, so leave Iran alone

 

My point was that despite Saudi Arabia being the bigger problem, we count them as an ally, while the chickenhawks drum up war with Iran

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "poor judgement". Do you mean that we misidentified them as terrorist nations? What nations have we identified as terrorists threats who later turned out not to be?

 

Saudi Arabia is a bigger terrorist nation than Iraq ever was

[iNow]

60 Minutes showed direct Iranian personnel involvement in Iraq two weeks ago, interviewing a high level Iranian official who *stipulated* his presence in Iran at an insurgents location just before a US Army raid. They're not admitting to weapons, though, and I thought your point about the "drug dealer" was a good one (and thought provoking).

 

Unfortunately, it will take much more than a simple methadone regimen to resolve our lust for oil. It's time not only that the government change our power associations, it's time that the people DEMAND it.

 

 

 

What do we want!?! Renewable Energy that doesn't mortage our people and our country to others!! When do we want it !?! NOW!!!

[Pangloss]

How about Iraq? There still is no clear connection between Iraq and 9/11 attacks.

 

I agree that Iraq was not connected to 9/11. But Iraq was harboring terrorists, such as the Achille Lauro mastermind.

 

Perhaps there are links between Al queda and Sadaam... but enough to justify a full scale invasion of the country? I'm not so sure...

 

Harboring terrorists wasn't our stated reason for invading Iraq. That was WMDs, remember?

 

Are there any examples of cases where we accused a country of connections to terrorism and there weren't any? I'm not saying you're wrong, by the way, I'm just asking the question. I don't know of any, but that doesn't mean none exist.

 

 

 

 

Also, I'm not so sure our mission in Iraq is very successful... What do you have to say to this: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/246289/Basra_attacks_down_90_since_British_troops_left

According to the British, attacks in Basra (against Iraqi military) are down 90% since their troops pulled out.

 

I didn't say that it was successful, in fact I haven't commented on that at all. But since you bring it up, it's necessary to point out that attacks in Basra are down because attacks all over the country are down. Whether that is due to "the surge" or because, as I suspect, the terrorists (both Shiite and Sunni) are basically doing a cease fire because when we leave they'll be able to blow each other up with impunity is another question.

 

 

My point was that despite Saudi Arabia being the bigger problem' date=' we count them as an ally, while the chickenhawks drum up war with Iran

[/quote']

 

Perhaps. But we're not there yet, and truly it seems unlikely, doesn't it? The old schoolyard phrase "Oh yeah?! You and what army?!" comes to mind. And you're just not going to get me to lose any sleep over a few cruise missiles smacking terrorist training camps on the Iraqi border.

 

 

Saudi Arabia is a bigger terrorist nation than Iraq ever was

 

But as Sisyphus pointed out, not at the government level. I agree with him that this is an important distinction, for the following reason: We should be supporting governments that don't wish to attack us, and opposing governments who do wish to attack us. That shouldn't be our ONLY reason for supporting foreign governments, but it absolutely should be one of them.