The case against Iran is being established UPDATE: U.S. general: "No evidence"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17064803/
Thoughts? Comments? Opinions?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17064803/
Thoughts? Comments? Opinions?
The case against Iran is being established
- Thread starter HERESY
- Start date
heres the artical
Updated: 2 hours, 1 minute ago
SEVILLE, Spain - Serial numbers and markings on explosives used in Iraq provide "pretty good" evidence that Iran is providing either weapons or technology for militants there, Defense Secretary Robert Gates asserted Friday.
Offering some of the first public details of evidence the military has collected, Gates said, "I think there's some serial numbers, there may be some markings on some of the projectile fragments that we found," that point to Iran.
At the same time, however, he said he was somewhat surprised that recent raids by coalition and Iraqi forces in Iraq swept up some Iranians.
Click for related content
World Blog: Iranian diplomat kidnapped <http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/07/51860.aspx>
“Under the circumstances and given the attention that this has gotten we want to make sure that we provide you the best information possible, but do so in a way that doesn’t compromise sources and methods, that doesn’t make it harder for us to deal with the situation that’s there,” State Department spokesman Tom Casey said Friday.
Gates, who is attending his first NATO defense ministers meeting, said Iran is "very much involved in providing either the technology or the weapons themselves for these explosively formed projectiles. Now they don't represent a big percentage of the IED attacks but they're extremely lethal."
CONTINUED: Gates: No intention to attack </id/17064803/page/2/>
Gates said the raids combined with the movement of an additional U.S. aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf have created a stir, but said the Bush administration has no intention of attacking Iran.
Afghan campaign
Meanwhile, the defense secretary has been getting a lukewarm response here to his plea for allies to send more troops and aid for a spring offensive in Afghanistan.
Gates said the U.S. made no additional commitments for more troops of its own. He recently extended the tour of a brigade in Afghanistan, where the U.S. has 27,000 troops — the most since the war began in 2001.
U.S. and NATO military leaders in recent months have repeatedly called on alliance members to send reinforcements and lift restrictions on where their troops can serve. On Thursday, Gates secured smaller offers from some nations, but he met resistance from key allies.
France and Germany are questioning the wisdom of sending more soldiers, while Spain, Italy and Turkey have also been wary of providing more troops.
"When the Russians were in Afghanistan, they had 100,000 soldiers there and they did not win," German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung told reporters.
The meeting in southern Spain did produce some offers, however.
Lithuania, which already has 130 troops in Afghanistan, offered to send an unspecified number of special forces, helping to fill a key shortfall.
Spring critical in Afghanistan
Germany says it will provide six Tornado reconnaissance jets but not significantly augment its 3,000 troops in the north. The Italian government said it would send a much-needed transport plane and some unmanned surveillance aircraft, but it is struggling to secure parliamentary backing for the finances needed to maintain a contingent of 1,950.
Spain also said it would send four unmanned planes and more instructors to help the Afghan army.
Gates said that after nearly five years at war with the Taliban, this spring will be critical because it could give the people of the country more hope.
"Each spring for the last several years, the Taliban have been more aggressive and there has been an increasing level of violence," he said. "There is a consensus on the part of the ministers that it is important that this year we knock the Taliban back."
The end of winter has traditionally brought an upsurge in attacks by Taliban militants in Afghanistan. U.S. commanders have already predicted that this spring will be even more violent than last year, when a record number of attacks included nearly 140 suicide bombings.
About 15,000 of the American troops are serving in the NATO-led force, which now totals about 36,000, while the other 12,000 are special operations forces or are training Afghan troops.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Updated: 2 hours, 1 minute ago
SEVILLE, Spain - Serial numbers and markings on explosives used in Iraq provide "pretty good" evidence that Iran is providing either weapons or technology for militants there, Defense Secretary Robert Gates asserted Friday.
Offering some of the first public details of evidence the military has collected, Gates said, "I think there's some serial numbers, there may be some markings on some of the projectile fragments that we found," that point to Iran.
At the same time, however, he said he was somewhat surprised that recent raids by coalition and Iraqi forces in Iraq swept up some Iranians.
Click for related content
World Blog: Iranian diplomat kidnapped <http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/07/51860.aspx>
“Under the circumstances and given the attention that this has gotten we want to make sure that we provide you the best information possible, but do so in a way that doesn’t compromise sources and methods, that doesn’t make it harder for us to deal with the situation that’s there,” State Department spokesman Tom Casey said Friday.
Gates, who is attending his first NATO defense ministers meeting, said Iran is "very much involved in providing either the technology or the weapons themselves for these explosively formed projectiles. Now they don't represent a big percentage of the IED attacks but they're extremely lethal."
CONTINUED: Gates: No intention to attack </id/17064803/page/2/>
Gates said the raids combined with the movement of an additional U.S. aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf have created a stir, but said the Bush administration has no intention of attacking Iran.
Afghan campaign
Meanwhile, the defense secretary has been getting a lukewarm response here to his plea for allies to send more troops and aid for a spring offensive in Afghanistan.
Gates said the U.S. made no additional commitments for more troops of its own. He recently extended the tour of a brigade in Afghanistan, where the U.S. has 27,000 troops — the most since the war began in 2001.
U.S. and NATO military leaders in recent months have repeatedly called on alliance members to send reinforcements and lift restrictions on where their troops can serve. On Thursday, Gates secured smaller offers from some nations, but he met resistance from key allies.
France and Germany are questioning the wisdom of sending more soldiers, while Spain, Italy and Turkey have also been wary of providing more troops.
"When the Russians were in Afghanistan, they had 100,000 soldiers there and they did not win," German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung told reporters.
The meeting in southern Spain did produce some offers, however.
Lithuania, which already has 130 troops in Afghanistan, offered to send an unspecified number of special forces, helping to fill a key shortfall.
Spring critical in Afghanistan
Germany says it will provide six Tornado reconnaissance jets but not significantly augment its 3,000 troops in the north. The Italian government said it would send a much-needed transport plane and some unmanned surveillance aircraft, but it is struggling to secure parliamentary backing for the finances needed to maintain a contingent of 1,950.
Spain also said it would send four unmanned planes and more instructors to help the Afghan army.
Gates said that after nearly five years at war with the Taliban, this spring will be critical because it could give the people of the country more hope.
"Each spring for the last several years, the Taliban have been more aggressive and there has been an increasing level of violence," he said. "There is a consensus on the part of the ministers that it is important that this year we knock the Taliban back."
The end of winter has traditionally brought an upsurge in attacks by Taliban militants in Afghanistan. U.S. commanders have already predicted that this spring will be even more violent than last year, when a record number of attacks included nearly 140 suicide bombings.
About 15,000 of the American troops are serving in the NATO-led force, which now totals about 36,000, while the other 12,000 are special operations forces or are training Afghan troops.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Helbollah is a group of people while Israel is a country. Meaning Hezbollah could launch rockets towards an establishment whereas Israel would have to establish presence of the enemy before they could do any damage (to their enemy).
And the United States would beat Iran by marching into the country, destroying its military and major infastructure as they have in every other war they've been in. The only thing that would impede on this approach would be other countries getting directly involved. I do not think Iran is going to be like the Iraq war but I do believe we can win much easier than people think.
The U.S. did beat Iraq, within a matter of days I might add. What insued afterwards could quite possibly be the workings of the U.S.'s strategy. Do you think a civil war in Iraq is good or bad news for the American government?
And the United States would beat Iran by marching into the country, destroying its military and major infastructure as they have in every other war they've been in. The only thing that would impede on this approach would be other countries getting directly involved. I do not think Iran is going to be like the Iraq war but I do believe we can win much easier than people think.
The U.S. did beat Iraq, within a matter of days I might add. What insued afterwards could quite possibly be the workings of the U.S.'s strategy. Do you think a civil war in Iraq is good or bad news for the American government?
The U.S. beat Iraq? When did that happen? Years ago with Bush Sr was in office? Surely you don't mean the U.S. is CURRENTLY winning against Iraq or has won the current war against Iraq.
That depends on the situation. Right now it isn't cool because america still has troops on the ground, and the price of the war is continuing to climb. Morale is low, public opinion is low and people want the troops home. It can also be a bad thing if someone decides to blow up an oil line or the wrong side wins, takes over the oil supplies, and runs with the euro as the trading.
The situation would be great for america if the Iraqi "government" won the civil war because they would once again become americas lap dog which opens the doors for several possibilities that may benefit america.
That depends on the situation. Right now it isn't cool because america still has troops on the ground, and the price of the war is continuing to climb. Morale is low, public opinion is low and people want the troops home. It can also be a bad thing if someone decides to blow up an oil line or the wrong side wins, takes over the oil supplies, and runs with the euro as the trading.
The situation would be great for america if the Iraqi "government" won the civil war because they would once again become americas lap dog which opens the doors for several possibilities that may benefit america.
That doesn't always get you a victory. What happened in Vietnam?
No. You have SEVERAL things that can impede this approach. The first would be money. You need money to finance wars, and right now the price of the current war is through the roof. The second thing you need to fight a war (which should actually be the first) are TROOPS. Again, the morale of the american soldiers is fading, and if people are raising a stink over the recent call for soldiers what do you think it is going to be like if Iran gets it? The third reason is oil. If Iran goes ahead and starts messing with the oil prices then what?
America is currently waging a "war" in the Afghans and Iraq. If they put troops on the ground in Iran do you honestly expect them to maintain any sense of control? Think about it, america will be fighting a three front war, and will be surrounded by the enemy on all sides if they put troops on the ground in Iran or move the troops from Iraq to Iran.
No. You have SEVERAL things that can impede this approach. The first would be money. You need money to finance wars, and right now the price of the current war is through the roof. The second thing you need to fight a war (which should actually be the first) are TROOPS. Again, the morale of the american soldiers is fading, and if people are raising a stink over the recent call for soldiers what do you think it is going to be like if Iran gets it? The third reason is oil. If Iran goes ahead and starts messing with the oil prices then what?
America is currently waging a "war" in the Afghans and Iraq. If they put troops on the ground in Iran do you honestly expect them to maintain any sense of control? Think about it, america will be fighting a three front war, and will be surrounded by the enemy on all sides if they put troops on the ground in Iran or move the troops from Iraq to Iran.
It happened when Iraqi soldiers were either dead or stripped out of their uniforms. The U.S. is not currently at war with Iraq. The last I heard our government is currently working WITH Iraq to solve the current "problem".
I really don't see how this is BAD for the American government. I believe they want troops on the ground, money seems to be of no concern and when has public opinion ever been a measure of government action?
Naturally.
I really don't see how this is BAD for the American government. I believe they want troops on the ground, money seems to be of no concern and when has public opinion ever been a measure of government action?
Naturally.
From what I've heard (from people who went to Iraq and are now back) and from what I've read, the Iraqi "people" are at war with america and want the u.s. to shake the spot. The "government" of Iraq is cool with america (for now), but as long as america is still in the area and fighting "Iraqis" who still have citizenship in Iraq, they are at war with Iraq.
You don't see how a civil war is bad for the american government? Again, america still has troops on the ground and these troops are being killed on a daily basis. How is this civil war a good thing for america? Money seems to be of no concern? Money is a big concern right now, who said it isn't a concern? Bush just asked for a quarter trillion, but where is this money going to come from?
As far as public opinion is concerned it holds some weight if the people start blowing shit up or rising against the gov, and if a draft is reinstated public opinion is going to hold more merit than before.
You don't see how a civil war is bad for the american government? Again, america still has troops on the ground and these troops are being killed on a daily basis. How is this civil war a good thing for america? Money seems to be of no concern? Money is a big concern right now, who said it isn't a concern? Bush just asked for a quarter trillion, but where is this money going to come from?
As far as public opinion is concerned it holds some weight if the people start blowing shit up or rising against the gov, and if a draft is reinstated public opinion is going to hold more merit than before.
Good point, but I believe that the terrain was the biggest obstacle in that war. And given the topography of Iran I don't see this as being an issue.
Indeed, these are variables of concern. However, it is likely that we already have the resources to beat Iran. I can not rightly tell you one way or the other, but I have faith in our crooked government.
It would seem that America will be up against the odds, but technology will prevail.
Indeed, these are variables of concern. However, it is likely that we already have the resources to beat Iran. I can not rightly tell you one way or the other, but I have faith in our crooked government.
It would seem that America will be up against the odds, but technology will prevail.
I'm half Iranian(Persian) and half white. My pops didn't move to the US til he was 22, so ya know I'm 1st generation. All I gotta say though is if the US goes to war with Iran, not very smart, and its not gonna be good for anybody. I could only imagine the choas. Iran ain't no Iraq. Way bigger military, bigger country, and it ain't no flat desert lands like Iraq. Its straight big ass mountains(for the most part, desert is to the east and isn't highly inhabited), and they will have a hell of a time trying to invade. And if this war happens, be prepared for it never to end, and it will be over for everyone. Bush better rethink them options.
how are yall going to say the morale of US troops are fading? i mean i have two cousins and 8 friends that are constantly being sent back there and all of there sqaundrons are high morale......OHHHH YEAH you guys are going off what TIME/WARNER wants you to know....dont speak on what you dont know...yeah you can speak on how you think its going badly but troop morale is something you will never know about unless you got family and friends who are troops telling you what they think....