Americans suspect Iranians are behind Iraq chaos

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
In the News

April 13, 2007, 4:11PM
General sees Iran's hand in Iraq fight

By ROBERT BURNS AP Military Writer
© 2007 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The U.S. suspects Iran is providing weapons and other military support to both sides of the sectarian conflict in Iraq — not just to the Shiites who have historic ties to the Iranians, the No. 2 American commander in Iraq said Friday.
"We're working now to determine whether they are in fact not only providing support to Shiite groups, but also Sunni insurgent groups," said Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, referring to the Quds force, an elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.
Odierno spoke to reporters at the Pentagon from his headquarters outside Baghdad.
"We don't have any specific proof of that yet, but there's been some indications that that could in fact be the case," he added in a question-and-answer session via satellite video. He did not get more specific about such support.
Odierno was asked why Iran would help the Sunni extremists of Iraq, since both Iran and Iraq are predominantly Shiite.
"I think it's mainly because they want to continue to create chaos in Iraq," he replied. "They do not want this government potentially to succeed. But additionally, I think they want to try to tie down coalition forces here. And it's clear that they are attempting to affect what's going on inside of Iraq on a daily basis."...
Likely the Iranians are arming both sides. So are many other countries:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dealers in Death - A Visit to an Arms Bazaar [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by Robert Fisk[/FONT]​


It is as civilised as fine art - which is what the sale of weapons has become for the world's armourers.
Behind the tents and trinket shops and pipe band, there lies on display the most sophisticated and lethal ordnance ever made by man, so new you can smell the fresh paint.
Each time I examine a French missile, a German tank, an American rocket, a British armoured vehicle, a Dutch self-propelled gun or a Russian automatic rifle, up comes a charming gentleman in another of those dark blue suits, a merchant of death brandishing a file of glossy brochures, offering a powerful handshake and another cup of tea.
Some are a bit portly - selling death on a large scale means a lot of hospitality - and often they carry a small purple or blue flower in their buttonhole. Ballistics is their fascination.
"As the day warms up, a bullet flies faster," a cheerful Australian confides to me. "In the evening, the air grows heavier and the bullet goes more slowly." Smiling field marshals and jolly generals from across the Arab world drift through the arms pavilions, running their hands along the sleek missile tubes, peering through sniper rifles, clambering like schoolchildren on to howitzers and tanks...
...I walk over to a small stand hidden away in the corner of one of the farthest pavilions, where brown-painted models of mobile-launched rockets lie along a shelf. This is the Iranian arms bazaar.

Most of their missiles are called "Dawn" or "Morning Sunrise," but one caught my eye, a big 125km-range monster, produced by the SB Industrial Group of Tehran and called the "Nazeat." It's a Persian word meaning "Horror of Death."
Yes, Iran - the only nation in all of the world arms market to tell the true purpose of a weapon - has actually named a missile after the extinction of life. Does the answer to my question lie here? These missiles are not for sale, I am solemnly informed by Morteza Khosravi, a young man from the Iranian ministry of defence with an intense expression. They are only to show Iran's "capabilities." He swiftly adds that Iran sells arms only according to strict rules under the UN's Defence Control Act...
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0512-04.htm
Who are arming the Iraqi insurgents? Whoever has the best bang for the buck.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Uncle Sam are you for the free market or what? There's a consumer market for weapons in Iraq, why does Uncle Sam have to have a monopoly on that as well. Won't supressing forigne arms sales slow the demand for domestic arms sales. What are they trying to do interfering in the market like that? Where's the damn level playing field?
 

Mogz

Council Member
Jan 26, 2006
1,254
1
38
Edmonton
Oddly enough, lately there has been much speculation that Iran is also providing arms to the militants in Afghanistan, as the two nations share a border).
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Wouldn't surprise me. Iran seems to favor being a sh|t disturber.
LOL, compared to whom? A country with troops on foreign land? Compare the total sales of arms to all the countries over there from since WWII and tell me who has made the money, a list if you will. Who has Iran sold weapons to? Did they sell to Iraq so Iraq could then invade them?


Then we have some that were going to cause some sort of 'disturbance' but got caught. Their identity is clearly not Iranian nor Iraqi.

http://judicial-inc.biz/Basra_IDF.htm

(in part, lots of pics on that page)

"There Has Always Been Something Odd To The Basra Rescue

You have two SAS undercover agents, disguised as Mehdi army, roaming around Basra, during a religious festival, with a car wired as a massive car bomb. They were stopped at a checkpoint, and if they were really SAS, all they needed to do was show an ID.​
Something happened, and they decided to try an escape. They killed two policeman, were involved in a firefight, and captured."
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Wouldn't surprise me. Iran seems to favor being a sh|t disturber.
Foreign US military involvement since 1989. Further down more information about one instance.
Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798 - 1993

by Ellen C. Collier, Specialist in U.S. Foreign Policy,
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service -- Library of Congress -- October 7, 1993
Summary

This report lists 234 instances in which the United States has used its armed forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes. It brings up to date a 1989 list that was compiled in part from various older lists and is intended primarily to provide a rough sketch survey of past U.S. military ventures abroad....
....
...1989 -- Panama. On December 21, 1989, President Bush reported that he had ordered U.S. military forces to Panama to protect the lives of American citizens and bring General Noriega to justice. By February 13, 1990, all the invasion forces had been withdrawn.
1990 -- Liberia. On August 6, 1990, President Bush reported that a reinforced rifle company had been sent to provide additional security to the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia, and that helicopter teams had evacuated U.S. citizens from Liberia.


1990 -- Saudi Arabia. On August 9, 1990, President Bush reported that he had ordered the forward deployment of substantial elements of the U.S. armed forces into the Persian Gulf region to help defend Saudi Arabia after the August 2 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. On November 16, 1990, he reported the continued buildup of the forces to ensure an adequate offensive military option.
1991 -- Iraq. On January 18, 1991, President Bush reported that he had directed U.S. armed forces to commence combat operations on January 16 against Iraqi forces and military targets in Iraq and Kuwait, in conjunction with a coalition of allies and U.N. Security Council resolutions. On January 12 Congress had passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq Resolution (P.L. 102-1). Combat operations were suspended on February 28, 1991.
1991 -- Iraq. On May 17, 1991, President Bush stated in a status report to Congress that the Iraqi repression of the Kurdish people had necessitated a limited introduction of U.S. forces into northern Iraq for emergency relief purposes.
1991 -- Zaire. On September 25-27, 1991, after widespread looting and rioting broke out in Kinshasa, U.S. Air Force C-141s transported 100 Belgian troops and equipment into Mnshasa. U.S. planes also carried 300 French troops into the Central African Republic and hauled back American citizens and third country nationals from locations outside Zaire.
1992 -- Sierra Leone. On May 3, 1992, U.S. military planes evacuated Americans from Sierra Leone, where military leaders had overthrown the government.
1992 -- Kuwait. On August 3, 1992, the United States began a series of military exercises in Kuwait, following Iraqi refusal to recognize a new border drawn up by the United Nations and refusal to cooperate with U.N. inspection teams.
1992 -- Iraq. On September 16, 1992 President Bush stated in a status report that he had ordered U.S. participation in the enforcement of a prohibition against Iraqi flights in a specified zone in southern Iraq, and aerial reconnaissance to monitor Iraqi compliance with the cease-fire resolution.
1992 -- Somalia. On December 10, 1992, President Bush reported that he had deployed U.S. armed forces to Somalia in response to a humanitarian crisis and a U.N. Security Council Resolution determining that the situation constituted a threat to international peace. This operation, called Operation Restore Hope, was part of a U.S.-led United Nations Unified Task Force (UNITAF) and came to an end on May 4, 1993. U.S. forces continued to participate in the successor United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II), which the U.N. Security Council authorized to assist Somalia in political reconciliation and restoration of peace.
1993 -- Iraq. On January 19, 1993, President Bush said in a status report that on December 27, 1992, U.S. aircraft shot down an Iraqi aircraft in the prohibited zone; on January 13 aircraft from the United States and coalition partners had attacked missile bases in southern Iraq; and further military actions had occured on January 17 and 18. Administration officials said the United States was deploying a battalion task force to Kuwait to underline the continuing U.S. commitment to Kuwaiti independence.
1993 -- Iraq. On January 21, 1993, shortly after his inauguration, President Clinton said the United States would continue the Bush policy on Iraq, and U.S. aircraft fired at targets in Iraq after pilots sensed Iraqi radar or anti-aircraft fire directed at them.
1993 -- Bosnia-Hercegovina. On February 28, 1993, the United States bagan an airdrop of relief supplies aimed at Muslims surrounded by Serbian forces in Bosnia.
1993 -- Bosnia-Hercegovina. On April 13, 1993, President Clinton reported U.S. forces were participating in a NATO air action to enforce a U.N. ban on all unauthorized military flights over Bosnia-Hercegovina.
1993 -- Iraq. In a status report on Iraq of May 24, President Clinton said that on April 9 and April 18 U.S. warplanes had bombed or fired missiles at Iraqi anti-aircraft sites which had tracked U.S. aricraft.
1993 -- Somalia. On June 10, 1993, President Clinton reported that in response to attacks against U.N. forces in Somalia by a factional leader, the U.S. Quick Reaction Force in the area had participated in military action to quell the violence. The quick reaction force was part of the U.S. contribution to a success On July 1, President Clinton reported further air and ground military operations on June 12 and June 17 aimed at neutralizing military capabilities that had impeded U.N. efforts to deliver humanitarian relief and promote national reconstruction, and additional instances occurred in the following months.
1993 -- Iraq. On June 28, 1993, President Clinton reported that on June 26 U.S. naval forces had launched missiles against the Iraqi Intelligence Service's headquarters in Baghdad in response to an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate former President Bush in Kuwait in April 1993.
1993 -- Iraq. In a status report of July 22, 1993, President Clinton said on June 19 a U.S. aircraft had fired a missile at an Iraqi anti-aircraft site displaying hostile intent. U.S. planes also bombed an Iraqi missile battery on August 19, 1993.
1993 -- Macedonia. On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 U.S. armed forces to Macedonia to participate in the U.N. Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia.
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm
And this list omits plenty.
No doubt many of the above are valid reasons for using your military. But they are just short summaries. All have details.
For example:
1989 -- Panama. On December 21, 1989, President Bush reported that he had ordered U.S. military forces to Panama to protect the lives of American citizens and bring General Noriega to justice. By February 13, 1990, all the invasion forces had been withdrawn.

A few more details about Panama by Chomsky
THE INVASION OF PANAMA

Noam Chomsky


Panama has been traditionally controlled by its tiny European elite, less than 10% of the population. That changed in 1968, when Omar Torrijos, a populist general, led a coup that allowed the black and mestizo [mixed-race] poor to obtain at least a share of the power under his military dictatorship. In 1981, Torrijos was killed in a plane crash. By 1983, the effective ruler was Manuel Noriega, a criminal who had been a cohort of Torrijos and US intelligence.

The US government knew that Noriega was involved in drug trafficking since at least 1972, when the Nixon administration considered assassinating him. But he stayed on the CIA payroll. In 1983, a US Senate committee concluded that Panama was a major center for the laundering of drug funds and drug trafficking.

The US government continued to value Noriega's services. In May 1986, the Director of the Drug Enforcement Agency praised Noriega for his "vigorous anti-drug trafficking policy." A year later, the Director "welcomed our close association" with Noriega, while Attorney-General Edwin Meese stopped a US Justice Department investigation of Noriega's criminal activities. In August 1987, a Senate resolution condemning Noriega was opposed by Elliott Abrams, the State Department official in charge of US policy in Central America and Panama.

And yet, when Noriega was formally indicted in Miami in 1988, all the charges except one were related to activities that took place before 1984 -- back when he was our boy, helping with the US war against Nicaragua, stealing elections with US approval and generally serving US interests satisfactorily. It had nothing to do with suddenly discovering that he was a gangster and a drug peddler-that was known all along.

It's all quite predictable, as study after study shows. A brutal tyrant crosses the line from admirable friend to "villain" and "scum" when he commits the crime of independence. One common mistake is to go beyond robbing the poor-which is just fine-and to start interfering with the privileged, eliciting opposition from business leaders.

By the mid 1980s, Noriega was guilty of these crimes. Among other things, he seems to have been dragging his feet about helping the US in the contra war. His independence also threatened our interests in the Panama Canal. On January 1, 1990, most of the administration of the Canal was due to go over to Panama-in the year 2000, it goes completely to them. We had to make sure that Panama was in the hands of people we could control before that date.

Since we could no longer trust Noriega to do our bidding, he had to go. Washington imposed economic sanctions that virtually destroyed the economy, the main burden falling on the poor nonwhite majority. They too came to hate Noriega, not least because he was responsible for the economic warfare (which was illegal, if anyone cares) that was causing their children to starve.

Next a military coup was tried, but failed. Then, in December 1989, the US celebrated the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the Cold War by invading Panama outright, killing hundreds or perhaps thousands of civilians (no one knows, and few north of the Rio Grande care enough to inquire). This restored power to the rich white elite that had been displaced by the Torrijos coup-just in time to ensure a compliant government for the administrative changeover of the Canal on January 1, 1990 (as noted by the right-wing European press).

Throughout this process, the US press followed Washington's lead, selecting villains in
terms of current needs. Actions we'd formerly condoned became crimes. For example, in 1984, the Panamanian presidential election had been won by Arnulfo Arias. The election was stolen by Noriega, with considerable violence and fraud.

But Noriega hadn't yet become disobedient. He was our man in Panama, and the Arias party was considered to have dangerous elements of "ultranationalism." The Reagan administration therefore applauded the violence and fraud, and sent Secretary of State George Shultz down to legitimate the stolen election and praise Noriega's version of "democracy" as a model for the errant Sandinistas.

The Washington-media alliance and the major journals refrained from criticizing the fraudulent elections, but dismissed as utterly worthless the Sandinistas' far more free and honest election in the same year-because it could not be controlled.

In May 1989, Noriega again stole an election, this time from a representative of the business opposition, Guillermo Endara. Noriega used less violence than in 1984. But the Reagan administration had given the signal that it had turned against Noriega. Following the predictable script, the press expressed outrage over his failure to meet our lofty democratic standards.

The press also began passionately denouncing human rights violations that previously didn't reach the threshold of their attention. By the time we invaded Panama in December 1989, the press had demonized Noriega, turning him into the worst monster since Attila the Hun. (It was basically a replay of the demonization of Qaddafi of Libya.) Ted Koppel was orating that "Noriega belongs to that special fraternity of international villains, men like Qaddafi, Idi Amin and the Ayatollah Khomeini, whom Americans just love to hate." Dan Rather placed him "at the top of the list of the world's drug thieves and scums." In fact, Noriega remained a very minor thug exactly what he was when he was on the CIA payroll.

In 1988, for example, Americas Watch published a report on human rights in Panama, giving an unpleasant picture. But as their reports-and other inquiries-make clear, Noriega's human rights record was nothing remotely like that of other US clients in the region, and no worse than in the days when Noriega was still a favorite, following orders.

Take Honduras, for example. Although it's not a murderous terrorist state like El Salvador or Guatemala, human rights abuses were probably worse there than in Panama. In fact, there's one ClA-trained battalion in Honduras that all by itself had carried out more atrocities than Noriega did. Or consider US-backed dictators like Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Somoza in Nicaragua, Marcos in the Philippines, Duvalier in Haiti and a host of Central American gangsters through the 1980s. They were all much more brutal than Noriega, but the United States supported them enthusiastically right through decades of horrifying atrocities-as long as the profits were flowing out of their countries and into the US. George Bush's administration continued to honor Mobutu, Ceausescu and Saddam Hussein, among others, all far worse criminals than Noriega. Suharto of Indonesia, arguably the worst killer of them all, remains a Washington-media "moderate."

In fact, at exactly the moment it invaded Panama because of its outrage over Noriega's abuses of human rights, the Bush administration announced new high-technology sales to China, noting that $300 million in business for US firms was at stake and that contacts had secretly resumed a few weeks after the Tiananmen Square massacre.

On the same day-the day Panama was invaded-the White House also announced plans (and implemented them shortly afterwards) to lift a ban on loans to Iraq. The State Department explained with a straight face that this was to achieve the "goal of increasing US exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record...."

The Department continued with the pose as Bush rebuffed the Iraqi democratic opposition (bankers, professionals, etc.) and blocked congressional efforts to condemn the atrocious crimes of his old friend Saddam Hussein. Compared to Bush's buddies in Baghdad and Beijing, Noriega looked like Mother Teresa. After the invasion, Bush announced a billion dollars in aid to Panama. Of this, $400 million consisted of incentives for US business to export products to Panama, $150 million was to pay off bank loans and $65 million went to private sector loans and guarantees to US investors. In
other words, about half the aid was a gift from the American taxpayer to American businesses.

The US put the bankers back in power after the invasion. Noriega's involvement in drug trafficking had been trivial compared to theirs. Drug trafficking there has always been conducted primarily by the banks-the banking system is virtually unregulated, so it's a natural outlet for criminal money. This has been the basis for Panama's highly artificial economy and remains so-possibly at a higher level-after the invasion. The Panamanian Defense Forces have also been reconstructed with basically the same officers.

In general, everything's pretty much the same, only now more reliable servants are in charge. (The same is true of Grenada, which has become a major center of drug money laundering since the US invasion. Nicaragua, too, has become a significant conduit for drugs to the US market, after Washington's victory in the 1990 election. The pattern is standard-as is the failure to notice it.)

***

from the book What Uncle Sam Really Wants, published in 1993
Odonian Press
Box 32375
Tucson, AZ 85751
tel 602-296-4056 or 800-REALSTORY
fax 602-296-0936

other Noam Chomsky books published by Odonian Press

Secrets, Lies, and Democracy
The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomOdon_Panama.html
No doubt Iran meddles in Iraq's civil war. Who can blame them. If the US ever does pacify Iraq, Iran and the rest of the world know who's next. Iran would be foolish not take advantage now rather than wait for war.

All Iran has to do is legally sell arms to friends of enemies of their enemies. People who know Iraqi insurgents probably have no trouble doing legal business with Iranian international arms dealers. Certainly Iran doesn't need to be as overt as American support for the contras or mujahudeen to cause the problems for the US in Iraq.

I'm not saying the US won't use their military against Iran. Americans have a history of using their military for far less.
 
Last edited:

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
A few years ago, a whole shipment of rifles,ammunition, grenades, etc., went missing in Iraq. I don't have a link but I'll find it. Who's causing the chaos in Iraq? The same people who invaded and bombed the crap out of the place.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
On the other hand:



$12 BILLION IN IRAQ AID MISSING
Bush Administration OK’d Biggest Theft of Taxpayer Money in History
By Richard Walker​
If—and it is a big if—the tens of billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer dollars wasted in Iraq are ever accounted for, it may turn out to be the biggest fleecing of Americans in the history of the United States. And average Americans will not have been the only victims.

Millions of ordinary, law-abiding Iraqis had hoped their nation’s oil wealth would be used to rebuild their country after President Bush ordered the attack on their country. Instead it was used to line the pockets of tribal leaders, insurgents, militias, crooked U.S. contractors, some U.S. soldiers and an unspecified number of powerful elites in the Iraqi government.

At present, the sheer scale of the missing billions is unclear. But consider this: Imagine for a moment that you wanted to transport 360 tons of $100 bills from the Federal Reserve Bank in New York to Baghdad. First you would need it assembled into what are called “bricks,” each one containing $100,000. Then 20 of those “bricks,” amounting to $2 million, would be sealed in a wooden box. That wooden box would be loaded onto pallets. Eventually the whole 360 tons of bills totaling $16 billion would need to be placed on three massive, U.S. military C-130 transport planes for the trip to Baghdad.

That is what the White House signed off on in 2003 when Paul Bremer was running the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). It was a shadow government established by Washington after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Bremer, a former ambassador to Iraq, regarded as a security guru, was like a pro-consul of ancient Roman times but a lot less efficient.

And if you think sending such a vast amount of cash into a war zone was the worst that could have happened, that is only part of an absurd and unbelievable story.

When the crisp, clean $100 bills reached Baghdad, it was like the “Wild West,” according to Frank Willis, the second-in-command in the CPA’s Transportation Ministry.

Currency “bricks” totaling $2 million each were removed from their wooden cases and stuffed into foot lockers and filing cabinets. Rooms were piled with stacks of bills and wooden cases full of cash were placed in poorly secured vaults because the looting in Baghdad had reduced the capital to a place where nothing was safe, not even national museum artifacts.

Sometimes, members of the CPA referred to these bricks of cash as “footballs,” because they were passed from hand to hand. When money was needed for something, a few soldiers or members of the CPA staff were told to take a wheelbarrow or a sack and pick up anything from $1 million to $5 million. At CPA headquarters within the Green Zone in Baghdad, there was one pile of $600 million set aside. Of that, $200 million was kept in a room to which one soldier had the key. He was reported to have kept the key in his pocket everywhere he went, whether it was to dinner or to the showers.

The CPA’s job was to spend $16 billion of U.S. taxpayer’s money for reconstruction, but the problem was there were never any accounting practices in place, and that provided the criminally minded with a wonderful opportunity to steal what they wanted.

Approximately $8 billion was channeled through Iraqi ministries that kept either no records or two sets of records, one of which was bogus. Large sums of money were siphoned off by billing twice or by fabricating staff on the payroll. One of the most blatant examples of that kind of scam involved an Iraqi ministry that billed the CPA for over 8,000 security guards when it actually employed less than one-tenth that many.

For Iraqi sheikhs, politicians and officials linked to the insurgency and the militias, it was as though Christmas had arrived. Cash in amounts of tens of millions that was transferred to the Iraqi Central Bank disappeared without trace.

CPA money was even used in a weapons buy back program, a purpose for which it was not intended. Many of the weapons found their way back to the streets. In fact, large shipments of weapons the United States transported to Iraq to arm the Iraqi army vanished, and it is now believed some of them were sold by corrupt officials to militias and even Hezbollah in Lebanon.

A sizeable slice of the 360 tons of cash ended up in the hands of mercenaries often without proper contracts. It is now estimated that millions of dollars were awarded for phantom construction projects such as schools, hospitals and pipeline repair work. CPA contract payments were understated by as much as $108 million, and, of 198 contract files that were later examined, 154 lacked evidence that any goods or services were even rendered.

Fourteen contracts did not even show evidence of any payment. One department within the CPA, without oversight from superiors, “signed off” on contracts worth $430 million without providing paperwork.

Keep in mind that all of this was happening while the families of soldiers were being forced to buying body armor for their sons and daughters in the field.

One of the crazy examples of how cash was handed over by the CPA related to a contract with a U.S. mercenary company to handle security at Baghdad airport. The company billed the CPA for the use of “bomb-sniffer” dogs at a checkpoint outside the airport. It was later discovered that there was only one dog—and it was not even trained to detect bombs.

It fell asleep each time it arrived at the checkpoint. Bremer accepts the CPA records provide no evidence of the vanishing billions. He complains that the Iraqi banking system was in chaos and he did not have the required number of trained staff to handle such a massive amount of money. One only wonders how the Bush administration will explain the disappearance of $12 billion was a drop in the ocean compared to what was actually wasted in Iraq and also in Afghanistan.

To understand how little we know about wasteful spending, it emerged recently that there are conflicting figures for how much the Pentagon spends for having approximately 35,000 so-called “contractor personnel” in Iraq and Afghanistan to boost the U.S. military presence.

The generally accepted costs for putting a U.S. soldier in the field is around $600 a day, compared to approximately $1,300 for a military contractor. That means approximately $40 million is spent per day hiring “mercenaries.” The figure may of course be much higher. Until the Pentagon provides proper records for this aspect of the war the whole matter will remain yet another financial mystery of this presidency.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
LOL, compared to whom? A country with troops on foreign land? Compare the total sales of arms to all the countries over there from since WWII and tell me who has made the money, a list if you will. Who has Iran sold weapons to? Did they sell to Iraq so Iraq could then invade them?
I wasn't comparing them to anyone. There are Irani in other countries: I met some a couple years ago and bought furniture from them. Did I say something about anyone selling arms to anyone? Iran as far as I know hasn't sold arms to anyone, but they have trained troops from other countries among other things. Boy, you sure read a lot into my post that wasn't there.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Foreign US military involvement since 1989. Further down more information about one instance.

And this list omits plenty.
No doubt many of the above are valid reasons for using your military. But they are just short summaries. All have details.
For example:


A few more details about Panama by Chomsky

No doubt Iran meddles in Iraq's civil war. Who can blame them. If the US ever does pacify Iraq, Iran and the rest of the world know who's next. Iran would be foolish not take advantage now rather than wait for war.

All Iran has to do is legally sell arms to friends of enemies of their enemies. People who know Iraqi insurgents probably have no trouble doing legal business with Iranian international arms dealers. Certainly Iran doesn't need to be as overt as American support for the contras or mujahudeen to cause the problems for the US in Iraq.

I'm not saying the US won't use their military against Iran. Americans have a history of using their military for far less.
Yeah. I agree. And .......... ?
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
I have read about the missing money J, but I had know idea it was that bad.
You people seem to think that because I make an observation about some country that opposes the USA that it is the same thing as defending the USA. You are wrong. That's not what I said nor even what I meant ( read my signature).
Actually I'm just one person. :)

LG I can't see your signature. You may have to go into your profile and turn it on.

Many people have a distorted view of Iran. (I am not pointing at you specifically LG). Everyone who watches the news or listens to international experts is influenced to some degree by what we see and hear.

Our media demonizes Iran to prepare us for some sort of disasterous American/Israeli military confrontation with Iran. Before that happens the masses have to fear and despise Iran's leaders.

Sure, Iran is a threat to "western" interests in the middle east. Those intersts are what led the US to start an unprovoked war with Iraq to gain control of its oil wealth. Those same intersts motivate western leaders to do the same thing in Iran.

While I disagree with the methods the west uses to impose its will and protect its interests in the middle east, I also disagree with the medieval attitudes of some of Iran's leaders.

Iran wants to protect themselves from a US led invasion occupation and neutralize the west's decadent and immoral influence in the middle east. (Their viewpoint not mine, but lets face it, their medieval sensibilities are offended by bikinis, accessible porn, online gambling, rampant corruption...) But this isn't a good reason for war and cultural differences can be addressed by compromise and mutual respect.

Iran has armed themselves in reaction to western interference in the middle east and direct military threats to their existance. I don't believe Iran wants to nuke it out with Israel or the US. But Iran would like the ability to inflict pain on the US and Israel if the US or Israel attack Iran. Any country threatened by foreign nations intent on imposing regime change by military force would react the same way as Iran.

Iran has an interest in trying to keep Iraq in chaos, since that buys them time and weakens the US militarily. A weakened US can't contemplate attacking Iran. I see this as a defensive tactic.

Iran's main international agenda is more political than military:
Organization of the Islamic Conference
...The primary goals of the OIC are, according to its Status, "to promote solidarity among all Islamic member states; to consolidate cooperation among member states in economic, social, cultural, scientific, and other fields of activity; to endeavor to eliminate racial segregation and discrimination and to oppose colonialism in all its forms; and, to support all Muslim people in their struggle to safeguard their dignity, independence and national rights, bridging gaps between different culture of the world etc"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_the_Islamic_Conference#History_and_goals
...Iran's regional goals are trying not to be dominated by wanting to establish a leadership role, curtail the presence of the United States and other outside powers, and build trade ties. In broad terms, Iran's foreign policy emphasizes three main guidelines:
  • It takes stances against the United States and Israel, the former as a military power that threatens it in the Persian Gulf, and the latter as part of its stance to support the Palestinians. See U.S.-Iran relations.
  • It wants to eliminate outside influence in the region. Iran sees itself as a regional power, when global powers such as the United States or the United Kingdom do not supersede it. It seeks to reduce their presence in the Persian Gulf wherever possible.
  • It pursues a great increase in diplomatic contacts with developing and non-aligned countries, as part of an effort to build trade and political support...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Iran

Iran has no interest in turning Canada or any other western nation into a Muslim fundamentalist state. Iran does not threaten the lifestyle or living standards of the west's middle class. If middle easterners gain control of their resources they will have to sell it somewhere. The only difference will be that the people making billions off the middle east's oil will be middle easterners rather than westerners.

Here is an interesting article on how western media distorts our perceptions regarding Iran:
Ahmadinejad Did Not Say - "Wipe Israel Off The Map"
Let’s fill in the Blanks in the Speech of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

By Arzu Celalifer

10/30/05 "Turkish Weekly" -- -- The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad was addressing a conference in Tehran entitled "The World without Zionism", attended by around 3,000 students on Wednesday and the following day, we could find “Israel should be Wiped of the Map” title in nearly all of the news sources around the world. The remarks by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prompted a chorus of international condemnation. Sometimes it seems easier to copy paste some parts of a speech or article and create a noisy atmosphere. Hence, it will be better to analyze all dynamics of this event and try to find out the missing points...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12763.htm
A thoughtful examination of the facts leads to greater understanding than just believing spin by "Iranian experts" based on a single misquoted sentence taken out of context...
 
Last edited:

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Did America supply the mahujadeen with arms in Afghanistan or am I getting that confused with the Contras in Nicaragua...or one of the many other places around the world where America has "interests"....?
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Did America supply the mahujadeen with arms in Afghanistan or am I getting that confused with the Contras in Nicaragua...or one of the many other places around the world where America has "interests"....?

The US did both things.
Nicaragua v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America[1] was a case heard in 1986 by the International Court of Justice that found that the United States had violated international law by supporting Contra guerrillas in their war against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The Court ruled in Nicaragua's favor, but the United States refused to abide by the Court's decision...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States
...
From Covert to Overt

Much to the dismay of the CIA, the congressional oversight mixed with keen public interest moved the once secret debates about aid to the mujahideen to the national spotlight.[20] The debate got more intense and more public as time passed. Criticism of the administration’s handling of Soviet/Afghan war seemed to peak in 1985, when Gorbachev, the new Soviet leader, decided to sharply increase their efforts in Afghanistan. In that same year, President Reagan responded by meeting with mujahideen leadership at the White House[21] and issuing the National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 166. The new directive changed the thinking of many U.S. policy makers by explaining: (1) the pursuit of a stalemate was no longer viable option; and (2) a Soviet defeat was possible.[22] In addition, NSDD 166 directed the CIA to give the mujahideen classified imagery and signals intelligence that could help in planning attacks against the Soviet occupation force. Plausible Deniability was no longer a priority.
As part of a reinvigorated Soviet campaign, the newly deployed Hind helicopter gunships were turning the stalemate into a victory by wreaking havoc on the mujahideen positions in the mountains. Over the objection of the CIA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Senator DeConcini (who prophetically warned that mujahideen loathed the West as much as the Soviets), President Reagan authorized arming the Afghan mujahideen with U.S. Stinger anti-aircraft missiles.[23] Although Reagan had already approved the Stinger deal, one last concurrence was needed—Pakistan. President Zia finally capitulated to the U.S. desire conceding that the rebels needed the Stinger to defeat the Soviet air power.
Stinger Turns Tide

While the Stinger deal marked a major change in U.S. involvement in the conflict, the mujahideen’s first use of the Stingers in 1986 marked an even greater change in the war. In their first three attempts, the mujahideen downed three Soviet Hind helicopter gunships with the Stinger. This success only foreshadowed the immense loss of Soviet aircraft to come. In sum, the rebels downed approximately 275 Soviet aircraft before the Red Army’s withdrawal in 1989.[24] A former CIA officer who was involved in the Afghan operation stated, “The Stingers neutralized Soviet air power and marked a strategic turning point in the war.”[25] According to Ahmed Massoud, former mujahideen leader, “There are only two things the Afghan needed [to defeat the Soviets]: the Koran and Stingers.”...
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~t656_we..._2004/Boggs_Jonathan_Afghanistan_blowback.htm
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Yeah....them damn Iranians....spreading arms and violence all over Iraq.....
Good thing America doesn't do that kind of thing.....
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
LG I can't see your signature. You may have to go into your profile and turn it on.
It is on, sometimes signatures show up, sometimes they don't. It seems to be a glitch peculiar to this site.
Many people have a distorted view of Iran. (I am not pointing at you specifically LG). Everyone who watches the news or listens to international experts is influenced to some degree by what we see and hear.
And you have the only clear picture? lol Don't get in a huff, Earth, I'm only teasing. But I am particularly not likely to be swayed by mainstream news because I simply don't believe most of their crap and only bellieve them when I find more credible sources saying the same things. Where my opinion came from that Iran is provocative is from its history.
Our media demonizes Iran to prepare us for some sort of disasterous American/Israeli military confrontation with Iran. Before that happens the masses have to fear and despise Iran's leaders.
Well, I hope it won't come to that. The Yanks are just as bad at being provocative.
Sure, Iran is a threat to "western" interests in the middle east. Those intersts are what led the US to start an unprovoked war with Iraq to gain control of its oil wealth. Those same intersts motivate western leaders to do the same thing in Iran.
Of course it's a threat. It doesn't think the west has any business being there. The problem with that idea is that people are able to travel anywhere on the planet. Iran should get over it and accept that people will intermingle sooner or later. Things change, and their religiosity cannot stop change.
While I disagree with the methods the west uses to impose its will and protect its interests in the middle east, I also disagree with the medieval attitudes of some of Iran's leaders.
Ditto.
Iran wants to protect themselves from a US led invasion occupation and neutralize the west's decadent and immoral influence in the middle east. (Their viewpoint not mine, but lets face it, their medieval sensibilities are offended by bikinis, accessible porn, online gambling, rampant corruption...) But this isn't a good reason for war and cultural differences can be addressed by compromise and mutual respect.
Again, I agree.
Iran has armed themselves in reaction to western interference in the middle east and direct military threats to their existance. I don't believe Iran wants to nuke it out with Israel or the US. But Iran would like the ability to inflict pain on the US and Israel if the US or Israel attack Iran. Any country threatened by foreign nations intent on imposing regime change by military force would react the same way as Iran.
Perhaps it's a self-defensive attitude. But I don't think that's the entire motivation. Iran has had conflicts for an extremely long time and has been the aggressor sometimes. They are not strictly self-defensive.
Iran has an interest in trying to keep Iraq in chaos, since that buys them time and weakens the US militarily. A weakened US can't contemplate attacking Iran. I see this as a defensive tactic.
Iran's main international agenda is more political than military:
Iran has no interest in turning Canada or any other western nation into a Muslim fundamentalist state. Iran does not threaten the lifestyle or living standards of the west's middle class. If middle easterners gain control of their resources they will have to sell it somewhere. The only difference will be that the people making billions off the middle east's oil will be middle easterners rather than westerners.
Yup. There's that, too.
Here is an interesting article on how western media distorts our perceptions regarding Iran:
A thoughtful examination of the facts leads to greater understanding than just believing spin by "Iranian experts" based on a single misquoted sentence taken out of context...
What I said up a ways. I have stated my dislike and distrust of the mainstream news before here several times, you know.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
eao
L Gilbert - It is on, sometimes signatures show up, sometimes they don't. It seems to be a glitch peculiar to this site.
And you have the only clear picture? lol Don't get in a huff, Earth, I'm only teasing.

None taken. I'm aware my picture has distortions too. No one has a monopoly on knowledge. We all have something to learn and something to teach.


Recently Z corrected some of my misperceptions. If not for our debate, I would have continued to be misinformed about the rights of nationless people.

But I am particularly not likely to be swayed by mainstream news because I simply don't believe most of their crap and only bellieve them when I find more credible sources saying the same things. Where my opinion came from that Iran is provocative is from its history.
Well, I hope it won't come to that. The Yanks are just as bad at being provocative.
Of course it's a threat. It doesn't think the west has any business being there. The problem with that idea is that people are able to travel anywhere on the planet. Iran should get over it and accept that people will intermingle sooner or later. Things change, and their religiosity cannot stop change.

As you say below, its a small world. But what goes on inside Iran for the most part is the business of Iranians. I believe Iranians have the same view towards secular nations like Canada.

I'm certain that Iran would agree to respect our right to choose to behave like infidels if we respected their right to choose to behave medievally.

Over time Iran will evolve. Women's rights movement will win there just like they have pretty much everywhere else. Iranians will eventually amend their political system to separate Church and State.

Ditto.
Again, I agree.
Perhaps it's a self-defensive attitude. But I don't think that's the entire motivation. Iran has had conflicts for an extremely long time and has been the aggressor sometimes. They are not strictly self-defensive.
Yup. There's that, too.
What I said up a ways. I have stated my dislike and distrust of the mainstream news before here several times, you know.[/quote]
The only war the Iranian Theocracy has ever officially fought was a defensive war against Iraq. But I think Iran's leaders have come to the conclusion that sooner or later they are going to have to fight the US and Israel. Iran likely does contribute to problems the US has in Iraq and problems Israel has along its border with Lebanon.


The news isn't the only source of information. Every viewpoint is out there somewhere. Taken collectively, facts separate from fiction.