Bush OKs countering Iranians in Iraq

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Random_Task, Jan 26, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Bush OKs countering Iranians in Iraq
    Yahoo News
  2. Oh oh.
  3. Does crossing the border into Iran actually count as an Iraqi 'exit' strategy in Bush's mind do you think?
  4. Somewhere in the Iranian version of PJHQ they're throwing a party right now. To date Iranian interference in Iraq has been fairly low key - they've sought to keep the pot boiling ("fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here") and extend their influence. It's been done quietly through deniable sources, as low key as possible. I've no doubt that there are elements in the Iran who want to push harder but are being restrained. It's a long game after all, there's no need to defeat the US - merely to get them to withdraw.

    If the US decide to up the stakes then they have to be ready to cope with the Iranians doing the same. US supply lines pass through Shia areas and if the Shia are forced to choose between a bunch of Crusaders and a bunch of co-religionist Persians then the Persians win every time. Put it another way, with the majority Shia population uninvolved with shooting at Americans do the US really want to risk that changing ?
  5. Sure why not, it's just exiting by a different door! :shock:
  6. Lads have died from shaped-charge IEDs, that's not in doubt, but to say that this stuff came from Iran does make one scratch one's head; the Iraqis have some of the best brains in the ME and I include Israel in that equation, and this is hardly new technology.

    The Yorkshire Ranter has it here : EFPs

    Thoughts ?
  7. Providing they exit on the right!
  8. I stopped reading the linked article when I saw the 'I believe in the BBC' banner.
  9. What a horrible little socialist pile of shoite you linked me to, 2 mins of my life I could have spent w*nking.
  10. Sorry to have taken you away from your happy-sock Mark; but like it or not, it does make some sense.

    This does not mean I am a card-carrying revolutionary and have a subscription to the Socialist Worker, far from it, but I take stuff from the Telegraph as well as this bloke with a pinch of salt...
  11. Sorry, the only bit I read was how to make one and how it worked; did it say other stuff too? Must have switched off . . .
  12. Oh HA, Ha, Ha, - who is a funny b'astard then?

    Although in Bush's demented mind the answer is - probably.
  13. Why would you want my spunk covered happy sock?

    Fallschirmmongsturm, I'm not acusing you of being a socialist wibblemong, but that site is written by one.

    There are people on this site who have directly witnessed Iranian involvement. I have not but have close friends who have.
  14. Thankee kindly Mark, but my words were "sorry to have taken you away from...". My own happy-sock, Pamela, is more than willing to accomodate me, has substantial room for growth and is happy in the knowledge of fulfilling her function.

    I have no doubt Iran is deeply involved; just seemed odd to me that the Iraqis would turn to them when they contain a core of very bright people in all walks of life, and not just the forces.
  15. Just had a chance to read the Telegraph article on the same subject. A couple of points struck me in this paragraph:

    You'd have thought Bush's mob would have learned their lesson from trusting exiled Iraqis for information. Still haven't found that WMD, have they?

    And, aren't the current "exiled opposition group" Saddam's old mukkers now encamped in Jordan and elsewhere?