Iraq PM sends team to Iran to discuss militias

[lily]

Well, if at first you don't get people to believe you try, try again, just use a different messenger. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24405250/)

Iraq PM sends team to Iran to discuss militias
Visit comes amid accusations that Tehran funnels arms to Shiite militants

updated 11:10 a.m. ET, Thurs., May. 1, 2008
BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister has sent a delegation to Tehran to tell
Iranian officials to stop backing Shiite militias, Iraqi officials said on
Thursday, underscoring Baghdad's unease over the influence of its powerful
neighbor.

The delegation from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's ruling United Iraqi
Alliance (UIA) left for Tehran on Wednesday in the wake of further
accusations from U.S. officials that newly made Iranian weapons have been
found in Iraq.

"The UIA has decided to send a delegation to press the Iranian government to
stop financing and supporting the armed groups," said Sami al-Askari, a
senior lawmaker in the Shiite alliance and a close confidant of al-Maliki.


Washington accuses Iran of arming, training and funding rogue elements of
the Mahdi Army militia of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Iran
denies the charges and blames the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 for the violence
in Iraq.

U.S. officials have stepped up their rhetoric against Iran since al-Maliki
launched a crackdown on Shiite militias in the southern city of Basra in
late March.

That fighting triggered a month of clashes in Baghdad, during which
militiamen fired more than 700 rockets and mortars at targets in the
capital. Many of those weapons were Iranian made, U.S. military officials
have said.

Questions for Iran
Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the delegation had taken
questions to Tehran that needed answering.

Asked if the team, which is led by the deputy parliament speaker, would
raise the issue of arming militias, al-Dabbagh said:

"They will discuss all issues that have been raised ... We expect and want
the intervention of Iran to be through the elected government and not
through a third party."

He did not elaborate nor say whom the delegation would meet.

Jalal al-Din al-Sagheer, another UIA member of parliament, said the
delegation was sent after the "serious deterioration that has recently taken
place in security in Iraq".

American officials say al-Sadr himself is living in the holy Iranian city of
Qom. Al-Sagheer denied reports the delegation would meet the cleric.
Al-Sadr's spokesman denied the cleric was in Iran.

Claims of evidence
U.S. military officials say they have collected proof of Iranian weapons
that have arrived recently in Iraq, but were holding off making a public
display of their evidence so that Iraqis could make their own case to Iran
first.

"The Iraqis wish to first show what they have to the Iranian government
before they show the world," an official travelling with U.S. Defense
Secretary Robert Gates said on Wednesday.

"First and foremost, it's an attempt to say: 'Hey, listen: we know what you
are up to. This is not helpful. Cut it out!'"

Major-General Qassim Moussawi, Iraqi spokesman for security in Baghdad, said
this week that Iraq had seized Iranian-made missiles and heavy weapons in
the past month.

Al-Maliki is having to tread a fine line between Tehran and Washington --
two bitter foes that are also at loggerheads over Iran's nuclear program.

[jafar00]

Iraq went from 9/11, to Saddam's WMDs, to "Mission Accomplished", to battling the insurgents, the lynching of Saddam, to bringing the fight to Al Qaeda, and now it's all Iran's fault and Iraq has to be protected from Iran.

I think I preferred it when the Hollyood writers were all on strike.

[Pookie]

Whatever it is, I'm worried about the possibility of more wars than we can handle. If all our troops are elsewhere, what happens in case of a disaster here? What if all of a sudden we need them here?
And if they cannot be here and we need them, what then?
This is a bit scary to me.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Truth_and_Power]

Well, the air force is bored anyway..

[Wndrtch]

Whatever it is, I'm worried about the possibility of more wars than we can handle. If all our troops are elsewhere, what happens in case of a disaster here? What if all of a sudden we need them here?
And if they cannot be here and we need them, what then?
This is a bit scary to me.
Purrs,
Pookie

Pook,

We have some 2Mill soldiers, and only 200,000 are deployed in Iraq/Afghanistan. That still leaves us with 1.8Mill to help if we need
it.

Don't worry, pook, your cats are safe. :thumbsup:

[Wndrtch]

Well, if at first you don't get people to believe you try, try again, just use a different messenger. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24405250/)

This is the interesting part for me.

"The Iraqis wish to first show what they have to the Iranian government before they show the world," an official travelling with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Wednesday"

It sounds like we are getting ready to make our case about Iran, regarding their involvment in killing US soldiers, which is an act of War.

[lily]

It sounds like we are getting ready to make our case about Iran, regarding their involvment in killing US soldiers, which is an act of War.

Well......we've tried making that case before, using the same "evidence". You think it coming from al-Maliki is going to make it different?

[jafar00]

The Maliki government has no control or influence outside of the "Green Zone". Their "intelligence" comes from the Americans. What do you think the Iranians are going to say when Maliki tells them that he believes the Iranians are involved because the Americans say so?

[Trish]

I have a question for those who are so sure that the American intelligence regarding Iran is wrong - where are you getting your information? What are your sources? Let's forget the current administration and our military commanders for a minute - all 3 presidential candidates have acknowledged that Iran interfers in Iraq and beyond that is a problem on its own merit. What do you know that they don't?

[jafar00]

all 3 presidential candidates have acknowledged that Iran interfers in Iraq and beyond that is a problem on its own merit. What do you know that they don't?

I do know that they all make these accusations without providing any proof. If history has proven anything, it's that you cannot trust an American politician, especially when they open their mouths let out the sound of their vibrating vocal chords.
The last "proof" they tried to foist on us was so laughable (shells not of Iranian origin with english writing and gregorian dates of manufacture) that nothing else they say can be taken seriously with getting a lobotomy first.

[Pookie]

But what has Iran done to us? I know all the stuff Ahmadinejad has said, but isn't that really just a bit of saber-rattling?
Are we going to start with Iran? Thanks, Wndrtch, that is reassuring. But aren't we spread a little thin?
I agree with Jafar in that American politicians are somewhat untrustworthy. Our politicians are often involved with an agenda of their own, lobbyists who are after just one thing, and then there are the special-interests bunch that politicians have to address.
Let's stay out of Iran.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Trish]

I do know that they all make these accusations without providing any proof. If history has proven anything, it's that you cannot trust an American politician, especially when they open their mouths let out the sound of their vibrating vocal chords.
The last "proof" they tried to foist on us was so laughable (shells not of Iranian origin with english writing and gregorian dates of manufacture) that nothing else they say can be taken seriously with getting a lobotomy first.

So Iran doesn't buy shells or other equipment and supplies from other countries? They manufacture all their own arms from all Iranian-made components? Interesting....

[Elrathin]

I have a question for those who are so sure that the American intelligence regarding Iran is wrong -

Oh I don't know Trish, it couldn't be because we've had smoke blown up our asses by this administration for years regarding Iraq could it?

I mean stockpiles of WMD, Last Throes of the Insurgency, Mission accomplished, economy doing just fine, then less than a year later they have to admit it isn't etc.

Maybe "The boy that cried WMDs" is finally coming to term. Simply put, a lot of people have lost their trust in this administration to be factual when it comes to "intelligence" of another country or anything else for that matter.

[Trish]

Oh I don't know Trish, it couldn't be because we've had smoke blown up our asses by this administration for years regarding Iraq could it?

I mean stockpiles of WMD, Last Throes of the Insurgency, Mission accomplished, economy doing just fine, then less than a year later they have to admit it isn't etc.

Maybe "The boy that cried WMDs" is finally coming to term. Simply put, a lot of people have lost their trust in this administration to be factual when it comes to "intelligence" of another country or anything else for that matter.

I see - so this is an emotional reaction - not anything based on actual knowledge, sources, or evidence.

[Elrathin]

I see - so this is an emotional reaction - not anything based on actual knowledge, sources, or evidence.

No Trish, it is called when someone lies to you enough, you stop believing them. That isn't emotional, that is logical.

[Trish]

No Trish, it is called when someone lies to you enough, you stop believing them. That isn't emotional, that is logical.

But we're not talking about Bush. Remember - I said let's forget about Bush and the current administration. Clinton, McCain and Obama ALL say that Iran is a threat to the US. Are THEY lying and crying wolf? What evidence, information, sources discredit their position on Iran?

[Elrathin]

Clinton, McCain and Obama ALL say that Iran is a threat to the US. Are THEY lying and crying wolf? What evidence, information, sources discredit their position on Iran?

Aside from McCain, please show where Clinton and Obama have said that Iran is a military threat to the U.S. in those terms. There is a difference in having concern about Iran and saying that Iran is a direct threat to the U.S.

[Trish]

Aside from McCain, please show where Clinton and Obama have said that Iran is a military threat to the U.S. in those terms. There is a difference in having concern about Iran and saying that Iran is a direct threat to the U.S.

http://www.france24.com/en/20080417-obama-clinton-debate-iran-usa-vote-democrats
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/13/sen_hillary_clinton_refuses_to_acknowledge
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article

There are more references, but here are 3 - ALL 3 candidates for the presidency consider Iran a threat - a threat to the US, a threat to Israel, a threat to "all of us."

[jafar00]

There are more references, but here are 3 - ALL 3 candidates for the presidency consider Iran a threat - a threat to the US, a threat to Israel, a threat to "all of us."

Actually, they just consider Iran to be a threat to Israel because Israel considers Iran to be a threat to Israel. They just throw in the threat to the US too so that the public will support their Israel first and screw the US policies.

[Trish]

Actually, they just consider Iran to be a threat to Israel because Israel considers Iran to be a threat to Israel. They just throw in the threat to the US too so that the public will support their Israel first and screw the US policies.

Senator Obama's comment that Iran is "a threat to all of us" contradicts your statement.

[Elrathin]

http://www.france24.com/en/20080417-obama-clinton-debate-iran-usa-vote-democrats
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/13/sen_hillary_clinton_refuses_to_acknowledge
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article

There are more references, but here are 3 - ALL 3 candidates for the presidency consider Iran a threat - a threat to the US, a threat to Israel, a threat to "all of us."

All of those links talk about Iran IF they become nucelar armed. All references to threats are that they don't want Iran to become a nuclear armed nation, which right now they aren't.

Sorry Trish your links do not support what you are saying about Obama or Hillary calling Iran a military threat.

[Trish]

All of those links talk about Iran IF they become nucelar armed. All references to threats are that they don't want Iran to become a nuclear armed nation, which right now they aren't.

Sorry Trish your links do not support what you are saying about Obama or Hillary calling Iran a military threat.

If you choose to view what they have said that narrowly, fine. I disagree. A threat is a threat. However, as I said there are other sources as well...Senator Obama said, "Make no mistake – if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening." http://obama.senate.gov/speech/061120-a_way_forward_i/

It would appear he is also speaking of a threat less than nuclear in nature.

Likewise Senator Clinton said that Iran "uses its influence and its revenues in the region to support terrorist elements. We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force." So again it would appear that she is speaking of a threat other than the nuclear threat. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php

The threat Iran poses if it has nukes is certainly pressing, but that is not the only threat Iran poses and our presidential candidates appear all too well aware of that.

[Elrathin]

Sorry Trish all those comments are "IF" statements preceding thme as a threat. I could say the U.S. would be a threat to all the world IF we were to become a theocracy. That wouldn't make us a threat NOW. That is the point I am making.

Even your statement with Obama with him saying "IF the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq......" It is just a bunch of IFs in there.

You know, I do remember a speech by you about how things were taken out of context with a certain Rush Limbaugh thread, do you not see yourself doing what you accused others doing with Rush here with Obama and Clinton?

[Pookie]

There are many IFs here. We will have to wait and see what happens. We cannot predict what will happen, although we might have educated guesses, then we will just have to simply wait and see.
Patience, patience, people, let's see where this all goes before we judge, leap to conclusions, and second-guess.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Trish]

Sorry Trish all those comments are "IF" statements preceding thme as a threat. I could say the U.S. would be a threat to all the world IF we were to become a theocracy. That wouldn't make us a threat NOW. That is the point I am making.

Even your statement with Obama with him saying "IF the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq......" It is just a bunch of IFs in there.

You know, I do remember a speech by you about how things were taken out of context with a certain Rush Limbaugh thread, do you not see yourself doing what you accused others doing with Rush here with Obama and Clinton?

You are joking, right? There is nothing taken out of context, El. Absolutely nothing.

Let's put this on a personal level. I see a guy in my front yard staggering around like he's drunk. I say to my kids..."IF he starts coming towards the door, lock your selves in your rooms while I call the police." I have recognized a threat - the possibility of harm and have stated immediate responses that should be taken. IF - as in when or whenever - that drunk heads for my door, then action will be taken. That's the same context as in use in Senator Obama's statement. IF the Iranians seek to use Iraq as another Afghanistan...he sees a threat - the possibility of harm and then states the action that will be taken in response - it is in our interest to prevent it from happening.

You're trying to use "IF" as though the Senator was speaking of something he thought was contrary to fact as in "IF" I had been born rich, I wouldn't have to work so hard or to use your example "...the U.S. would be a threat to all the world IF we were to become a theocracy." That's not the context in which the word "if" is used by the Senator and the passages containing the quotes I provided are quite clear in this respect.

I recall both Limbaugh threads vividly. If (used here as a condition) you wish to discuss similarities and differences between those threads and this one, I'll be happy to oblige in pm. I don't think it benefit this thread to go so far astray here.

[Elrathin]

You are joking, right? There is nothing taken out of context, El. Absolutely nothing.

Really, show me where they think Iran is a threat RIGHT NOW.

Let's put this on a personal level. I see a guy in my front yard staggering around like he's drunk.

Right now I'll kill your explanation, you might have a point if Iran has said it plans to produce nuclear weapons. They don't..

To continue your explanation it would be the equivalent of your neighbor wanting to make alcohol with your assumption he will drink till he gets drunk.

Right now because he has made alcohol, without the intent to get drunk you have told your kids your neighbor is going to get drunk and kill you all you all. Sorry but that is premature.

Now there is a more correct outlook to your scenario. Thank you but try again Trish. It is clear your bias, but you have yet to admit it.


I recall both Limbaugh threads vividly. If (used here as a condition) you wish to discuss similarities and differences between those threads and this one, I'll be happy to oblige in pm. I don't think it benefit this thread to go so far astray here.

I sure do the fact someone took a comment ou8t of context and said it was something that it wasn't. You have done the same with regards to Obama and Clinton.

[jafar00]

Senator Obama's comment that Iran is "a threat to all of us" contradicts your statement.

What threat? Count on one hand, the amount of countries Iran has attacked and on the other the amount of countries the US has attacked since July 4th 1776. The one with the most fingers is the clear threat.

[Trish]

Really, show me where they think Iran is a threat RIGHT NOW.



Right now I'll kill your explanation, you might have a point if Iran has said it plans to produce nuclear weapons. They don't..

To continue your explanation it would be the equivalent of your neighbor wanting to make alcohol with your assumption he will drink till he gets drunk.

Right now because he has made alcohol, without the intent to get drunk you have told your kids your neighbor is going to get drunk and kill you all you all. Sorry but that is premature.

Now there is a more correct outlook to your scenario. Thank you but try again Trish. It is clear your bias, but you have yet to admit it.



I sure do the fact someone took a comment ou8t of context and said it was something that it wasn't. You have done the same with regards to Obama and Clinton.

Hellls bells, El, if BUSH thought Iran was a threat RIGHT NOW, we'd have already taken action to eliminate that threat. I don't think anyone has said that Iran was a threat this very instant! The 3 presidential candidates recognize that Iran poses a potential for harm to the US and its allies. There is a threat there and they will address that threat should the need arise.

Iran has SAID they don't plan to make nuclear weapons. Does that make it so? You know personally that they are speaking the truth?

I didn't take anything out of context, El. Nothing. If my belief that Iran is a threat is an example of bias - then I'll quite openly admit to bias. I DO believe that Iran poses a threat. Is that threat imminent? No. That doesn't change my opinion that Iran represents a threat that needs to be recognized and dealt with - which is EXACTLY what is happening with the international pressure against Iran developing nuclear weapons capability.

[Trish]

What threat? Count on one hand, the amount of countries Iran has attacked and on the other the amount of countries the US has attacked since July 4th 1776. The one with the most fingers is the clear threat.

Fortunately for Americans, all 3 of our presidential candidates don't share your view. Since they are the ones who will be tasked with the responsibility for protecting the citizens of this country, forgive me if I put more faith in their assessment of Iran's threat than I do yours.

[jafar00]

Fortunately for Americans, all 3 of our presidential candidates don't share your view. Since they are the ones who will be tasked with the responsibility for protecting the citizens of this country, forgive me if I put more faith in their assessment of Iran's threat than I do yours.

I'd be worried that they are willing to act on heresay (from Israel!) and a complete lack of evidence or credible intelligence. Also the fact that even before they have been elected, several countries have been publicly threatened with obliteration as part of their election campaign.
Here's hoping they keep to the pattern of breaking campaign promises once elected when it comes to illegal pre-emptive warfare.

[potter]

Let's put this on a personal level. I see a guy in my front yard staggering around like he's drunk. I say to my kids..."IF he starts coming towards the door, lock your selves in your rooms while I call the police." I have recognized a threat -


The flaw with this, as in the Iran debate, is everyone is assuming a threat when no threat has been exhibited.

Will the drunk really be a threat or will he politely ask you to call him a cab.

Will Iran really be a threat or are they just making preparations to protect themselves from nations that are constantly threatening them...or maybe simply preparing to provide power for their country?

So many assumptions, so many innocent lives lost.

[Wndrtch]

The Maliki government has no control or influence outside of the "Green Zone". Their "intelligence" comes from the Americans. What do you think the Iranians are going to say when Maliki tells them that he believes the Iranians are involved because the Americans say so?

He'll say all he wants is peace...

PEACE...

PEACE...!

A little piece of Poland
A little piece of France

A little piece of Portugal
And Austria perchance

A little slice of Turkey
And all that that entails

Und then a piece of England Scotland
lreland and Wales!

[Wndrtch]

The flaw with this, as in the Iran debate, is everyone is assuming a threat when no threat has been exhibited.

Will the drunk really be a threat or will he politely ask you to call him a cab.

Will Iran really be a threat or are they just making preparations to protect themselves from nations that are constantly threatening them...or maybe simply preparing to provide power for their country?

So many assumptions, so many innocent lives lost.

Ready for this!

So, potter, who is a threat IYO?

5...4...3...2...

[potter]

Ready for this!

So, potter, who is a threat IYO?

5...4...3...2...


Right now the two biggest proven threats to the world peace (proven by their willingness to attack and invade unprovoked, and kill indescriminately) are the United States and Israel.

I do understand if your idea of "patriotism" dictates that you deny it.

[Wndrtch]

Right now the two biggest proven threats to the world peace (proven by their willingness to attack and invade unprovoked, and kill indescriminately) are the United States and Israel.

I do understand if your idea of "patriotism" dictates that you deny it.

LOL!

Thanks for not letting me down!

As aposed to your idea of "patriotism" of calling America an unprovoked invader that kills indescriminately?

Main Entry: pa·tri·ot·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈpā-trē-ə-ˌti-zəm, chiefly British ˈpa-\
Function: noun
Date: circa 1726

: love for or devotion to one's country

So, what's the "love" part of "kills indescriminately" when refering to your country?

[potter]

LOL!

Thanks for not letting me down!

As aposed to your idea of "patriotism" of calling America an unprovoked invader that kills indescriminately?



So, what's the "love" part of "kills indescriminately" when refering to your country?


Just calling a horse a horse my friend.....

BTW.....blind patriotism is for weak minded individuals....and I am not so blind as I can't see what this country does in my name, nor how this country was founded. You may float on that cloud of historical propaganda all you want.

I pay my taxes and obey the law, I owe this country nothing else.

[Wndrtch]

Just calling a horse a horse my friend.....

BTW.....blind patriotism is for weak minded individuals....and I am not so blind as I can't see what this country does in my name, nor how this country was founded. You may float on that cloud of historical propaganda all you want.

I pay my taxes and obey the law, I owe this country nothing else.

It's not an issue of blind patriotism. I just understand that the World can be a nasty place, and sometimes you get your hands dirty. I'm sure we were nasty-ass son's of bitches, when we needed to be nasty-ass son's of bitches.

[Trish]

The flaw with this, as in the Iran debate, is everyone is assuming a threat when no threat has been exhibited.

Will the drunk really be a threat or will he politely ask you to call him a cab.

Will Iran really be a threat or are they just making preparations to protect themselves from nations that are constantly threatening them...or maybe simply preparing to provide power for their country?

So many assumptions, so many innocent lives lost.

If you are the person responsible for protecting your children do you have the option of waiting until you are attacked before deciding what to do in the event you are attacked? What happens to your children then? You have to be prepared. Do you lock your door when you leave home or do you assume that no one will break in because no one has done so before? Do you lock your car at the mall or do you leave it unlocked because you don't want to assume someone will steal it?

All of us take steps to protect ourselves, our families and our property every single day whether we see any "imminent" danger or not. Why? Because it's common sense. The same holds true with Iran. Maybe they will bow to international pressure and behave themselves. Should they decide otherwise, however, I'd much rather we have a leader that is prepared to act decisively in response rather than one that wants to play diplomatic patty-cake.

[Trish]

I'd be worried that they are willing to act on heresay (from Israel!) and a complete lack of evidence or credible intelligence. Also the fact that even before they have been elected, several countries have been publicly threatened with obliteration as part of their election campaign.
Here's hoping they keep to the pattern of breaking campaign promises once elected when it comes to illegal pre-emptive warfare.

Oh please - let's put words in Senator Clinton's mouth now. She was responding to a question regarding what she would do as President in the event Iran attacks Israel - not speaking about preemptive warfare.

[jafar00]

Oh please - let's put words in Senator Clinton's mouth now. She was responding to a question regarding what she would do as President in the event Iran attacks Israel - not speaking about preemptive warfare.

For a presidential candidate to react like that, publicly threatening to obliterate a country based on a hypothetical question is grossly irresponsible.

All this talk of "if Iran nukes Israel...", yet Iran is yet to procure a single bomb!

[Trish]

For a presidential candidate to react like that, publicly threatening to obliterate a country based on a hypothetical question is grossly irresponsible.

All this talk of "if Iran nukes Israel...", yet Iran is yet to procure a single bomb!

Hence Senator Clinton's further comment "I don't think they [Iran] will do that, but I sure want to make it abundantly clear to them that they would face a tremendous cost if they did such a thing," http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/clinton-defends.html

[jafar00]

Hence Senator Clinton's further comment "I don't think they [Iran] will do that, but I sure want to make it abundantly clear to them that they would face a tremendous cost if they did such a thing," http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/clinton-defends.html

She said, squirming in such a way as to reveal a private desire to actually think before opening her mouth in future.

[Trish]

She said, squirming in such a way as to reveal a private desire to actually think before opening her mouth in future.

Nothing like a little editorial license, hey Jafar?

[preservanation]

Hell, if Ahmadinejad even farts in Israel's direction the Israelis will bomb that little nut down into that well to cohabitate with the Twelfth Imam.

[jafar00]

Nothing like a little editorial license, hey Jafar?

I got a B+ for creative writing in primary school :dork:

[Trish]

I got a B+ for creative writing in primary school :dork:

:lmao: Well deserved!