Us Soldiers Cleared To Kill Iranian

[Tancrisism]

+s.

Here it is.

15:06 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --

"American troops in Iraq have authority to kill or capture Iranian agents deemed to be a threat, officials said Friday in describing a tougher stand toward Tehran and its suspected meddling in the nearly four-year-old war.

The more aggressive policy — evolving over a period of months — was described as the result of mounting evidence that Iran is supporting terrorists inside Iraq and is a major supplier of bombs and other weapons used to target U.S. forces.

President Bush has said the remote-controlled bombs, called improvised explosive devices, are the greatest threat to U.S. troops and the future of a peaceful Iraq.

"Our forces are authorized to go after those who are trying to kill them," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said. "And we are trying to uproot these networks that are planting IEDs that are causing 70 percent of our casualties. And if you're in Iraq and trying to kill our troops, then you should consider yourself a target."

The United States and Iran have regarded each other with distrust and suspicion since the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by militant students. Most recently, tensions have flared over U.S.-led efforts to isolate Iran and force it to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program.

National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the president and his national security team have received a stream of information over the last several months pointing toward Iranian involvement.

"As a result American forces — when they receive actionable information — may take the steps necessary to protect themselves as well as the population," Johndroe said.

Bush said he made it clear to Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, that "our policy is going to be to protect our troops in Iraq.

"It makes sense that if somebody is trying to harm our troops or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them," Bush said in an Oval Office meeting with Petraeus, Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Bush signaled a tougher stand toward Iran and Syria in his Jan. 10 address in which he announced a buildup of 21,500 troops in Iraq. He did not sign any order authorizing new actions, the White House said. Rather, a policy decision was made that U.S. forces could take whatever actions were necessary for protection.

While promising tougher action, the White House said the United States does not intend to cross the Iraq-Iran border to attack Iranians.

Bush, at his appearance with Petraeus, said the tougher policy did not mean that "we want to expand this beyond the borders" of Iraq. "That's a presumption that simply is not accurate."

"We believe that we can solve our problems with Iran diplomatically and are working to do that," the president said. "As a matter of fact, we're making pretty good progress on that front."

Still, the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis and accompanying warships have been sent to the Persian Gulf as part of a buildup of forces that Gates has said is aimed to impress on Iran that the Iraq war has not made America vulnerable. The Stennis will join an aircraft carrier group already in the region, marking the first time since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 that the United States has had two carrier battle groups in the region.

U.S. forces have detained Iranians in Iraq on two recent occasions. U.S. forces still are holding some Iranians who were detained earlier this month in a raid on a liaison office in Kurdish-controlled Irbil. The U.S. has linked those still in custody to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard faction that funds and arms insurgents and militias in Iraq."

Well, what do you guys think? Is this not one more step in the direction of a possible war with Iran?

[Memorize]

At least this time no one can say that the US started it.

[cellardoor6]

Well its been obvious for some time that Iranians are responsible for alot of the deaths of US troops in Iraq. Iranian bombs, equipment, and so forth have been found in Iraq.

And people believe that the recent abduction of 4 US troops was conducted by Iranians. If you haven't heart about it yet, click here .

Basically a group of militants that were dressed in brand-new US Army Uniforms, spoke English, were light skinned, and drove American SUVs, staged an attack on US troops by getting past defenses manned by Iraqi Army. They then assaulted a building were US soldiers were meeting Iraqi government officials, killed one soldier, and abducted 4 others and killed later executed them as well.

There is no fucking way that Iraqi Arabs could have pulled it off. And in my military science class we learned that Iranians have the tactic of using western-looking operatives (a lot of Iranians look like Caucasians) wearing fake US military uniforms to duplicate the successful tactics that the Germans used in WWII.

I think this was an attack carried out by Iranians in retaliation for US raids on Iranian Revolutionary Gaurd outposts (which despite the lies, were NOT consulates and had NO diplomatic status).

I think we need to quit fighting this fucking war with our hands tied behind our back. US troops are dying because political pressure has caused the US to handicap our military by making rules of engagement so fucking strict that you have to basically sit by while your enemies actively fight against you and do next to nothing.

Fuck this, I say we capture every single Iranian in Iraq and send them to Guantanamo. And if anyone thinks this would be too aggressive, fuck that, look at what Iran is doing, they have been at war with us since 1979 and the terrorist group they fund (Hezbollah) has been responsible for hundreds of American deaths. Now Iran is sneakily fighting against us asymmetrically using Iraq as a proxy, and we can't strike back because people will accuse the US of trying to expand the war.

We need to fucking do something already.

[Kasualty]

good

[heathenXXII]

I agree with cellardoor6.

[DJ-Jerakai]

Fairly belligerant.

[bcdemon]

At 1/26/07 09:00 PM, Memorize wrote: At least this time no one can say that the US started it.

G.W. Bush
January 29, 2002

"States like [Iran, Iraq, North Korea]....constitute an axis of evil"

That certainly doesn't raise any cause for concern on the Iranian side now does it?

[Britkid]

Things are looking very tense over there. I don't know if the Bush Administration can or will launch a war against Iran. It would never get the backing of the public over there as the Iraq War lost them any credibility they had. Until Iran declares full-out war on the US, I can't see there being one for the moment.

At 1/26/07 09:19 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Fuck this, I say we capture every single Iranian in Iraq and send them to Guantanamo.

YEAH, FUCK HUMAN RIGHTS! OTHER PEOPLE ARE CLEARLY BENEATH THE WEST!

[LazyDrunk]

At 1/27/07 10:20 AM, TheRoyalEnglishman wrote:
YEAH, FUCK HUMAN RIGHTS! OTHER PEOPLE ARE CLEARLY BENEATH THE WEST!

You sit alone at lunch, or do you fags flock together?

[JakeHero]

I'm surprised there isn't a slur for iranians.

[Memorize]

At 1/27/07 10:08 AM, bcdemon wrote:

That certainly doesn't raise any cause for concern on the Iranian side now does it?

So now that Bush does what you want, you're still going to slam him. Flip-Flop much?

[Draconias]

At 1/27/07 05:58 PM, BanditByte wrote: I'm surprised there isn't a slur for iranians.

Semites. Persians.

Both would offend many Iranians, both are entirely accurate terms for Iranians.

[Twerpo]

At 1/26/07 09:19 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Fuck this, I say we capture every single Iranian in Iraq and send them to Guantanamo. And if anyone thinks this would be too aggressive, fuck that, look at what Iran is doing, they have been at war with us since 1979 and the terrorist group they fund (Hezbollah) has been responsible for hundreds of American deaths. Now Iran is sneakily fighting against us asymmetrically using Iraq as a proxy, and we can't strike back because people will accuse the US of trying to expand the war.

Yay for imprisonment with an indefinite term. Because we all know we don't need a reason to put someone in jail.

[JoS]

I have a novel idea, how about trying to engage dialog with Iran. i do not think extrajudicial killings is the answer. It clearly starts a slippery slope.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/27/07 07:23 PM, JoS wrote: I have a novel idea, how about trying to engage dialog with Iran. i do not think extrajudicial killings is the answer. It clearly starts a slippery slope.

It would be justified though, I mean, Iran would have no one to blame but itself.

Anyways, Iran is more then likely already backing several of the Shi'ite Factions.

[bcdemon]

At 1/27/07 06:13 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 1/27/07 10:08 AM, bcdemon wrote:

That certainly doesn't raise any cause for concern on the Iranian side now does it?

So now that Bush does what you want, you're still going to slam him. Flip-Flop much?

I never said I was slamming him for shooting Iranians helping the terrorists that are in Iraq. I just pointed out to you that Bush escalated hostilities with Iran with his comments.

At 1/27/07 06:26 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/27/07 10:08 AM, bcdemon wrote: That certainly doesn't raise any cause for concern on the Iranian side now does it?

What Bush said years ago does not give the Iranians a pass on funding the insurgents. I'm just surprised they had the balls to say they're part of the solution in Iraq.

To be honest, I don't care if they're funding the insurgency that is defending against the US invasion/occupation. I do not support Iran funding the terrorists that are in Iraq. And I did not say it gave Iran a "free pass" per say. But as I said to Memorize, Techware, TimeFrame, or Integrity (Not sure who is he going to be today), Bush escalated tensions between US and Iraq with his comments. If you expected Iran to be completely civil after being called an Evil entity then you're wacked. Especially after Bush invaded Iraq.

[Brick-top]

I think Bush's tactic on Iraq, Iran and so on, is to fight fire with fire.

[Memorize]

At 1/28/07 09:00 AM, bcdemon wrote:

To be honest, I don't care if they're funding the insurgency that is defending against the US invasion/occupation.

bcdemon, defending Iran on funcing insurgent groups who blow themselves up along with civilians. Hey, it's a mini begoner. What's next? Going to label US troops as "murderers"?

[Memorize]

At 1/28/07 10:47 AM, Memorize wrote:

bcdemon, defending Iran on funcing insurgent groups who blow themselves up along with civilians. Hey, it's a mini begoner. What's next? Going to label US troops as "murderers"?

Haha, "funcing". Just a key short. Mine as well put funding here.

[JakeHero]

At 1/27/07 07:09 PM, Draconias wrote:

At 1/27/07 05:58 PM, BanditByte wrote: I'm surprised there isn't a slur for iranians.

Semites. Persians.

Both would offend many Iranians, both are entirely accurate terms for Iranians.

I could understand Semites, but persians? The persians ruled the old Babylonian Empire, whereas the Neo-Babylonians were the Chaldeans, which is the people from whom the modern iranians are descended from. If my memory serves me right.

[bcdemon]

At 1/28/07 10:47 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 1/28/07 09:00 AM, bcdemon wrote:

To be honest, I don't care if they're funding the insurgency that is defending against the US invasion/occupation.

bcdemon, defending Iran on funcing insurgent groups who blow themselves up along with civilians. Hey, it's a mini begoner. What's next? Going to label US troops as "murderers"?

Thank you for showing your inability to comprehend properly. Did you completely miss the part where I said "I do not support Iran funding the terrorists that are in Iraq."? Clueless twit.

[Britkid]

At 1/27/07 10:29 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: You sit alone at lunch, or do you fags flock together?

Far away from the gas chambers, thanks.

[Memorize]

At 1/28/07 01:04 PM, bcdemon wrote:

Thank you for showing your inability to comprehend properly.

As you, once again, show your inability to read properly.

Did you completely miss the part where I said "I do not support Iran funding the terrorists that are in Iraq."?

Yes. Did you completely miss the part where I did not even mention the word terrorist in my post? Did you completely miss that that I thought it was funny that you support Iran funding insurgencies who suicide bomb and kidnap/kill civilians and soldiers?

Clueless twit.

Hey, you're the murderer supporter, not me.

[Buffalow]

We should obviously be going for the Saudis.

[Ravariel]

At 1/28/07 02:57 PM, Grammer wrote: Calling them an international evil does not give them a reason or an excuse to fund insurgents. If anything, Bush was right in calling them that, but you're trying to make it seem like at least the Iranians have a reason to kill our soldiers.

I don't think he was saying they were justified in doing that. I believe he was saying it's not surprising given the circumstances.

Don't get me wrong, I think Iran may be the most dangerous country out there (only reason it's not N. Korea is that Iran has better infrastructure and more allies), but if you can get past your bias try to look at it from their perspective. The most powerful country in the world locks in on you as oe of the most evil and dangerous nations on the planet. Then they invade the country right next to you (which they also included in that list). Would that not make you a tid bit worried?

Tactics aside, can you really blame them for trying to keep our attention in Iraq for as long as possible?

Though I hae to admit the irony of the situation is somewhat amusing... would be more so if american soldiers weren't dying, of course.

[Memorize]

At 1/28/07 03:04 PM, MickTheChampion wrote:

You can't win now, it's damage control.

That's only because you don't want to win. And as far as they're concerned, we are winning. I don't remember anything about Bush saying we'll be in and out. He did say long-term.

At 1/28/07 03:37 PM, Ravariel wrote: Would that not make you a tid bit worried?

If they don't want the US to invade them, then why do they fund the insurgents in Iraq?

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/28/07 05:31 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/28/07 03:04 PM, MickTheChampion wrote:

At 1/28/07 02:59 PM, Grammer wrote:

Once we leave Iraq, it won't be our problem anymore.

Wasn't our problem in the first place. But now that were there...

But regardless, we should all want victory in Iraq, whether you think it's possible or not.

Exactly, I say that we should insist upon firestorms.

Massive bombardments of Iraq.

[bcdemon]

At 1/28/07 02:18 PM, NameChange wrote: Yes. Did you completely miss the part where I did not even mention the word terrorist in my post? Did you completely miss that that I thought it was funny that you support Iran funding insurgencies who suicide bomb and kidnap/kill civilians and soldiers?

I quote myself "insurgency that is defending against the US invasion/occupation." Does it say anything remotely close to "suicide bomb and kidnap/kill civilians"?

NO, I didn't think so.

At 1/28/07 02:57 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/28/07 09:00 AM, bcdemon wrote: To be honest, I don't care if they're funding the insurgency that is defending against the US invasion/occupation.

Wow.

Just, wow.

That's... stunning.

Why is it so stunning? I don't approve of the USA invading and/or occupying Iraq. Like I said, I support the insurgency that is defending itself from the USA occupation, I do not support the terrorists. There is a difference, I'm hoping NameChange will figure it out soon.

If you expected Iran to be completely civil after being called an Evil entity then you're wacked. Especially after Bush invaded Iraq.

Calling them an international evil does not give them a reason or an excuse to fund insurgents. If anything, Bush was right in calling them that, but you're trying to make it seem like at least the Iranians have a reason to kill our soldiers.

They have a reason to not see your military prevail. That reason is, if you prevail in Iraq, what's going to stop you from charging into Iran? You now have 175,000 soldiers spread on either side of the Axis of Evil (Iran) and a Christian Soldier in their command, they have cause for concern.

I wonder how many times the USA has funded militant or insurgent groups in other countries for the sole benefit of the USA? Bah, I'm sure it can't be that many. Right?

[Memorize]

At 1/28/07 08:36 PM, bcdemon wrote:

I quote myself "insurgency that is defending against the US invasion/occupation." Does it say anything remotely close to "suicide bomb and kidnap/kill civilians"?

Ask yourself this question. Who's doing the suicide bombing?

[bcdemon]

At 1/28/07 08:49 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 1/28/07 08:36 PM, bcdemon wrote:

I quote myself "insurgency that is defending against the US invasion/occupation." Does it say anything remotely close to "suicide bomb and kidnap/kill civilians"?

Ask yourself this question. Who's doing the suicide bombing?

I don't care what their tactics are, if they are defending against what they (and others) believe is an illegal occupation, I have no qualms. However (and I will try to make this as clear to you as possible), I don't support or approve of the killing of innocent civilians.