• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran sends troops into Iraq to aid fight against Isis militants

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,050
Reaction score
33,368
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Iran sends troops into Iraq to aid fight against Isis militants | World news | theguardian.com

Iran has sent 2,000 advance troops to Iraq in the past 48 hours to help tackle a jihadist insurgency, a senior Iraqi official has told the Guardian.

The confirmation comes as the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, said Iran was ready to support Iraq from the mortal threat fast spreading through the country, while the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, called on citizens to take up arms in their country's defence.

Addressing the country on Saturday, Maliki said rebels from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) had given "an incentive to the army and to Iraqis to act bravely". His call to arms came after reports surfaced that hundreds of young men were flocking to volunteer centres across Baghdad to join the fight against Isis.

In Iran, Rouhani raised the prospect of Teheran cooperating with its old enemy Washington to defeat the Sunni insurgent group – which is attempting to ignite a sectarian war beyond Iraq's borders.
Does this raise any red flags for anyone?
 


It appears they are also setting up Security for Baghdad. They even sent their General of the Quds force. Also this morning thy issued a Warning for no other military intervention saying it will cause the whole region to go. But this was after they sent in these troops.

I wonder if Maliki told BO he had the Iranians there 2 days ago. From your link.


The Iraqi official said 1,500 basiji forces had crossed the border into the town of Khanaqin, in Diyala province, in central Iraq on Friday, while another 500 had entered the Badra Jassan area in Wasat province overnight. The Guardian confirmed on Friday that Major General Qassem Suleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' elite Quds Force, had arrived in Baghdad to oversee the defence of the capital.

There is growing evidence in Baghdad of Shia militias continuing to reorganise, with some heading to the central city of Samarra, 70 miles (110km) north of the capital, to defend two Shia shrines from Sunni jihadist groups surrounding them.

The volunteers signing up were responding to a call by Iraq's most revered Shia cleric, the Iranian-born grand ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, to defend their country after Isis seized Mosul and Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit in a lightning advance this week. Samarra is now the next town in the Islamists' path to Baghdad.....snip~
 
Last edited:
Absolutly not.

If you compare shia fanatics and suni fanatics one can come to the only conclusion that the suni fanatics are by a thousand times worse.

I dont mind who kills ISIS before they take over Iraq.

The only red flag I could see would be a possible attempt by Iran to turn Iraq into a puppet state. I would be HIGHLY suspicious of any time Iran wishes to cooperate with the US.
 
Does this raise any red flags for anyone?

No. Iran's looking out for their own self-interest. They don't want a militant Sunni mini-nation on their border.
 
The only red flag I could see would be a possible attempt by Iran to turn Iraq into a puppet state. I would be HIGHLY suspicious of any time Iran wishes to cooperate with the US.

I'm afraid that line has already been crossed. I hate to paraphrase David Frum, but he's right on this. When Maliki speaks, he's speaking for Tehran. Where do you think Maliki came from?
 
The only red flag I could see would be a possible attempt by Iran to turn Iraq into a puppet state. I would be HIGHLY suspicious of any time Iran wishes to cooperate with the US.

Eastern Iran already is under alot of Iranian influence.

It`s the country with the most significant shia holy sights and with a significant shia minority.

I think there is nothing that can be done against the growing Iranian influence in Iraq, besides maybe a resurgence of Arab nationalism - which is also a non to good thing.
 
A brief history lesson on Maliki:

Nouri al-Maliki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Al-Maliki began his political career as a Shia dissident under Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in the late 1970s and rose to prominence after he fled a death sentence into exile for 24 years. During his time abroad, he became a senior leader of Dawa, coordinated the activities of anti-Saddam guerrillas and built relationships with Iranian and Syrian officials whose help he sought in overthrowing Saddam.

...

On 16 July 1979, al-Maliki fled Iraq after he was discovered to be a member of the outlawed Islamic Dawa Party. According to a brief biography on the Islamic Dawa Party's website, he left Iraq via Jordan in October, and soon moved to Syria, adopting the pseudonym "Jawad". He left Syria for Iran in 1982, where he lived in Tehran until 1990, before returning to Damascus where he remained until U.S. coalition forces invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam's regime in 2003.[5] While living in Syria, he worked as a political officer for Dawa, developing close ties with Hezbollah and particularly with Iran, supporting that country's effort to topple Saddam's regime.[6]
 
Not at all. Maliki is a close friend of Iran. Maliki has developed close ties with the Iranian regime while he was in exile.
 
Eastern Iran already is under alot of Iranian influence.

It`s the country with the most significant shia holy sights and with a significant shia minority.

I think there is nothing that can be done against the growing Iranian influence in Iraq, besides maybe a resurgence of Arab nationalism - which is also a non to good thing.


The Sunni are the minority not the Shia. But they are amassing around Samaara. Plus the Kurds have taken Kirkuk and Holding there. Despite the Iraqis hitting them with an Airstrike today.
 
From the Guardian.....According to Reuters there are no talks with the US and Iran going on with this matter for the moment. So I am wondering what BO and his Team are saying about the Iranians in Iraq and setting defense for Baghdad.


Residents offered little reaction to Barack Obama's statement late on Friday in which he appeared to condition renewed US military support on Iraqi leaders first making efforts to pull the country back from the brink. The US and Iran, foes throughout the US occupation of Iraq, share a common interest in defeating Isis, and Iran has so far expressed no opposition to US threats to send military support to Maliki.

Rouhani, asked at a televised press conference on Saturday whether Tehran could work with the US to tackle Isis, said: "We can think about it if we see America starts confronting the terrorist groups in Iraq or elsewhere. We all should practically and verbally confront terrorist groups."

Reuters reported US officials as saying there were no contacts taking place with Iran over the crisis in Iraq.....snip~

Do you think this is coming as a surprise to BO and his Team with the Iranians seeing BO hesitate.
 
Of course it does. If we hadn't gone in and installed a shiite led government, they wouldn't be doing this.

Now conservatives are getting all up in arms because we're not doing enough to support said government. Which is supported by Iran.

the ironic thing is how conservatives don't see how this mess in iraq is actually a problem for iran.
 
the ironic thing is how conservatives don't see how this mess in iraq is actually a problem for iran.

Even more Ironic is how liberals don't seem to realize how this Problem all came about and from BO's inaction and being indecisive. As well as completely incompetent when it comes to his Foreign policy.

Also that at this moment.....how he has no plans. No focus and is considering working with Iran. Thinking he will be able to get them to break over their Nuke talks and better relations between us. He has been wrong.....on Libya, Syria, Egypt and the MB, Iraq and Afghanistan. Then Asia. Then the rest of Africa.

But then with him running around and telling all how the world is less violent, more tolerant, and more stable. Tends to show why BO.....is completely out of touch with reality and the world that keeps passing him by.
 

Or not:
'We either arrested or killed a man of that name about half a dozen times, he is like a wraith who keeps reappearing, and I am not sure where fact and fiction meet,' Lieutenant-General Sir Graeme Lamb, a former British special forces commander, told The Telegraph.

'There are those who want to promote the idea that this man is invincible, when it may actually be several people using the same nom de guerre.'
 

Mornin' Spud. :2wave: What about his #2 and 3? Not to mention a few other officers that were released from Gitmo?

Leaders now.....schmoes when captured. What about those guys?
 
Even more Ironic is how liberals don't seem to realize how this Problem all came about and from BO's inaction and being indecisive. As well as completely incompetent when it comes to his Foreign policy.

Also that at this moment.....how he has no plans. No focus and is considering working with Iran. Thinking he will be able to get them to break over their Nuke talks and better relations between us. He has been wrong.....on Libya, Syria, Egypt and the MB, Iraq and Afghanistan. Then Asia. Then the rest of Africa.

But then with him running around and telling all how the world is less violent, more tolerant, and more stable. Tends to show why BO.....is completely out of touch with reality and the world that keeps passing him by.

Despite trying to say it's all Obama, the mess wouldn't exist without Bush. The only relatively viable foil to Iran was Saddam. Nobody else outside of Israel has the military to compete.

I'm not saying that Saddam was a good guy or should have been in power. But when you install a democracy in a shiite-majority country (with major sectarian problems) right next to Iran....it really doesn't take a genius to figure out what could happen.
 
From the Guardian.....According to Reuters there are no talks with the US and Iran going on with this matter for the moment. So I am wondering what BO and his Team are saying about the Iranians in Iraq and setting defense for Baghdad.


Residents offered little reaction to Barack Obama's statement late on Friday in which he appeared to condition renewed US military support on Iraqi leaders first making efforts to pull the country back from the brink. The US and Iran, foes throughout the US occupation of Iraq, share a common interest in defeating Isis, and Iran has so far expressed no opposition to US threats to send military support to Maliki.

Rouhani, asked at a televised press conference on Saturday whether Tehran could work with the US to tackle Isis, said: "We can think about it if we see America starts confronting the terrorist groups in Iraq or elsewhere. We all should practically and verbally confront terrorist groups."

Reuters reported US officials as saying there were no contacts taking place with Iran over the crisis in Iraq.....snip~

Do you think this is coming as a surprise to BO and his Team with the Iranians seeing BO hesitate.

I don't have a problem with Obama's comments here. When you have a trained Iraqi army abandoning their equipment and posts against Al-Qaeda without even putting up a fight, I don't want U.S. troops in there. If they don't want to defend their freedom at all, then there is no reason U.S. troops should be sent there.
 
Despite trying to say it's all Obama, the mess wouldn't exist without Bush. The only relatively viable foil to Iran was Saddam. Nobody else outside of Israel has the military to compete.

I'm not saying that Saddam was a good guy or should have been in power. But when you install a democracy in a shiite-majority country (with major sectarian problems) right next to Iran....it really doesn't take a genius to figure out what could happen.



Mornin' 88 :2wave: Well they were wrong to go in.....but the bigger mess comes with not finishing the job.

Look both sides people overseas have been outwitted and outplayed. But bottomline is BO knew this was going on in Iraq All last year. He knew even when he released the Taliban leaders. he also knew all that was going on in Syria.....didn't he? He knew what aid he gave was going to ISIS and al Nusra. He knew 88.....people have to get off the prior mistakes.

2 wrongs isn't going to make it Right.

But now all the lives damaged and paid for, everything brought to that point. Would be a slap in the face of ALL who went to get rid of a Madman.

Which says nothing about the political vacuum being left Open for Russia to refill what they had lost.
 
No! Iran has denied this and I trust them more than the Mainstream Media. The Media is always projecting some agenda supplied by the Intelligence Agencies instead of honest reporting by personnel in the field. Stenographers and presstitutes, per usual.

Heya DF. :2wave: What do you mean Iran denies this. They Admit they are in Iraq. They have warned others to not militarily intervene.
 
I don't have a problem with Obama's comments here. When you have a trained Iraqi army abandoning their equipment and posts against Al-Qaeda without even putting up a fight, I don't want U.S. troops in there. If they don't want to defend their freedom at all, then there is no reason U.S. troops should be sent there.

Problem is Right for the moment.....that ISIS picked up 72 tanks and a bunch of Humvees. Their no longer just a group. Their an Army.
 
Back
Top Bottom