SgtRock

Source: Fox News Fare and Balanced
Aug 9, 2007

The video, captured during a raid on Monday by the 3rd Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment in northeast Nahrawan, shows insurgents setting up and carrying out an attack on Sunday, as well as an attack on July 11 that killed one soldier and wounded 15 others, officials said. The raid last month appeared to involve 34 launchers firing 107 mm Iranian-made rockets.

The video provides clear visual evidence of the extent to which Iraqi insurgents are equipped to launch deadly rockets on coalition forces, the Pentagon said.

What is the solution, Is it time for strategic strikes against Iranian military installation's and weapons manufacturing facilities? If we do this maybe we can encourage the Iranian public to rise up in a revolt against there oppressive government. ~ Sgt Rock

FOXNews.com - Captured Video Shows Iraqi Insurgents Firing Sophisticated Iranian-Made Rockets at U.S. Positions - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

We Report You Decide

__________________
The Four Horsemen are drawing nearer.

Gladiator

Dear Sgt Rock,

By INSURGENTS you mean Shiite criminals aligned with Iran.

There are some Shiites who favor closer ties with Iran, but not many.

There are many more Shiites who wish to avoid Iranian influence. Many Shiites fought with the Sunnis against Iran, in a long, war that killed 1 Million. There are not many Shiite criminals wishing to risk control by Iran.

I heard some experts talking on CSPAN Radio this week, maybe Wednesday, 8-8-07. They pointed out that the good will of the Shiites who oppose Iranian influence, is important, and care in policy should be taken to avoid offending the main body of Shiites who wish to avoid falling under Iranian controls. There are a few Shiite Rebels or criminals who wish to use Iranian help to their advantage.

Iran does not want to be of too much help, as you point out an air strike is simple. But doing an air strike could garner sympathy from the Majority of Shiites currently opposed to risking Iranian influence. Close monitoring is probably a better path than intervention against Iran, at least for now.

The Shiites already feel the US is too quick with an air strike, instead of patiently waiting through a stand-off with surrounded criminals in Shiite neighborhoods.

Before the US invasion, ordinary men routinely carried pistols because of the high level of the threat of robbery on the streets. When you say insurgents, most of thes guys are accustomed to inimidating people with weapons for robbery and extortion. There was a large criminal element when the US arrived. The US has not undertaken any effective programs of cirminal or drug rehailitation in Iraq, and the thugs are still there. Drug use has reportedly increased since the US invasion. Both as a means of making some money, and finding quick happiness.

.

Roberto Duran

The entire Shiite governing coalition is aligned with Iran, not just a few "criminals."

Bombing Iran only secures the currentl regime in power for a generation. What country in the world is going to turn against its government when it's attacked by another country, especially us with our history with Iran? Did Bush get more or less popular when we were attacked?

SgtRock

Your probably right, waiting the insurgents out may be the best strategy. However, with the war becoming more and more unpopular Im not sure that will be an option much longer.

SgtRock

There is one bombing option you have forgotten. The nuclear option. We could turn there entire country into glass or we could use battle field nukes, smaller nuclear weapons. We could use one small one and then threaten to destroy the entire country if they do not play ball.

Of Corse this will most likely never happen since our policy is no first use. And many innocents would die, and America is not about killing innocents.

So what do you suggest? Should we pull out of Iraq, let the insurgents win, and let the genocide begin?

Slainte

How about sitting down and talking with the Iranians in a neutral venue with no preconditions from either side, have a little chat, see if there are any areas where the two countries could work together as partners, as opposed to master and servant which is what the current Whitehouse Admin is demanding. If there is, go from there. If not, who cares? you haven't lost anything by talking. In fact you look better before the eyes of the world and any subsequent action appears to have more legitimacy if the Iranians are clearly stonewalling any American approach. The current "We don't talk to evil" approach from Bush has already failed, it's not hindering Iran advancing her interests and it continues to make America look arrogant and self-righteous in area of the world where her reputation is already shot to pieces.

__________________
We all live under the same sky, but we don't all have the same horizon

SgtRock

Excuse me, we have been talking to Iran, do you read the news. Talking to Irans leaders is like trying to reason with mad men bent on islamic domination of the west.

Neville Chamberlin had a little chat with the Nazi, the rest is history. Appeasment never works. Thank god for hawks like Winston Churchill.

"US officials say that the first formal talks between US and Iranian envoys in 28 years, held in May, have not deterred Iranian support for Iraqi Shiite militias targeting US troops and the green zone. The US military said attacks on its forces using a lethal type of roadside bomb, which it said was supplied by Iran, reached a new high in July, and accounted for a third of US combat deaths last month."

Pressure builds in US for tougher action against Iran - World - smh.com.au

US and Iran hold 'serious' talks on Iraq security

The Daily Star - Politics - US and Iran hold 'serious' talks on Iraq security

Gladiator

I suggest building friendships with the common people. Get programs going for the criminals and criminals whose criminal pattern involves drugs. Set up half-way house programs, and build employed cells of monitored alternatives to prison. Improve the Iraqi people's lives and build a partnership for improving conditions and employment.

Shooting at the Iraqi people and calling in air strikes is not the best way to build a partnership with the people. Forming a partnership with a democracy is about getting the support of the common people.

.

Slainte

But those talks are talks solely about Iraq. Basically America is telling the Iranians to help them out of the mess they've created there but offering nothing in return, that's the master-servant relationship I'm talking about.

I think high ranking officials from both America and Iran should meet in a neatral venue (i.e. Europe) where they should discuss the following issues:

The security/political situation in Iraq

The security/political situation in Afganistan

Constitutional reform in Lebanon

Constitutional reform in Palestine

Legal status of anti-Iranian groups like the MEK

Iranian civilan and nuclear programme

The benefits of continued American sanctions on Iran

American relationship with Saudi vis a vis Iran

Iranian support for groups America considers terrorist organisations i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah.

That's just off the top of my head.

I think there is quite a bit there both sides could compromise on there to repair American-Iranian relationships and bring greater stability to the Middle East.



When Iran invades Mexico and Canada I'll consider believing that they have any intention of dominating the good ole USA. While it's America that has invaded Iraq and Afganistan it seems a lot more obvious to conclude that it is America that wishes to dominate Iran and the greater Middle East

Roberto Duran

We can't use nuclear weapons in a region that contains half the world's oil reserves. Not an option.

As for what we do now in Iraq, we can't unsh!t the bed. We 're stuck dealing with the problem we created, and talking to Iran is part of the solution. Of the two sides in the Iran/America situation, one side is led by a religious loon who's threatened other countries with nuclear weapons and has said god is telling him what to do in the region. On the other side, Iran have already offered talks with everything on the table, but Bush has consistently turned them down. Eventually the US will have to talk to Iran as we've handed control of Iraq, the world's second-largest oil reserve, to them and we'd like access to that oil.