Officials: Discovery of Weapons Cache Suggests Iranian Meddling in Afghan War

Simon W. Moon · Sep 10, 2009

rathi said:
Exactly what you are talking about? We use phosphorous all the time, its not a war crime.

It depends on how it is used iirc. I think you're not s'posed to target people with it. I may be mis-remembering though.

Truth Detector said:
The most amazing thing about this news is how LITTLE play it is getting. Why do you think that is?

Perhaps because of it's sketchy nature.

DoD spokesman:
It was unclear when the weapons were ferried into Afghanistan and whether the Tehran government played a role in shipping the arms, Whitman said.

It's worth noting that the article in the OP cites allegations that Iran is supporting the Taleban and Karzai.

apdst · Sep 10, 2009

Ikari said:
First off, in the process of killing jihadists we're going to take out many civilians. Second, the culture in the ME most amicable towards western style republic is most probably Iran. They have the demographics and education for it, I think it can be more highly encouraged there and adopted there than any other country in the ME. Now, of course there is theocratic control right now; but just outright bombing the country and killing civilians may not be the way to foster better relations which can lead to the establishment of a democratic republic. Third, does this end? A good opportunity to kill more jihadists...but you'll make more by doing so. You're just playing out the propaganda they purport. Fourth, does this end? Perpetual warfare is not good, it will not lead to nice places; it puts our people, our liberty, our economy at risk.

I think we have to start thinking of consequences of our actions before we just start acting out. We are not on a sustainable road here and it's very important to realize that.

Doing nothing while Iran kills our troops isn't the answer. I would rather kill a few thousand Iranian civilians than lose one American soldier.

Ikari · Sep 10, 2009

apdst said:
Doing nothing while Iran kills our troops isn't the answer. I would rather kill a few thousand Iranian civilians than lose one American soldier.

You know, the way to prevent the death of American soldiers is to not engage in undeclared, occupational wars against an entrenched and supported enemy. If instead we acted on defense instead of offense...you know, like not having doing Iraq. If you're really concerned with the lives of soldiers, then you have to question and analyze what it is that we call them up for.

I'd rather we didn't run around killing innocent civilians and engaging in forever wars. Plus apparently we don't quite know if it was Tehran shipping the arms, so I don't think we should get into another war based on half-assed data and hyperbole. That's not going so well for us.

apdst · Sep 10, 2009

Ikari said:
You know, the way to prevent the death of American soldiers is to not engage in undeclared, occupational wars against an entrenched and supported enemy. If instead we acted on defense instead of offense...you know, like not having doing Iraq. If you're really concerned with the lives of soldiers, then you have to question and analyze what it is that we call them up for.

I'd rather we didn't run around killing innocent civilians and engaging in forever wars.

Isolationaism isn't the long term answer. We tried that one once, and a half million Americans died.

Ikari · Sep 10, 2009

apdst said:
Isolationaism isn't the long term answer. We tried that one once, and a half million Americans died.

It's not isolationism. There is plenty of room for diplomacy and trade. It's simply not interventionism. That's what gets us into trouble.

apdst · Sep 10, 2009

Ikari said:
It's not isolationism. There is plenty of room for diplomacy and trade. It's simply not interventionism. That's what gets us into trouble.

We tried diplomacy in the 90's. We got 3,000 dead Americans one September morning for our trouble.

Ikari · Sep 10, 2009

apdst said:
We tried diplomacy in the 90's. We got 3,000 dead Americans one September morning for our trouble.

And now we have over 4,000 dead American soldiers and 10's up 10's of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians for the trouble. Good job, you doubled our dead. And for what? A war with two countries that is still going on and arguments for entering war with another country. Awesome.

You're using isolated cases to endorse forever war. Guess what? There will always be terrorists. So long as there are oppressed, pissed off people somewhere we'll spawn terrorists. We deal with it. They didn't frequently attack us on the soil of the 50 States, it was a low probability event. Still is. 9/11 was the most successful terrorist attack ever, they won't repeat it. And even then, they didn't kill as many as cars do in 1 year in this country. Should we launch a war on cars? I'll start worrying when we get above that rate.

apdst · Sep 10, 2009

Ikari said:
And now we have over 4,000 dead American soldiers and 10's up 10's of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians for the trouble. Good job, you doubled our dead. And for what? A war with two countries that is still going on and arguments for entering war with another country. Awesome.

Just think how many of them wouldn't have died had we shown more aggression in the 90's.

Ikari · Sep 10, 2009

apdst said:
Just think how many of them wouldn't have died had we shown more aggression in the 90's.

Think of how many more would have died had we shown more aggression.

apdst · Sep 10, 2009

Ikari said:
Think of how many more would have died had we shown more aggression.

I think the opposite is true. Our passive approach to foreign policy only managed to encourage our enemies to attack us. UBL said that, himself.

Ikari · Sep 10, 2009

apdst said:
I think the opposite is true. Our passive approach to foreign policy only managed to encourage our enemies to attack us. UBL said that, himself.

Call me skeptical, but I'm not really one to take the word of known terrorists. Forever war is something to be avoided, it will be a detriment to our people, our liberty, and our economy. It doesn't matter how much you want to kill the terrorists and perpetuate this circle of violence, forever war is bad and will take us to bad places. That remains fact.

Free is not safe, it never was safe, it never will be safe. There will always be some probability of terrorist attack. While there are many things to do in order to decrease these probabilities, the probability will always be >0. Though very low, it's still really low.

apdst · Sep 10, 2009

Ikari said:
Call me skeptical, but I'm not really one to take the word of known terrorists. Forever war is something to be avoided, it will be a detriment to our people, our liberty, and our economy. It doesn't matter how much you want to kill the terrorists and perpetuate this circle of violence, forever war is bad and will take us to bad places. That remains fact.

Free is not safe, it never was safe, it never will be safe. There will always be some probability of terrorist attack. While there are many things to do in order to decrease these probabilities, the probability will always be >0. Though very low, it's still really low.

I'll take the word of a known terrorist when he says that our passive approach encouraged his followers to attack us.

We could have avoided forever war, with a little more aggression 20 years ago.

Ikari · Sep 10, 2009

apdst said:
I'll take the word of a known terrorist when he says that our passive approach encouraged his followers to attack us.

We could have avoided forever war, with a little more aggression 20 years ago.

So you'll take the word of a terrorist if it helps your point. What if it goes against your point?

I don't think any massive aggression would avoid forever war. Your basing opinion and policies on war on supposition. Fact is, if we were aggressive things could be even worse by fostering even more hatred and resentment against the US in the ME than existed before we started our undeclared, occupational wars. I don't think supposition is good enough when the lives of people are on the line.

Big government, big spending, big deficit, big war, big brother policies are well more dangerous to us than some terrorists can ever be.

apdst · Sep 10, 2009

Ikari said:
So you'll take the word of a terrorist if it helps your point. What if it goes against your point?

Why would he lie about such a thing?

I don't think any massive aggression would avoid forever war. Your basing opinion and policies on war on supposition. Fact is, if we were aggressive things could be even worse by fostering even more hatred and resentment against the US in the ME than existed before we started our undeclared, occupational wars. I don't think supposition is good enough when the lives of people are on the line.

I never said, "massive", aggression. Just more aggression, at the appropriate time. One appropriate time would have been in '91, while we had a half million troops on the ground in Iraq and the Iraqi army was in shambles. Another, would have been in the late 90's when we missed three different oppurtunities to zap UBL along with other key members of AQ.

Just think of all the problems those two operations, alone, would have solved.

Ikari · Sep 10, 2009

apdst said:
Why would he lie about such a thing?

Because he's a jackass terrorist. What better way to **** with people than with misinformation? Douche bags like to be douche bags.

apdst said:
I never said, "massive", aggression. Just more aggression, at the appropriate time. One appropriate time would have been in '91, while we had a half million troops on the ground in Iraq and the Iraqi army was in shambles. Another, would have been in the late 90's when we missed three different oppurtunities to zap UBL along with other key members of AQ.

Just think of all the problems those two operations, alone, would have solved.

The whole of Iraq I could have been avoided with proper ambassadors.

apdst · Sep 10, 2009

Ikari said:
Because he's a jackass terrorist. What better way to **** with people than with misinformation? Douche bags like to be douche bags.

Perhaps, but there's still the question of what he has to gain by saying it.

The whole of Iraq I could have been avoided with proper ambassadors.

Which would have left Iraq and it's army intact, to be dealt with at a later date, with more casualties.

Ikari · Sep 10, 2009

apdst said:
Perhaps, but there's still the question of what he has to gain by saying it.

Does the school yard bully really gain anything? Not so much, maybe at most some milk money. What they like is ****ing with people, that's what they gain; they get to **** with people. Why would he say it? Cause he's a jackass terrorist who wants to **** with us; he doesn't need anything beyond that. He hates our guts, why would he tell us the truth when he can **** with us a bit more?

apdst said:
Which would have left Iraq and it's army intact, to be dealt with at a later date, with more casualties.

Why? Why would we even have to deal with them on a later date and why would that imply more casualties than two wars against Iraq put together?

apdst · Sep 10, 2009

Ikari said:
Does the school yard bully really gain anything? Not so much, maybe at most some milk money. What they like is ****ing with people, that's what they gain; they get to **** with people. Why would he say it? Cause he's a jackass terrorist who wants to **** with us; he doesn't need anything beyond that. He hates our guts, why would he tell us the truth when he can **** with us a bit more?

Being the school yard wimp gains even less. When you promote yourself as non-aggresive it will only encourage people to attack you.

Why? Why would we even have to deal with them on a later date and why would that imply more casualties than two wars against Iraq put together?

Why? Because Saddam had intentions of invading his neighbors and it was obviously going to happen, sooner, or later. Had it not been for Desert Storm, Saddam would have gone on unmolested and could have had a real chance of building a nuke. Saddam wasn't anymore interested in diplomacy than the Iranians are.

Ikari · Sep 10, 2009

apdst said:
Being the school yard wimp gains even less. When you promote yourself as non-aggresive it will only encourage people to attack you.

I never said the wimp. But being non-aggressive won't promote attack. If people attack, defend. Just avoid the offensive and getting bogged down in acts of imperialism. That doesn't go well.

apdst said:
Why? Because Saddam had intentions of invading his neighbors and it was obviously going to happen, sooner, or later. Had it not been for Desert Storm, Saddam would have gone on unmolested and could have had a real chance of building a nuke. Saddam wasn't anymore interested in diplomacy than the Iranians are.

No, Saddam could have been controlled. He liked being dictator, much more than being overthrown by American forces and hanged. Iraq I could have been avoided, Saddam could have been prevented from marching into Kuwait through proper ambassador choices. We didn't have that, the ambassador to Iraq at the time was a major fundraiser for Bush I. Kuwait was side drilling into Iraq, Saddam asked the ambassador if the US would have a problem if he did something about it. Now the chick didn't have experience as ambassador, probably didn't really know the extent to which Saddam would go. Told him we wouldn't have an opinion on the matter. Saddam invaded, we're like "oh ****!". The whole of it could have been avoided with intelligent choices, without going to war.

So why, why is it that we would have to deal with Saddam at some later time and why would it cost more casualties that two offenses put together?

Also, we're not 100% sure Iran is shipping the arms, so maybe we should at least confirm that one before we repeat our WMD mess.

apdst · Sep 10, 2009

Ikari said:
I never said the wimp. But being non-aggressive won't promote attack. If people attack, defend. Just avoid the offensive and getting bogged down in acts of imperialism. That doesn't go well.

We tried that prior to WW2 and didn't have a very happy ending for a half million Americans.

No, Saddam could have been controlled. He liked being dictator, much more than being overthrown by American forces and hanged. Iraq I could have been avoided, Saddam could have been prevented from marching into Kuwait through proper ambassador choices. We didn't have that, the ambassador to Iraq at the time was a major fundraiser for Bush I. Kuwait was side drilling into Iraq, Saddam asked the ambassador if the US would have a problem if he did something about it. Now the chick didn't have experience as ambassador, probably didn't really know the extent to which Saddam would go. Told him we wouldn't have an opinion on the matter. Saddam invaded, we're like "oh ****!". The whole of it could have been avoided with intelligent choices, without going to war.

Coddling the bad guys isn't the answer. History has proven that.

So why, why is it that we would have to deal with Saddam at some later time and why would it cost more casualties that two offenses put together?

he would have left the reservation sooner, or later and when he did, he could have possibly had better weaponry and more of it. Perhaps a nuke. That's why we need to go ahead and zap Iran. It'll happen one and the long we wait, the worse it will be. Just think if we had attacked Germany in 1939 when the Brits got went to war with Germany. We could have ended the war in a couple of years and saved untold millions of lives.

[/quote]Also, we're not 100% sure Iran is shipping the arms, so maybe we should at least confirm that one before we repeat our WMD mess.[/QUOTE]

So, all those Iranian from the intelligence ministry we captured in Iraq were on vacation? Sippin' some suds and getting a tan?

ALiberalModerate · Sep 10, 2009

So let me get this straight. We can't afford health care reform because price tags put it at nearly 1 trillion dollars over 10 years. Well, if that is the case then I would agree with that.

The deficit is out of control and we have to get spending under control or we will find ourselves having to drastically increase taxes in the future or face defaulting on our debts. Yes, that is something to definitely be concerned about.

Yet, we can afford another war? A war that would make the war in Iraq look like a cake walk? A war that would ultimately cost trillions more, and lead to huge spikes in the cost of oil (200 a barrel or more practically over night). We can afford paying 7 or 8 dollars a gallon for gas because of supply disruptions? Our soldiers and their families that we have already asked so much of can handle yet another war?

Some of yall are just out of your flipping minds.

ScottD · Sep 10, 2009

Scorpion89 said:
Officials: Discovery of Weapons Cache Suggests Iranian Meddling in Afghan War - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com

The discovery of a weapons cache in western Afghanistan has raised concerns that Iran is interfering in the war-torn country, much like it did in Iraq, by supplying weapons used to attack and kill U.S. and coalition troops, U.S. officials tell FOX News.

Afghan and NATO forces uncovered the weapons cache on Aug. 29 in Herat. It included a small number of Iranian-made "explosively formed penetrators," hyper-powerful roadside bombs similar to the weapons used to kill U.S. forces in Iraq, a senior U.S. Defense Official told FOX News.

Also seized during the raid were 107 Iranian-made BM-1 rockets and dozens of blocks of Iranian C4 plastic explosives.

This is a very large problem that needs to be dealt with once and for all. The US and Mr. Obama need to send a very loud message to that idiot in Terhan first the State dept. needs to tell the UN that the Illegal Leader of Iran will not be issued a Visa second we need to start stopping all Iran flagged ships.

This Article forgets a VERY important point:

Iran, before we got into a **** fight with them, was HELPING us fight Al Queda in Afghanistan. You see, we share something in common with Iran, and that is that Al Queda hates us both. Some would say equally. And we all know the Talaban's opinion about Al Queda (aka, a positive one). I really doubt that Iran would be helping the Talaban, even if it is to strike at Americans. I bet these weapons are either left-overs from when Iran was helping us, or they were smuggled into Afghanistan without the Iranian Government's knowledge.

Ikari · Sep 10, 2009

apdst said:
We tried that prior to WW2 and didn't have a very happy ending for a half million Americans.

A massive world war compared to undeclared acts of imperialism is apples and watermelon.

apdst said:
Coddling the bad guys isn't the answer. History has proven that.

But we did....we saved Kuwait; the initial aggressor.

apdst said:
he would have left the reservation sooner, or later and when he did, he could have possibly had better weaponry and more of it. Perhaps a nuke. That's why we need to go ahead and zap Iran. It'll happen one and the long we wait, the worse it will be. Just think if we had attacked Germany in 1939 when the Brits got went to war with Germany. We could have ended the war in a couple of years and saved untold millions of lives.

This is all supposition. I don't base decisions which lead to massive death of other humans on the basis of supposition. Just because you believe this was how it would go doesn't make it so. We could have avoided the first Iraq war all together, prevented an invasion of another country from the start with proper diplomacy and intellect. That's true, that's part of history. This whole Saddam and WMD things are as made up as unicorns.

apdst said:
So, all those Iranian from the intelligence ministry we captured in Iraq were on vacation? Sippin' some suds and getting a tan?

Did Saddam have WMD's? I mean, everyone said he did...right? What's that? We got that wrong? And someone posted a link already which stated that we weren't sure if Iran was shipping the arms. So what do you want. We have reports it's not definitive yet and you're calling for invasion. Have we really not learned our lesson yet? I don't know how much more American life you want to throw at this problem and how many humans you're willing to go through over there; but at some point it has to be enough, we have to be done. We can't go on with forever war. We will destroy only ourselves, this Republic by doing so.

Ikari · Sep 10, 2009

SouthernDemocrat said:
So let me get this straight. We can't afford health care reform because price tags put it at nearly 1 trillion dollars over 10 years. Well, if that is the case then I would agree with that.

The deficit is out of control and we have to get spending under control or we will find ourselves having to drastically increase taxes in the future or face defaulting on our debts. Yes, that is something to definitely be concerned about.

Yet, we can afford another war? A war that would make the war in Iraq look like a cake walk? A war that would ultimately cost trillions more, and lead to huge spikes in the cost of oil (200 a barrel or more practically over night). We can afford paying 7 or 8 dollars a gallon for gas because of supply disruptions? Our soldiers and their families that we have already asked so much of can handle yet another war?

Some of yall are just out of your flipping minds.

Exactly. We could have paid for health care with the money we wasted in Iraq for nothing. Big government, big spending, big deficit, big war, big brother policies are bad. Definitively bad, measurably bad. They go to bad places and if we keep on this path of imperialism we're going to lose this Republic fast.

apdst · Sep 10, 2009

SouthernDemocrat said:
So let me get this straight. We can't afford health care reform because price tags put it at nearly 1 trillion dollars over 10 years. Well, if that is the case then I would agree with that.

The deficit is out of control and we have to get spending under control or we will find ourselves having to drastically increase taxes in the future or face defaulting on our debts. Yes, that is something to definitely be concerned about.

Yet, we can afford another war? A war that would make the war in Iraq look like a cake walk? A war that would ultimately cost trillions more, and lead to huge spikes in the cost of oil (200 a barrel or more practically over night). We can afford paying 7 or 8 dollars a gallon for gas because of supply disruptions? Our soldiers and their families that we have already asked so much of can handle yet another war?

Some of yall are just out of your flipping minds.

How is war with Iran going to be worse than Iraq?

Officials: Discovery of Weapons Cache Suggests Iranian Meddling in Afghan War

Simon W. Moon

apdst

Ikari

apdst

Ikari

apdst

Ikari

apdst

Ikari

apdst

Ikari

apdst

Ikari

apdst

Ikari

apdst

Ikari

apdst

Ikari

apdst

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist

ScottD

Well-known member

Ikari

Ikari

apdst