Political Crossfire Forums

[Johannes]

I'm curious, and somewhat confused, as to why the U.S. is trying to get Iran (mostly) and Syria (kind of) involved in peacekeeping in Iraq. It just doesn't seem prudent to include two former members of the infamous "axis of evil" in an objective campaign to control another violently poised country. The biggest question I have going along with this, as I haven't heard much, is where are the militants and militias getting their arms?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6190662.stm

[Numb]

Johannes wrote: I'm curious, and somewhat confused, as to why the U.S. is trying to get Iran (mostly) and Syria (kind of) involved in peacekeeping in Iraq. It just doesn't seem prudent to include two former members of the infamous "axis of evil" in an objective campaign to control another violently poised country. The biggest question I have going along with this, as I haven't heard much, is where are the militants and militias getting their arms?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6190662.stm
Black Market.

[Vexillum]

Johannes wrote: The biggest question I have going along with this, as I haven't heard much, is where are the militants and militias getting their arms?

The US has created and supplied Iraqi military and police. Some of those supplies flow through to the militias.

[Alizard]

Johannes wrote: I'm curious, and somewhat confused, as to why the U.S. is trying to get Iran (mostly) and Syria (kind of) involved in peacekeeping in Iraq. It just doesn't seem prudent to include two former members of the infamous "axis of evil" in an objective campaign to control another violently poised country. The biggest question I have going along with this, as I haven't heard much, is where are the militants and militias getting their arms?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6190662.stm

If you have money, you can buy arms (and fighters).

The sunni insurgency is bankrolled by the wahabbist sect in saudi Arabia which is a very radical sect of Sunni Islam. They have enough money to buy most of the countries on earth.

The Shiites in Iraq are under written by Iran and Syria, and they provide whatever support is needed.

The Taliban "insurgency" is bankrolled by opium. Afghanistan is now the world's leading exporter of opium.

Other terrorist groups get money by kidnapping and other various criminal enterprises.

As long as they have money, they will be able to fight.

[callous]

Johannes wrote: I'm curious, and somewhat confused, as to why the U.S. is trying to get Iran (mostly) and Syria (kind of) involved in peacekeeping in Iraq. It just doesn't seem prudent to include two former members of the infamous "axis of evil" in an objective campaign to control another violently poised country. The biggest question I have going along with this, as I haven't heard much, is where are the militants and militias getting their arms?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6190662.stm

Why would either of them being involved in iraq have any bearing whatsoever on the supply of arms to militants? They get their arms from anyone they want to, including the United States, depending on what our agenda happens to be in a particular region.

[NAB]

Alizard wrote: Johannes wrote: I'm curious, and somewhat confused, as to why the U.S. is trying to get Iran (mostly) and Syria (kind of) involved in peacekeeping in Iraq. It just doesn't seem prudent to include two former members of the infamous "axis of evil" in an objective campaign to control another violently poised country. The biggest question I have going along with this, as I haven't heard much, is where are the militants and militias getting their arms?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6190662.stm

If you have money, you can buy arms (and fighters).

The sunni insurgency is bankrolled by the wahabbist sect in saudi Arabia which is a very radical sect of Sunni Islam. They have enough money to buy most of the countries on earth.

The Shiites in Iraq are under written by Iran and Syria, and they provide whatever support is needed.

The Taliban "insurgency" is bankrolled by opium. Afghanistan is now the world's leading exporter of opium.

Other terrorist groups get money by kidnapping and other various criminal enterprises.

As long as they have money, they will be able to fight.

I'd agree with most of that, but would also add the previous regime's extensive collection of weapons to the mix as well. Probably mostly in Sunni hands now, but probably not exclusively I'd bet.

[Dookiestix]

Much of the arms in the intial stages of the insurgency were left overs from Saddam's conventional arsenal and the Republican Guard which were never secured or guarded. Saddam released thousands of prisoners right before we invaded, and he knew that there would be an insurgency and resistance movement as long as the U.S. occupied Iraq. He also knew that his Sunni brethren would probably be targeted for revenge killings by the Shiia. He could have cared less for his own people, and so therefore had no quams about allowing his former country to spiral into chaos that in turn would embolden an insurgency that is sophisticated enough to kill American soldiers despite our military superiority. And he probably knew that the rift that would be revealed once he was captured between the Sunni and Shiia would become a catalyst for much of that violence.

But it has to also be assumed that more of that weaponry is getting into the country from other nations, perhaps Syria and Iran, as the insurgency becomes more self-sufficient. And now Maliki is asking for Iran and Syria's help in quelling this violence, while at the same time allowing Ahmadinejad to infuse Iranian influence in Iraq, which in turn probably allows him to get some weapons into the country. Then there's Russia, who is selling Iran anti-missile systems to mostly likely counter an American led attack from the air.

Quite the Pandora's Box Bush has opened here. But that was to be expected by those of us who knew exactly what would transpire if Bush invaded Iraq.

Now those who supported this war can see for themselves the truth in our predictions.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Johannes wrote: I'm curious, and somewhat confused, as to why the U.S. is trying to get Iran (mostly) and Syria (kind of) involved in peacekeeping in Iraq. It just doesn't seem prudent to include two former members of the infamous "axis of evil" in an objective campaign to control another violently poised country. The biggest question I have going along with this, as I haven't heard much, is where are the militants and militias getting their arms?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6190662.stm

Aid workers say they told military about looting of weapons depot
Quote: Two U.S. aid workers said they reported the looting of an Iraqi weapons depot to U.S. military officials in October, 2003, but were told that there were not enough troops to seal off the facility

A Second Unguarded Ammo Dump was Looted in Iraq
Quote: Six months after the fall of Baghdad, a vast Iraqi weapons depot with tens of thousands of artillery rounds and other explosives remained unguarded, according to two U.S. aid workers who say they reported looting of the site to U.S. military officials.

The aid workers say they informed Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the highest ranking Army officer in Iraq in October 2003 but were told that the United States did not have enough troops to seal off the facility, which included more than 60 bunkers packed with munitions.


Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq
Quote: The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, produce missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

When asked about the looting, Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld said "Stuff happens"

[Republicant]

France of course ! next ?

[Flake]

The sad fact is that the world - and especially the 3rd world - is full of weapons. The world's weapon manufacturers flood the market year after year, check out the sales if you need proof. Iraq is no exception, especially after official ammo dumps were looted shortly after the invasion.

AK-47s are easy to come by throughout the world, basically. But then there are the potent high explosives, such as those looted at al-Qaqaa, that are causing even more problems.

One interesting thing I'm hearing is that .45 calibers are in huge demand in Iraq these days, just like when "we" were fighting the Indians way back when. Guess if you're fighting an inspired, dedicated enemy like these jihadists you need something with a bit more stopping power.

[bigstick61]

The bulk of the arms and equipment that did not already exist in the country came from and come from Iran, Syria, Russia, and China, and the black market as well, to an extent. For example, many insurgents are carrying old German assault rifles, the StG-44, the world's first such rifles. The only country with such quantities of those arms is Syria, which bought captured ones from Russia. They also seem to have a very good supply of ammo for such weapons, despite its scarcity. Also, many advanced forms of the RPG come from Russia via Syria.

[sLiPpY]

Vexillum wrote: Johannes wrote: The biggest question I have going along with this, as I haven't heard much, is where are the militants and militias getting their arms?

The US has created and supplied Iraqi military and police. Some of those supplies flow through to the militias.

You are correct sir! Additionally, Iraqi securtiy forces often comprise the Militias. Sort of like a policeman with an "off duty" job.

[BornedAgainandAgain]

Where?

Haliburton, duh

Our military gather old sadam arms and pay haliburton to depose of them, haliburton wholesale them to contractors by weight, contractors sell them to iraqi 'outfits' by pieces.

[Kilo Tango]

Dookiestix wrote: Much of the arms in the intial stages of the insurgency were left overs from Saddam's conventional arsenal and the Republican Guard which were never secured or guarded. Saddam released thousands of prisoners right before we invaded, and he knew that there would be an insurgency and resistance movement as long as the U.S. occupied Iraq. He also knew that his Sunni brethren would probably be targeted for revenge killings by the Shiia. He could have cared less for his own people, and so therefore had no quams about allowing his former country to spiral into chaos that in turn would embolden an insurgency that is sophisticated enough to kill American soldiers despite our military superiority. And he probably knew that the rift that would be revealed once he was captured between the Sunni and Shiia would become a catalyst for much of that violence.

But it has to also be assumed that more of that weaponry is getting into the country from other nations, perhaps Syria and Iran, as the insurgency becomes more self-sufficient. And now Maliki is asking for Iran and Syria's help in quelling this violence, while at the same time allowing Ahmadinejad to infuse Iranian influence in Iraq, which in turn probably allows him to get some weapons into the country. Then there's Russia, who is selling Iran anti-missile systems to mostly likely counter an American led attack from the air.

Quite the Pandora's Box Bush has opened here. But that was to be expected by those of us who knew exactly what would transpire if Bush invaded Iraq.

Now those who supported this war can see for themselves the truth in our predictions. I'm almost speechless as I agree with most of what Dookie said here - sans the holier-than-thou-I-told-you-so-Bush-s*cks-yada.

The single biggest mistake of the war was not securing Saddam's weapons depots that were looted during and shortly after the invasion.

[Kumar]

There is no evidence of Iranian involvement in terms of supplying the insurgency with cash or arms.

[Mr. Sunshine]

Johannes wrote: I'm curious, and somewhat confused, as to why the U.S. is trying to get Iran (mostly) and Syria (kind of) involved in peacekeeping in Iraq. It just doesn't seem prudent to include two former members of the infamous "axis of evil" in an objective campaign to control another violently poised country. The biggest question I have going along with this, as I haven't heard much, is where are the militants and militias getting their arms?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6190662.stm

The same place Hezbollah in Lebanon got their arms from. 8:)