Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (27712)	4/14/2008 12:23:34 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Peter, you see confused, but possibly it's just over the exact meaning of a word or two that you've used. You see, I'VE NEVER denied that Iran sends weapons into Iraq (Hell... they have a formal Defense Treaty with the government, and Iranian Intelligence 'trainers' are posted in many of the government Ministries... in fact, the bulk of today's Iraqi National Police Force' were drawn from the ranks of the ruling Party's Shiite Militia Group the 'Badr Brigates', and once were actually based in Iran, and fought from Iranian territory against the forces of Saddam's Sunni-led Army!) But, again, like I said, pretty much ALL of Iraq's neighbors send arms into Iraq... the borders are very loosely guarded. What I disagreed with was your post that *"There has never been any credible denial that Iran is the major source for Iraqi terrorist armaments."* That is most certainly false. (In fact... I'm aware of no official US source which has EVER MAINTAINED that Iran was the source for 'most of the armaments'.) Now... I define your phrase "the major source" to mean that you are claiming that half, or more then half, is supplied from Iran. 'Half or more' would clearly be untrue. (If you had simply said that they were 'one of several big sources' then that would be true, and I'd have no argument with it.) But, consider the major factions, and where they each receive their armaments and financing from.... As the Pentagon and CIA have frequently reported: 1) The Sunni insurgents. (Receive 'nearly unlimited financing and resupply' from Saudi Arabia, and other Sunni Gulf states. Other Sunni nations across the globe likely play a big role as well.) Not Iranian armed.... 2) The Kurds are mostly 'self-financed' (from smuggling or oil and other goods), although one very small group has been based in Iran, there is another Kurdish group which regularly attacks Iran. Remember... the Kurds would like to carve-off part of Iranian territory for their 'Greater Kurdistan', (as well as the Eastern third of Turkey, a small portion of Syria, more land inside today's 'Iraq', etc.) Today, the Kurds are mostly 'Red, White and Blue' armed (not Iranian armed....) 3) Shiites --- the Shiites dominate the current 'national government', and TWO of the ruling coalition's political parties (the biggest: SIIC, and one of the smallest, Malaki's Dawa Party) have very friendly relations with Iran. As I've said, they used to be based there. So too do the Sadrists. They also are in tight with Iran (that is where al Sadr is this very day, for safety from his rivals and enemies....) Truly, Iran's bread is well-buttered no matter which bunch of Shiites assert control of the government. And, as I've acknowledged, some arms, and training, flows from Iran to the Shiites. However, the Iraqis are a very practical bunch, and arguably far more funding (which is diverted to armaments as well as Swiss bank accounts) and training and supply is sucked out of foolish old 'Uncle Sammy' by the Shiites then they could possibly ever hope for from much less well-off Tehran. (And, as the Pentagon has repeatedly reported: an absolute WALL OF MONEY AND RESUPPLY, in 'unlimited amounts', flows from the Saudis and other Gulf Sunni Monarchies into the Iraqi nation.) After all: the Saudis/Sunnis/Arabs are pitted in a great game against the Persians and Iraqi Shia.