.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

The Asylum

Welcome to the Asylum. This is a site devoted to politics and current events in America, and around the globe. The THREE lunatics posting here are unabashed conservatives that go after the liberal lies and deceit prevalent in the debate of the day. We'd like to add that the views expressed here do not reflect the views of other inmates, nor were any inmates harmed in the creation of this site.

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Iranian Weapons Found In Iraq: Bears 2006 Dates

If ever there was a reason to send a clear message to Iran, this story from ABC News, gives us precisely the opportunity:

Hat-Tip: Bryan @ Hot-Air

U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.

This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. “There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval,” says a senior official.

Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq’s growing Shia militias from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran.

Evidence is mounting, too, that the most powerful militia in Iraq, Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army, is receiving training support from the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.

Two senior U.S. defense officials confirmed to ABC News earlier reports that fighters from the Mahdi army have traveled to Lebanon to receive training from Hezbollah.

Thomas picked up the Hezbollah/Mahdi militia story on Monday, but this adds another new twist to dealing with Iran. The Baker Commission and State Department weenies seem to think it is a good idea to deal with both Syria and Iran diplomatically because of some unfounded belief that those nations actually care about what happens with Iraq.

They do care, but not in the ways to doddering fools believe. They do not want to see any sort of success in Iraq because it is detrimental to their plans, and could prove to be a further threat to them controlling their nations. The general populace in Iran cannot stand the mullahocracy, and seeing the hope and possibility of freedom and democracy in a nation like Iraq--one that never had any hope of such under their previous leader--would be a boon to those people. We saw what happened in Lebanon when we deposed Saddam. Those people saw what the Iraqis gained, and immediately began to apply serious pressure to Syria to leave.

Iran wants to fuel the violence there. They want a Shi'ite controlled government there so they can prod them in the direction of becoming another Islamic republic like they are. And I honestly believe it is time that we state for the world's benefit that we are officially at war with Iran. Thomas highlighted a piece from Michael Freund yesterday where he opined that it was time the United States strike Iran:

What is needed now is decisive action, and fast, to slap them down and put the radicals back in their place.

A massive American air assault on Iranian nuclear installations would do just the trick. It would not only set back Teheran's atomic ambitions for years to come, but also serve as a resounding display of US will and resolve.

A strike on Iran would amount to a reversal of the Shi'ite surge that is now taking place throughout the region. It would take the wind out of the Iranian leader's apocalyptic sails, and it would have a noticeable impact on the sectarian violence now raging in Iraq, too.

The problem facing us with Iran right now is directly connected to al-Sadr and his militia in Iraq. They are fueling the violence there. If al-Sadr were removed, and his army destroyed, it could serve as a message to Iran that they are not welcome in Iraq. BUT, a decisive strike on Iran right now, targeting their number one prize, would send a clearer message to the world that we mean what we say. We want a stable, self-sustaining, democratic Iraq. We do not want to see that country turn into another Afghanistan or Iran. We cannot afford to allow it to become a haven for Islamicists and terrorists. But if we pull out, which is precisely what the Baker Commission is about to announce, we will abandon Iran to the wolves in the region already licking their chops at the prospect of a vulnerable Iraq.

If the Baker Commission gets its way, we will witness another Saigon. It took little time for the North Vietnamese to topple the South Vietnamese government after our pullout. How long does anyone think it will take before Iraq falls if we leave? We are betting that it will take little time to bring Iraq to its knees. The basiji corps' and Hezbollah will make short work of the Iraqi military and security forces. With the Mahdi militia involved, as well, and it will take weeks or months before the country falls.

We need a firm response to this discovery, and I do not mean banning iPod exports to them (who came up with that nutty idea in State?). I am talking about striking them. Mr. Freund is correct that a strike on Iran would send the message we need to emphasize around the world. They are a terrorist sponsoring nation, and need to be slapped down. And this discovery gives us the ability to do it. It is time to act against Iran, and quit giving the diplomats and bureaucrats the lip service that their idea is sound. It is not. It is suicidal, and the sooner we figure that out, the better off we will be.



Post a Comment

<< Home

weight loss product