digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

US-Iranian firefight in Iraq. Iranian casualities.

time.com — US forces were engaged by uniformed Iranian soldiers with small arms and RPG's inside Iraq. At least one Iranian was killed and no American casualties were reported.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Troika37, on 10/12/2007, -15/+32Causus belli?
    • keyboardduder, on 10/12/2007, -37/+62If they attack us, we kill them. Straight-up. Thats the end. If we find out they were sent to kill us, we talk to them with the UN. If they fail to comply, then we go to war. Please, Bush make decisions with people who know what theyre doing.
    • Fascist, on 10/12/2007, -34/+6THIS IS A SECRET MESSAGE!!! ﻼﻒﻂﺹﺖﺦﺰﺴﯼﮬﻩﻹﺚﺐﺕﮋﮮﮱﯢﻘﺿﺻﺣﻚﻺﻡ
    • dtvibe, on 10/12/2007, -25/+7what exactly dose that translate to ...
    • HolyCrapYo, on 10/12/2007, -25/+3Something like "Down with the Infidels! Down with Ah-Marry-Ca!"
    • MaXiMuM32, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21it's just gibberish..
    • superal1394, on 10/12/2007, -32/+24If they attack us (be it US soil or Iraqi soil) with any amount of power, I can guarantee we will take Iran in days. Do I agree with it? no, is it probably going to happen? yes.

      Please note if we declare war on Iran, the rest of the Middle East (except for maybe Lebanon, Israel and Saudi Arabia) will declare war on the US, and I can venture to hypothesize that it would be the beginning of World War III
    • SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -22/+6When they pull ***** like this, it makes me want to attack them. And if they keep it up, I'm sure we will.

      It's just ironic that we now have a real, dangerous potential enemy, and instead we went into Iraq.
    • turpenine, on 10/12/2007, -5/+41this happened over 3 weeks ago.
    • appetite, on 10/12/2007, -22/+44I'm inclined to be skeptical of any "evidence" that Iran is provoking war with the US. This time, I want hard, definitive, incontrovertible proof that this isn't something invented by a war hungry US regime. If you guys don't demand the same, you're unpatriotic and irresponsible Americans.
    • abszint, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causus_belli
    • otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26We'll probably be able to dismantle the Iranian government within a matter of weeks, but let me remind you, the Iranian government is made up of elected individuals. Even more, the people of Iran are almost entirely Shia, and have a strong sense of national unity (Persian). You think Iraq is bad? Multiply the Iraqi population by 2.8, and the total land size by 2, and you'll get Iran.

      Invading Iran would be the worst thing to do. It may seem like a good decision in the short term picture, but it will be a disaster in the long term, and in the end, that's what matters. We must stay above the enemy, not amongst them.

      And also, don't believe everything the government tells you, I think Iraq taught us that (speaking of which, Condy Rice, on April 18, will testify to Congress on the Iraq - Niger evidence which was used as justification for the war (it was later proven false).
    • profpan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Not to be picky, but it's "casus" belli, not causus. An easy word to misspell.
    • mulling, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7False flag activities? Wouldn't be the first time.

      Yeah, and this happened a ***** long time ago...
      "The soldiers who were there still talk about the September 7 firefight on the Iran-Iraq border in whispers. "

      September. Not exactly news.
    • mulling, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Meanwhile, yes, invading Iran would be retarded. The neocons want to do it really badly, and if there's anything we can learn from the last six years it's this: if Bush et al are for it, it's something that will either kill civilians, enrich weapons manufacturers, drive our country further into crushing debt, or all of the above.
    • returnofmalv, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1...
    • SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7@mullings
      False flag? Doubtful. Who would? And why? There's no evidence for that.

      And the reason it's just coming out now is because the soldiers are just talking about it. The article is from March 30.
    • hambend, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7"Imagine that one carpet, worked on by scores of people, takes about ten years to complete. A people who spend years in manufacturing just a single carpet will wait many more years to achieve victory in war. Do not take lightly the patience and perseverance of the Iranians..."

      You might be able to destroy their military, but there's no way you'll force on the Iranians a regime that they themselves haven't chosen. It will turn into another quagmire, just like Iraq, and quite possibly stretch the US military past breaking point. Do not attack Iran.
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13If the Brits had done this those fifteen sailors wouldn't be sitting in an Iranian jail.
    • Intangir, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4this smells like false flag to me
      undoubtedly...
      US and UK just cant wait to start WWIII
    • Intangir, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2nevermind, those bastards, this ***** is 6-7 months old
    • hdtvdust, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11 otheruser..the only people that have eVER talked about invading Iran have been the ultra left bloggers. No one in hte Bush administration has EVER said anything about it.

      At worst, it would be air attacks.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"this happened over 3 weeks ago."

      Actually, it happened on September 7th. Over 6 MONTHS ago.
    • jjesusfreak01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@ appetite

      Iran's capture of British soldiers in Iraqi waters, admitting they were in Iraqi waters, and changing their story when they realized their mistake does NOT count as evidence that Iran is provoking us? Iranian patrols and WEAPONS being found in Iraq, fighting with our soldiers? How much proof do you need that Iran is provoking us. Its not that they are trying to provoke us, they are trying to make us look bad while destabilizing Iraq.
    • babar77, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@otheruser
      Iran is a government of elected officials? Maybe, but so was Saddam Hussein. Iran routinely disqualifies candidates that don't agree with the ultra right theologists. In fact, Iran used to have a government in which the reformists who promoted democracy and plurism were the majority. This ended when all the reform candidates were removed from the last elections. This was not one or two, this was 2,000+, in local and national governments. I would just advise you to be careful with the term "elected officials" when referring to Iran.

      To others:
      As far as trusting Iran over our own government, are you nuts?! Granted I don't trust our current administration as far as I can throw them, but since when has Iran done anything to gain any kind of credibility whatsoever? Ahmadinejad makes Bush look like a cute little puppy. I mean think about it, can you honestly say that you would rather have Ahmadinejad as your president over Bush, or even consider it?! Imagine if a wack job like him had the power of the US behind him. Again, I don't care for Bush one single bit, but I'm simply standing next to myself in disbelief that people would ever trust Ahmadinejad or the Iranian government with anything.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Actually, if you look at the undisputed location of the "hostage taking" you can see that it is clearly in Iranian waters based on Article 7 (straight baseline) of the UN rules on territorial boundaries at sea. Note that not only is the location clearly in Iranian waters but is drastically closer to Iranian land as well.

      Images of location in dispute:
      http://www.moonofalabama.org/images/msmap.jpg
      With straight baseline drawn:
      http://www.moonofalabama.org/images/msmap1.jpg

      UN standards for territorial sea borders (see article 7):
      http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1I hear all this..don't attack I ran we can't win etc...

      Bull *****.

      One word.

      Nuclear.

      Neutron.

      H Bomb.

      Anyone would defeat Iran.

      If Bush goes in he intends to do it. Not pull another Iraq.
  • AriZoney, on 10/12/2007, -8/+45FTA:"The soldiers who were there still talk about the September 7 firefight on the Iran-Iraq border in whispers."

    I doubt that. Call me skeptical but I'll chalk that observation up to bias. The real meat of this issue though, is that no one made any noise about this when it happened. Here is what appears to be an abduction attempt on U.S. soldiers, meaning that the successful capture of the U.K. sailors is part of a longer standing strategy by Iran rather than an isolated incident.
    Even after this, we hear Bush proclaiming that there will be no war with Iran, and carefully structuring his 'Troop surge' to reflect that non-pursuit. Diplomacy at any cost...
    • Troika37, on 10/12/2007, -11/+27Chamberlain played a similar game. Anyone remember how well that worked out?
    • neiltc13, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11There will indeed be no war between Iran and the United Kingdom. For a start we've got so few troops left after sending them all to Iraq and Afghanistan that mounting a real force against another HUGE nation would be impossible.

      Further, the Iraq war has been so unpopular with the UK public that any attempt to start another war with another country, legitimate or not, would be political suicide for the Labour Party right around the time when they are trying to regain support ahead of the next election and the forthcoming election in Scotland.
    • edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Labour are probably trying the same tactic Bush used to get elected; the 'We're at war, what are you going to do now, bitches' effect, whereby for some inexplicable reason people vote for the same party that got them into the war to get them out of it.
    • skytimelapse, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5"Chamberlain played a similar game. Anyone remember how well that worked out?"

      Completely inaccurate metaphor. Not every world event can be compared to wwII, and no I'm not defending Bush.
    • Troika37, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Then how is it fair to compare every war to Vietnam?
  • Yang1205, on 10/12/2007, -19/+13Our system of government was designed to represent the people. Please Mr. Bush keep us out of this war
    • SD929, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8Please mr Bush , get us into this war. These ***** deserve it.
  • dandan111, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12They are pushing the envelope, no doubt of that, but I don't know the reasons. The Iranians might be trying to distract their restive population, which is actually pretty pro-U.S., with a war so they can increase the repression even more
    • Pilot85, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6maybe with the THREAT of war, but I doubt they would want war. They must know that they have almost no chance of succeeding against american forces. War to cow their masses would do no good if they, to, got knocked out of power. Posturing, maybe, or possibly even just head strong field commanders.
    • koweja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Indeed, the Iranian government may want to talk about war as part of their whole "the problems in this country certainly aren't our fault" rhetoric, but they don't want a war since they will lose and then be dead or in prison somewhere instead of in power. It's the same crap that Hugo Chavez was pulling a while ago when he starting building bunkers and increasing the size of the militia because he "knew" the US was going to be invading soon. Look how that worked out from him - he went from almost being recalled to basically a dictator.
    • lesosso, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1what repression are you talking about, what do you know about Iran, have you ever talk with an Iranian?
  • HolyCrapYo, on 10/12/2007, -14/+21Anyone else find it odd that all of this is happening at a time where were about to go war with Iran?
    • Prysorra, on 10/12/2007, -11/+49Anyone else find it odd Iran seems so willing to do stupid *****?

      :-|
    • almightyzam, on 10/12/2007, -19/+14Anyone else find it odd that if we ***** with Iran, Russia and China will back them up? All we have are the Brits, and maybe the French...and having the French gives us negative points.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -13/+28"Anyone else find it odd that all of this is happening at a time where were about to go war with Iran?"

      You seem to have no concept of cause and effect. Bush shows evidence of Iran involvement in Iraq. Stupid liberals claim this is all part of some elaborate plan to start a war with Iran. Evidence from a non-pentagon source emerges, and you still don't understand what it means.

      I'll keep it simple, Iran is operating in Iraq. We just saw it again in the capture of the British sailors in Iraqi waters. Iran is pushing to start a war. Everyone else is trying to avoid it.
    • Prysorra, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"Russia and China"

      Not if we tell them they can have all their oil......
    • MudkipsULiekEm, on 10/12/2007, -22/+4How old are we here? Can't say *****, *****?

      You guys Christians or something?

      Nevermind. Looks like digg's profanity filter setting is buggy. Nice.
    • Prysorra, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Why am I getting dugg down for saying Americans are capable of doing something Machiavellian?

      *Sigh*
    • Cannon13, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18@ geekee:

      If Iran wanted a war, they would sink the US Carrier groups stationed in the Gulf. They have no reason to bait the US into a war, because they would get bombed back to the stone-age. The US, however, needs a prerequisite to attack.
    • JonnyTrombone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6almightyzam is referencing a 2005 agreement between Russia and China:

      http://www.hindu.com/2005/07/02/stories/2005070204591400.htm
    • triad203, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@holycrapyo
      "Anyone else find it odd that all of this is happening at a time where were about to go war with Iran?"

      I would... but it happened in September.

      Thanks for playing though.
    • weeFred, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Cannon13 - "If Iran wanted a war, they would sink the US Carrier groups stationed in the Gulf."

      No they wouldn't. Doing that would only unite the world against them. By kidnapping those soldiers and claiming they were in Iranian waters causes doubt in the populations of western countries You only have to look at this page to see all the retards blaming the UK and US, "false flag operations" and the rest of it. Not to mention that if they attacked the US ordinary Iranians would probably rise up against the government for unnecessarily starting a war with the most powerful nation on earth. They are playing it smart, dividing the media and public opinion and lots of stupid people are falling for it.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2It's not happening AT THIS TIME. It happened last September, at least according to the linked article.

      It's only being RELEASED now (by unnamed sources, no less) because of what's happening now with Iran. But the fact that no one will put their name behind it means it either didn't happen the way the article claims or it didn't happen.

      @geekee, you pretty much made my point for me. If Bush was trying to prove to us stupid liberals that Iran was really fighting us in Iraq, then he could have publicized this bit of news anytime between September last year, the elections, and now. He didn't, therefore either he has no idea what his own military is doing, or it's not true.
    • weeFred, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@ entropy
      FTA
      "A short Army press release issued on the day of the skirmish offered the following information:"

      Can you read??? ISSUED ON THE DAY OF THE SKIRMISH!!!!
      This is the kind of stupidity that i was talking about above.
    • ufia, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Nice try, almightyzam. France won more wars in history than the USA ever fought.

      France fought wars on its own lawn. All USA ever did is poke foreign territory with a ten foot pole, and then they bail out when turn of events are not in their favor.
    • yfph, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17@ufia

      Sorry, but I couldn't resist...

      French Military History in a Nutshell

      Gallic Wars: Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

      Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare - "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchmen."

      Italian Wars: Lost. France becomes the first and only country ever to lose two wars when fighting Italians.

      Wars of Religion: France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.

      Thirty Years' War: France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

      War of Devolution: Tied; Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

      The Dutch War: Tied.

      War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War: Lost, but claimed as a tie. Deluded Frogophiles the world over label the period as the height of French Military Power.

      War of the Spanish Succession: Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved ever since.

      American Revolution: In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting".

      French Revolution: Won, primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French.

      The Napoleonic Wars: Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

      The Franco-Prussian War: Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

      WWI: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like not only to sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

      WWII: Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

      War in Indochina: Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with Dien Bien Flu.

      Algerian Rebellion: Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a Western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare -"We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Eskimos.

      War on Terrorism: France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe.
    • CitizenKamb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9""they would sink the US Carrier groups stationed in the Gulf.""

      Hah. Sink a US Carrier group? Good luck with that.
    • YixilTesiphon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Carriers are sitting ducks. Remember the USS Cole? It's like that, except carriers have even less resistance capability. Seriously, 100 dhaws filled with explosives? The couple of ships around the carriers couldn't handle that.
    • Troika37, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You've clearly never been on a carrier. There are defensive systems, both computerized and manual, that preclude any attack similar to that on the Cole. Our .50 gunners are on watch 24 hours a day, and are cleared to fire whenever a boat comes within the preset distance. (Things in the bubble disappear rather quickly. Period.) Nevermind the helo support and battle group that happens to be all over the place. A fleet of fishing boats will never sink an American carrier.
  • PJ88, on 10/12/2007, -6/+49You guys realize this event occured September of last year right?
    • otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6war hawks will make good use of this
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -16/+23Yes Iran has been operating in Iraq for some time. Digg liberals will still cling to the idea that Bush is making stuff up to start a war despite the evidence that Iran is actually violating Iraq's territory.
    • peterwschlamp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I'm glad someone saw this.
    • Krovvy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Why read the article when you have a chance to make jokes at the USA, and it's president.
    • appetite, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8a) Iran does have a stake in what happens in Iraq.
      b) We are backing the Shia. Iran is dominated by Shia.

      If the US goes to war with Iran, we are the enemy of the world. More war is completely avoidable at this point. Going to war will be a failure and a disaster. Bush needs to get booted soon so we can have our world back.
    • SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6The article is from March 30. The event is just coming out and just now hitting the news.

      By your standards, released classified documents from 6 months ago should not be put in the news.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3"Yes Iran has been operating in Iraq for some time"

      Yes, Iran has been operating inside Iraq since long before we invaded. They were waging a full-on war with Iraq for many years and certainly had allies within the country, trying to subvert Saddam.

      If we didn't know that Iran was operating inside Iraq before we invaded, then we're idiots. In other words, any actions by Iran inside Iraq should at least have been expected. This surprise and outrage by the Administration is either fake or born of ignorance.
    • lesosso, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@ geekee
      Iran is violating Iraq territory, is it just me or this is by far the stupidest thing to say.
      I guess Invading is much better!!!
  • fuckingusername, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3Only a matter of time you will wake up, turn on the TV and hear the US forces whacked Iran's info structure.
    GW call it something like Operation Freedom.
  • gab00n, on 10/12/2007, -37/+8It was probably special forces dressed up to look like Iranian's, they do this all the time to start wars and get countries behind wars. I guess the sailor incident wasn't good enough so now they are getting desperate and relying on old tricks, how pathetic.
    • PJ88, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31That you Rosie?
    • almightyzam, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6Yeah, either we instigate a war (look at the Mexican-American War) or invade preemptively.
    • fsrecon, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2hahaha... you just made me spew my glass of water all over my computer.
  • ChewyBass, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15The Iranian government wants war and will do whatever they can to provoke both the US and British. It is only a matter of time before we will either have to fight or let them takeover. It has been said before and applies here, This is not good.
  • fsrecon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4It has begun...
  • EnragedPants, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Quick! Everybody, buy oil futures! We'll be fabulously rich when all hell breaks loose, and the global oil supply gets cranked down again!
    This is going to be a political and economic disaster. If this becomes discussed more widely, things are going to get disgusting.
    • fsrecon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2@ EnragedPants

      Nope, if you look back... When we invaded Iraq, oil dropped right away, only to come back double in the next couple of years.
    • JonnyTrombone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Doesn't the US get more than 50% of its oil from Canada? If it weren't for oil futures and speculation, the price of gas wouldn't jump every time Ahmadinejad sneezes.
    • boybunny, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1JonnyTrombone

      No USA doesn't get more than 50% of its oil from Canada.

      What little oil Canada is selling will be bid far higher by China, Japan and other countries who now depend on Iranian oil. These countries need oil to run their economies and USA will have to pay higher prices if they want to buy the same oil.

      The same goes for Venezuela who does sell USA 30% of its oil.
    • avidbuff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Boybunny your stats are slightly off

      http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

      Given Canada's location, it's close ties with the US (I'm Canadian and boths sides of my family are tied by blood to the US) and the fact that Canada's is the US's largest trading partner (as well as vice versa) I don't believe our preference would be to sell to China.
  • UWake911, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2This is OLD NEWS. Are they rehashing it to get tension to invade or attack Iran?
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12The event is old. The news of it is new.
  • wonkavsn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I hope this doesn't effect the situation with those British hostages.
  • x00x, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13In another era what the Iranians have demonstrated would be declared an act of war and would have earned the collective wrath of the US. The wily Iranians have carefully analyzed the weaknesses inherent as a democracy and are getting away with brazen military interventionism, the acts
    of which leave us politically militarily impotent/embarrassed in front of the entire world.
    • one2gamble, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13This incident and the kidnapping of UK soldiers are in fact an act of war.
    • almightyzam, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Having a military presence in another countries waters is an act of war...no different (if not worse) to using military force against a foreign embassy.

      Furthermore, have you all forgotten what Bush is doing in Guantanamo with his detainees? Last time I checked, holding foreigners as prisoners without a reason is not only illegal, but also an act of war.
  • Pilot85, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3oh noes, I don't want to fight China! They have 1 billion+ people to our 300 million+ people! AND THEY KNOW KUNG FU!
    • Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5In fact they have 1 billion more people than US, their numbers are close to 1 billion 370 millions. Just for reference.....
    • wvstephens, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8China will never attack the US we own their economy, where is the parts in your PC made? your TV, your Microwave, Every ***** thing in your house? That's right China. They attack us their country's economy crumbles. The US is China's favorite enemy.
    • kholburn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2China will never attack the US because they own the US economy. It would hurt both China and the US. Mind you war usually does hurt both sides, but it hasn't stopped people going to war before.
    • quik22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"China will never attack the US because they own the US economy. It would hurt both China and the US. Mind you war usually does hurt both sides, but it hasn't stopped people going to war before."

      correct, but slightly misleading. a trade deficit with china means that they have delivered goods which have yet to be paid for.. meaning that if the US really wanted to we could turn on the printing press and print out trillions of dollars and hand them to the chinese. yes, the value of a single dollar would drop drastically in real terms, but the US government could protect its citizens through subsidies and tax breaks. the US dollar is not backed by gold as many other currencies are (the gold standard).. our debts are denominated in US dollars, which can only (legally) be manufactured by the US government.

      i don't know about you but i'm sure i'd rather be the country that owes money rather than the country that hopes to be paid back. god bless international economics.
  • cpeter9, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3How do we rectify the idea of supporting the Middle East's only current nuclear power: Israel, while dubbing Iran part of the 'Axis of Evil?'
    • Maninthemiddle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Perhaps because, while not perfect, Israel is progressive democracy. They have not held US citizens hostage for over a year, blown up Marines in Lebanon, constantly threatened genocide against a neighboring nation and a religion, gathered thousands in the street for "Death to America Day", funded groups who believe blowing up kids in pizza parlors is a good start...

      ...and they are not led by a group that believes world cataclysm bring back the hidden Imam and brings them closer to heaven. Who, with reason, would doubt that Israel would use such a device only to prevent annihilation, while Iran could well use it for the greater glory of...

      And I have disagreed with the settlement policy among others.
    • almightyzam, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2@maninthemiddle

      "constantly threatened genocide against a neighboring nation and a religion"

      Umm, what do you call the actions Israel are taking against Palestine? And last time I checked, the Zionest movement aren't particularily in favor of Christians.
  • TfmLinux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7This is lame. Anyone recall Poland invasion by Germans in second world war ? Gleiwitz incident ? it's the same story 70 years later.
  • Sneakernets, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9You knew this was going to happen.

    Iran WANTS to fight us. The "wipe out Israel" comment didn't work, the "Building nuclear facilities" didn't work, the capture of British troops in Iraqi waters didn't work, so now Iran has decided to use the sword.

    Someone needs to tell him to stop this now before it gets out of hand.

    http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/

    Tell the president how you feel about this!
    • eclipse007, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Ahmadinejad never actually said Israel should be wiped off the map.
      He said (and this is a direct quote)
      "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

      Word by word translation:
      Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

      Note the word rezhim-e (regime).

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NOR20070120&articleId=4527

    • hdtvdust, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Except this happened 6 months before the British troops were captured
  • Verchiel77, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2This is a six month-old incident.

    Lacking that information, this headline is egregiously misleading.
    • Troika37, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The article was published on 30Mar07. Check the article.
  • DrScott, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Segue into Operation Bite?
  • mr100percent, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I find it hard to believe that Iranians were involved. Considering the fact that Iraqi death squads wear Iraqi police and Iraqi national guard uniforms (which both groups either deny or claim is stolen or forged uniforms), I don't think Iran would go and attack Americans in Iraq. After all, the pro-Iranian groups won the election, Iran is begging the US to stay and make sure that pro-Iranian government in Iraq gets even stronger.
    • Maninthemiddle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5...and the five Iranian commanders caught within Iran with weaponry, training plans; the highly effective new explosive devices made in Iran, al Sadr escaping to Iran; the Iranian government calling for the immediate withdrawal of US and British troops.
  • cfpresley, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11buried as inaccurate. Headline gives impression of current events, not 6 months ago.
    • Troika37, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The article was published on 30Mar07. Check the article.
    • ASHole71, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How can you say it is inaccurate by the date?
  • Merkava, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2It sure is nice to know that US of Advertising is filled with crazy people. Please go and attack Iran so we can get rid of you and your MacDonalds. Thank you.
  • datafeaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I don't know . . . I really can't believe in that agnosticism stuff . . .
  • gogog0, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4you guys dont understand, everytime iran does something crazy, oil prices go up, and when oil prices go up they reap the benefits. why do you think they are doing all of this stuff.
  • buggles, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3This is old news.. it happened last September.
  • DarkDakota, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Is no one here reading the story

    "still talk about the September 7 firefight on the Iran-Iraq border" OLD OLD OLD !!

    Plus, I love the way zelots use the term "We".

    if this happens we'll kill them, we will go in there, we always kill, etc etc.

    when was the last time your yellow ass strapped on a rifle and headed down "there"

    shooting at targets that don't shoot back is one thing. shooting at people who can shoot back is another.

    the American forces fighting overseas are brave and courages, you sitting at home playing Halo . . are not.

    Unless you join up and put your ass on the line, your just another American, spouting ***** bravado, making the courageous look bad.

    It's simple, put up or shut up.
    • Troika37, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Um, the last time I strapped on a flag and a weapon was May 2006. That was deployment number four for me. Am I qualified?

      The article was published on 30Mar07. Check the article. The incident it relates to did occur in September, but it was only published within the last 48 hours.
    • ASHole71, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The last time i was in the Army was 96 does that count?
  • alex.will, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Oh, *****.
  • noamsml, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3OLD NEWS. Wouldn't be surprised if this is yellow journalism, too. In times like this, when there are clear attempts to drum up public support for a war (anyone remember the whole Iranian bomb claim?), it is good practice to doubt everything you see.
    • SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+81-The article is from March 30. The event is just coming out and just now hitting the news.
      2-Yeah, Time really loves the Bush administration. I'm sure this whole thing is a ploy by Time to get Americans to support war in Iran.
      /sarcasm
    • noamsml, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I guess you have a point. Time isn't exactly a government outlet. I guess I'm just being overcareful. You know, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...
    • ASHole71, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No you were being foolish there is a difference.
  • jdun, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11This is the difference between Europe and America. We don't give up like pussy. They want some they got some, American style.
    • spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2we gave up like pussies in the last few wars.
  • triad203, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3This happened in September. Could the headline be more misleading?

    An act of war... against Iraq maybe. Last I checked, our military exists to defend the USofA, not Iraq.
  • Armor1901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10QUOTE:I'm inclined to be skeptical of any "evidence" that Iran is provoking war with the US. This time, I want hard, definitive, incontrovertible proof that this isn't something invented by a war hungry US regime.
    /QUOTE

    I dunno, I'm inclined to think that the UK at least has all the evidence they need, with the captured sailors who are supposed to go on "trial" in Iran, which could lead to their capital punishment. That would be enough for me to throw a fist or two.
  • amightywind, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9The Iranians thought they would try their old tricks of taking hostages. Not this time bitches! After 4 years of matching wits with the twisted assholes you trained in Iraq. We know your playbook. My only complaint is that US troops didn't annihilate the whole bunch them. I am sure our Marines would be happy to take your scalps. Want more?
  • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Good to see our boys fight their way out of an ambush rather than surrender like the British.
  • j138abstract, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If the U.S. and Iran go to war, the U.S. would have the backing of the majority of the Arab world, behind close doors of course. Every Suni majority country is close to as afraid as Israel of Iran and there future nukes
  • EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I call BS. The event reportedly happened last SEPTEMBER.

    If it was true, you'd better believe BushCo would have trotted it out before the mid-term elections. Iran fired on US -- in Iraq -- and our side didn't publicize it? Not a chance. We've been trying to make the case to the world that Iranian forces are actively operating in Iraq. And this event would seem to be a smoking gun that no one will officially acknowledge?

    Leaking this now (and this is a leak, of the Cheney variety) is to get you all riled up, which it appears to be doing. Having it be anonymous means it can be wrong and not get anyone in trouble. I'll believe it when it at least has an official name behind it for accountability.

    Expect a lot more of the same. If this is true and it's the best they've got from the real world, they'll have to manufacture a hell of of lot more.
  • ridd1e, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2These ***** are really going to invade Iran.

    Propaganda, people.
  • jhshukla, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I am assuming Fool's Day prank from April 1, 2007, 00:00:00 Japanese Standard Time until April 1, 2007, 23:59:59 Alaskan Time.
  • crazywarthog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Iran is a peace loving country. And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a real nice and normal guy once you get to know him. Just ask the hate America crowd here.
  • xynder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wait, so, how the ***** does Iran thing a war with the U.S. and Bush's "coalition of the willing" is a good ***** idea? WE HAVE FRIKKIN LASER BEAMS, PEOPLE!
  • dopplerdog, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@weefred

    "No they wouldn't. Doing that would only unite the world against them. By kidnapping those soldiers and claiming they were in Iranian waters causes doubt in the populations of western countries You only have to look at this page to see all the retards blaming the UK and US, "false flag operations" and the rest of it. Not to mention that if they attacked the US ordinary Iranians would probably rise up against the government for unnecessarily starting a war with the most powerful nation on earth. They are playing it smart, dividing the media and public opinion and lots of stupid people are falling for it."

    Interesting. Let's swap a few words around to see what the Iranians might think about the US bombing Iran immediately:

    "No they wouldn't. By sending soldiers into Iran and claiming they were kidnapped causes doubt in the populations of western countries You only have to look at this page to see all the retards blaming Iranian "provocation" and the rest of it. Not to mention that if they attacked Iran without reason, world opinion would probably be turned against the US government for unnecessarily starting a war with a weaker nation. They are playing it smart, dividing the media and public opinion and lots of stupid people are falling for it."

    See how easy it is to spur your nation into war? The script is timeless, and you just fill in the blanks with the enemy of your choice: the communists (20th cent), the colonies (18th cent), the catholics (16th cent), the turks (15th cent), the arabs (11th cent), the barbarians (1st cent).... so on and so on, ad ***** infinitum.
    • weeFred, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3OK assuming you're right, all Iran would of had to of done was escort the British boat out of Iranian water and publically lodged a complaint with the international community. Surely this would of foiled the "evil" plans of the US and UK? But no, they forced them to surrender, paraded them on TV, made them make scripted confessions, start going on about legal actions/punishment for them. It's clear to anybody with half a brain that it's Iran that are being non cooperative and it's the UK that are saying "pretty please give us our soldiers back". Iran is the aggressor.
  • RomeyRome, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I don't know. If I wanted to stir up some ***** with US and Iran, I'd get me some Iranian uniforms & take some wild shots @ our troops. Sounds like a good plan.
  • RationalXubrnce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1 The Moneymen who own the American financial system and pull the strings of both parties want wider war in the Middle East. That's why we are building bases all over Iraq. That's why they don't really care how things go on the ground or about getting the oil out right away Iraq is just phase 1 in the plan for world war with the Middle East which we will wreck and destroy central banks in all of their countries.

    Notice not one politician or new correspondent is going against the grain while the propaganda builds for more war. (Ron Paul excepted) Even all of the so called anti war democrats are right on board.

    By the people and for the people is all illusion at this point.
  • madskillzdotcom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Three words: Operation Eagle Claw. Do you remember it? If you are older than 30, maybe. The US tried that before - when the Shah was dethroned, and 53 hostages in the US Embassy were taken. If you saw the movie 'Delta Force,' at the beginning, you'll see what went down. The Delta guys tried to get into Iran and get the hostages. It was a failure. Yes, the technology is here now to avoid several of the missteps of the operation, but like an earlier poster stated, the Mideast would unleash jihad. It's unprovoked - yeah, the Brits are held hostage, but ... a diplomatic solutions on the British part - or Gov. Bill Richardson - will be the only true remedy. If we invade, the Selective Service will be looking for guys 18-35 to serve ... believe that ...
    • fatesdefiance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oh, bull. Saddam's forces kicked Iran's butt. If you think decimating Iran's ability to fight would make the US military blink twice you're sorely mistaken. Occupation and rebuilding are another story, but kicking ass is NOT a problem.

      That said, I hope it doesn't happen. I hope the Iranian people wake up and realize that WE aren't their enemies--their own government is.
  • mrbitterness, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3How stupid are you people? Do you think the Iranians are kidding when they call for America's death? Maybe you believe that, by reading your pensive, supporting remarks on this website, they'll realize you aren't one of the Evil Americans. Except the Iranians "elected government," as one monumentally ill-informed commenter called the mullahs, don't care if you agree with the current administration.
    They are Islamic Supremacists. They only want our submission, or our obliteration.
    The left in this country is fervently working to destroy their only line of defense against those who'd have its adherents stoned or beheaded.
  • humannn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1appetite: You want hard, definitive, incontrovertible proof? Fine. But just so you don't claim whatever proof may eventually be offered "isn't enough", go ahead and state now, for the record, what kind of proof would be the minimum you'd accept.
  • costoa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Here we go. Bush is going to pull out our troops from Iraq via Iran. =)
  • bcimhe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Please note if we declare war on Iran, the rest of the Middle East (except for maybe Lebanon, Israel and Saudi Arabia) will declare war on the US, and I can venture to hypothesize that it would be the beginning of World War III" - what utter bs. why is it impossible for wasps to understand that the politics and philosophies of men and nations in the arab world are as complex and varied as those in the west?

    that being said this is a toilet on the verge of flushing. i am now officially at the defcon 4 level of worrying. if the iranians could get much of the arab world to support them it would be a war against the countries that control most of the world's oil. sh*t.
  • Butterbean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1here comes the end of the world....*****
  • SwingDangler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2More "nameless" sources by Time?? My goodness the propaganda is building by the day!
    • Troika37, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They're as qualified to comment as the 'nameless' sources who verified the Jamil Hussein debacle (funny how those mosques are still standing, isn't it) and numerous other questionable media reports that are sworn to as gospel truth.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.