digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Weapons Were Not Made In Iran After All

informationclearinghouse.i… — In a sharp reversal of its longstanding accusations against Iran arming militants in Iraq , the US military has made an unprecedented albeit quiet confession: the weapons they had recently found in Iraq were not made in Iran at all.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • kabalyero, on 05/13/2008, -18/+9Aw, WAR! Can't we all just get along! :(
    • sockpuppets, on 05/13/2008, -6/+12I am mentally carpet bombing you.
    • zephc, on 05/13/2008, -5/+3/moves Brent Spiner's vocal chords with a tentacle
      "NO... PEACE..." *gurgle*
    • sifuchar, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1We can .. but we won't. As long as you have something someone else might want and can take, you will have to defend it.
  • PSWTyrant, on 05/13/2008, -24/+111I'd have been more shocked if they hadn't lied this time. They will say anything to continue the war and expand it into Iran.
    • noahhoward, on 05/13/2008, -32/+18Really? So what do you have to say about the fact that they didn't act on this evidence they thought they had? If what you said were true we'd have invaded Iran sometime last year without hesitation.

      Realizations like this are why they DON'T go to war over this stuff without verifying it, especially after the ***** with Iraq.
      • MacEnvy, on 05/13/2008, -10/+37If they had the available military manpower, I have no doubt that they would have started some ***** with Iran by now. Fortunately for all of us they're tapped out between Afghanistan and Iraq.
        • notoneofus, on 05/13/2008, -4/+22Available military power is certainly key. Iran is not the broken, divided country Iraq was in 2003. Iran has over half a million full-time soldiers, and they're trained far better than the Iraqis. There's more money for defense, a more united populace (yeah, there's dissent, but it's not the geographical mishmash created by the UK that is Iraq), and one hell of a lot of willpower.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/13/2008, -13/+7And we could still render Iran immobile with one skilled pilot. Destroying and providing security are two different things. We don't need very many men to destroy stuff.
          • bjornski, on 05/13/2008, -2/+6@masterm1nd

            And after the first strike, once they start to retaliate, then what?

            Send in ground forces, or nukes? You sure sound eager to drop the nukes.

            Have you thought about what happens if we do THAT? Apparently not.

            Go enlist.
        • noahhoward, on 05/13/2008, -19/+11We have a naval fleet armed with missiles waiting off shore. We don't need any more troops to obliterate Iran. You're really underestimating the US military if you think we couldn't mount an attack.

          Is it really so hard to believe that the US does not have any interest in invading Iran?
          • bjornski, on 05/13/2008, -2/+5Obliterate? So you basically mean genocide, right? Nukes?

            Have you given ONE ***** THOUGHT beyond first-strike? Apparently not.

            Ah, I see. Coast Guard Auxiliary. No wonder you think a few ships can take on an entire country.
          • MrTulip, on 05/13/2008, -5/+2check this out:
            http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID ...
            http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID ...

            i, for one, wouldn't overestimate the naval forces
          • bjornski, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2@MtTulip

            Oops, I digg you down semi-prematurely. After the first page gave me basically a blank blog page at the site, I just dugg down for "screwed links". Going back in later, I checked the second and read up on it. I've read about this exercise before. Too bad you didn't give some "teaser" info to get some more people reading it. Let me find a juicy tidbit or two. (the first page of this blog SUCKS, it's nothing but gloating. Story starts on 2nd page (out of four, for you tl;dr crowd. Just warning you in advance).
            ------------------------
            What happened in Millennium Challenge is that the Navy brass picked a prickly retired USMC vet named Paul van Ripen to play the Iranian commander facing a naval incursion--and van Riper, with nothing but small speedboats, civilian prop planes, and low-tech surface-to-surface missiles, managed to sink two-thirds of the US force by buzzing them with annoying but not openly hostile civilian craft, then attacking simultaneously with everything he had.

            (snip)

            See, the Navy brass always plans for a neat, clean hi-tech war. Their real investment isn't the Phalanx or Aegis but the operations rooms deep in the hulls where flabby desk jockeys just like me sit at little screens. Those screens are supposed to show a few dots, nice fair-fighting Soviet surface ships and subs. That's how the Navy wants to play the game. Seeing their beautiful screens clogged up by a bunch of goddamn cheap speedboats full of Revolutionary Guards, not to mention hundreds of "boxes" that might turn out to be mines, ruins everything.

            You might wonder, if you were real, real naive, why the Navy hasn't tried to learn from what van Ripen did to them six years ago in the same waters. Well, the truth is that no big, well-funded armed service learns or changes until it absolutely has to, which usually means when it starts to lose a war. And of all services, navies are by far the most stubborn, old-fashioned, snobby, retarded of all. I don't mean the submarine force, which is pretty much God. I mean the brass in their ridiculous floating targets, aka carriers, frigates, tankers and other dive-sites-in-the-making.
            ---------------------------
            You get the idea. It's a good read.


        • MxM111, on 05/13/2008, -5/+10US? no, Bush administration? Yes. It just does not make sense simply destroy the country, because it would include destruction of oil infrastructure.
          • MacEnvy, on 05/13/2008, -1/+6Not to mention that half of Iran (the younger half) wants to be more like us and would be pro-American if given a chance. The world would turn against us pretty quickly if we blew the country to hell.

            And for those of you who say "Who cares? We're the most powerful country in the world!" - 6.5 billion will beat 300 million any day, no matter what tech you're using. We all have a vested interest on keeping things peaceful and not being aggressors.
          • bjornski, on 05/13/2008, -2/+4True, true. After blowing the ***** out of Iran's infrastructure, we'd stick around to rebuilt and appoint a new government, right?

            Or would we just leave it a smoking, wasted crater in the ground, with a power vacuum just waiting to be filled by REAL terrorists?

            If we attack Iran, we MUST OCCUPY THEM, or else the attack was worthless. And why physically can NOT do that right now.

            The only alternative is near-genocide. And sadly, I"m hearing a lot of screams for just that. By the non-enlisted chickenhawks, the PNAC crowd, and the Ziontologists.

            "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

            Suckers.
        • floorman56, on 05/13/2008, -5/+8Don't need ground troops USAF renders there AF USELESS in 12 hrs then bases , bridges, roads ships, airports, factory's, power plants, ports, are just...Targets.
          • bjornski, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4And then what?

            What do we do when they, and their allies, get mad and retaliate?

            Start lobbing nukes?
          • floorman56, on 05/14/2008, -2/+2What do we do when they, and their allies, get mad and retaliate?
            How? you see a gang of NFL linebackers kick your friends ass because he was being a jerk ..and now you will kick there asses? .....RIIIIIGHT
            Remember how Muammar Gaddafi was going to kick our ass? ...Until we hit Iraq ?
          • bjornski, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3You think I'd go after those linebackers face-to-face?

            Nope. I'd strap on a bomb vest, walk into your locker room, and take out the whole ***** lot of ya.

            Go ahead. Bomb Iran. If you really think they'll be helpless after an attack like that, I'm sure you'd feel safe enough to make that comment from the front lines, where all you'd be doing is helping "evacuees" onto a bus to escape to the safety of "freedom".

            And look! There hasn't been ANY retaliation in Iraq, from Iraqis, due to our "football team" kicking the ***** out of their people.

            You're seriously dumb enough to think that destroying everything these people own and know, and killing thousands and thousands of their family members will cause them to give up so the "football team" doesn't kick their ass again?

            Oh no. These people have nothing left to lose at that point. And they'll be willing to do stupid *****, like strap on bomb vests, to get a little "revenge" for the destruction of the life they used to have.

            Do you seriously think these people function on 30 I.Q. points, and that using a few of them for examples "keeps the herd quiet"?

            What kind of revenge plots would you have cooked up in your brain if "the commies" decided to invade your town, destroy the infrastructure, jobs, economy, kill half the town, and then say they're not leaving until everyone signs their lands over to the new "bank"?

            I think you'd be pulling out the guns and taking pot-shots at people. I know I would.

            Yeah. Go ahead. After air-strikes, Iran will be COMPLETELY helpless. You just keep thinking that.
      • Chassit, on 05/13/2008, -7/+15It's amazing what a discredited lame duck president AND an election year can accomplish.
        • 5urr3al5am, on 05/13/2008, -7/+5You must mean Bill Clinton and the star-studded al gore. Ever wonder how Al Gore lost the election after the great bill clinton was in office for 8 full years of orgasmic glory? seriously, if the liberal democrats, think of Bill Clinton as an eleven out of ten, then the nation must have thought of al gore as a one or two out of ten to lose after such a great president. Makes you really scratch your head in wonder.
          • bjornski, on 05/13/2008, -2/+6What the ***** are you talking about, and what does it have to do with the discussion?

            Did your meds just kick in or something?
          • 5urr3al5am, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1~bjornski -- good response
      • flashback99, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3What difference does it make? The average joe cant do jack ***** about stopping war whether we are presented with evidence or not.
        • WiseWeasel, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3The difference is the amount of people willing to back such an agenda. In the world of western politics, you can't be too far out there, or you eventually get put back in your place.
    • 1aPowerDigger, on 05/13/2008, -3/+11It says RIGHT HERE, that Iran has nukes!

      http://www.ifate.com/fateball.html

      I mean, come ON people! Facts are facts.
      • MxM111, on 05/13/2008, -2/+4No, that would be too unusual for Bush administration to ask something else, outside of the administration about anything. If it not taken out of their collective ass - it does not count.
      • cupid311, on 05/13/2008, -0/+5He's right, I asked the almighty fateball as well. It said "It is Decidedly So". What are we going to do!?!?
      • bjornski, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Reagan would have called Jeanne Dixon for clarification. God just tells George directly.
      • flaknugget, on 05/14/2008, -2/+2You have nukes, Pakistan has nukes, Saudi Arabia, Israel, China, Iran, India, North Korea, Russia, Egypt, Libya, England, France, Germany... so ya, why not just wipe them all out right? That ought to fix everything.

        Oh ya, and beware of Iran's power-boat technology too... they're gonna get'cha.
    • stix213, on 05/13/2008, -11/+7The war isn't going to expand into Iran, other than the possibility of a short term air offensive.
      • ad33lshahid, on 05/13/2008, -4/+14you think a "short term air offensive" wont trigger iran into responding against americans elsewhere like iraq?
        • widman, on 05/13/2008, -3/+9Iran has a very well prepared army. And very well prepared to get to Iraq and take it over from USA if need to. It would be way too expensive for USA with $4M a rocket pop, double if you consider the infrastructure costs.
          • StGhurka, on 05/13/2008, -7/+3You're dreaming. Iran has no ability to project power into Iraq. If they tried to move troops into Iraqi territory, those troops would be quickly wiped out.

            I'm shocked that there are people who are smart enough to type that really believe that Iran would have any chance at all.
          • ad33lshahid, on 05/13/2008, -3/+5Iran has every ability to project power into Iraq. You think the Iraqis would rather be ruled by a occupational american force? They would WELCOME Iran's help in ousting the americans. The mistake people like you make is that you think Iraqis WANT america there-- even after 5 years of bloody war you still havent figured out that they dont.
          • StGhurka, on 05/14/2008, -2/+4@ad33lshahid

            Baghdad Bob, is that you? I think you're letting your fantasy-world slip out. The Iranian government would be toppled in very short order and they know it full well. They'd have no way to fend off a modern air force, no way to fend off missile attacks. They have nothing that can fight off Abrams tanks. Iran couldn't even finish off Saddam's army - which the US destroyed in a matter of days.

            Iran is a lot more vulnerable than you think. Those oil rigs and pipelines look like mighty tempting targets. Where would Tehran be without its oil revenues? If I were choosing targets, those would be my second targets right after the air defenses are taken out

            "You think the Iraqis would rather be ruled by a occupational american force? "

            You think they'd prefer IRANIAN overlords? You think the Sunni's would put up with that? You think the Kurds would?

            The Iraqi's who are inclined to fight against American and allied forces are already doing it and they're looking pretty feeble lately. I know it breaks your heart, but the insurgency has pretty much failed. Your team lost. Get over it.
          • bjornski, on 05/14/2008, -4/+3@StGhurka

            The "their team/our team" mentality that you display above is the root of 90% of the problems we're dealing with right now, on both foreign and domestic fronts.
        • stix213, on 05/14/2008, -1/+6No I don't think it would. I think the Iranian leadership is far too smart to want to fight an all out conventional war with the US. Give the US a chance to battle test all those MOAB bombs we never got to try out back in 03? Potentially put the Muslim world on the US's side due to an Iranian invasion of their neighbor?

          The media reports that the US military is "stretched thin" fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the truth is we have plenty of troops stationed elsewhere in the world and most of our troops already fighting effectively have Iran already surrounded! The Iraqi government can declare marshal law temporarily while US troops in Iraq are redirected against invading Iranian forces. Iran knows that.

          In addition, it is the Army and Marine Corps. that are busy in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the US Navy and Air Force actually don't have much to do over there right now, and have plenty of unused ordinance if Iran really wants to fight. Plus, if the ***** really hits the fan and Iran wanted to fight, Iran knows that we can still conscript another million troops on a moments notice.

          No no no, Iran doesn't want to lose their little Islamic Republic just yet. If they are air striked they will just take it and complain all day and night. They will try to shoot down US planes with their's, but get crushed. They will have their proxy Hesbolah attack Israel at the same time just to stir the pot, but they will not respond with a full military assault.

          Iran fought Iraq to a near stalemate back in the 80's and twice the US has kicked Iraqi military's ass without flinching. Don't think that the Iranian leadership hasn't noticed.
          • bjornski, on 05/14/2008, -3/+1Conscript another million troops on a moments notice? What are you smoking? Yeah, we don't have ANY problem getting a draft going. NO problems with that at all. We saw how easy it was last time it was tried.

            And Iraq will take 6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months. They'll throw flowers at our feet and greet us as liberators. The war will pay for itself.

            Don't get you sick of falling for the lies?
          • stix213, on 05/14/2008, -0/+4bjornski

            I'm not sure what your argument is as to why it would be impossible to draft 1,000,000 solders in the US if that is what it came to? For a country of over 300,000,000 people that is not very many (0.3%).

            If a draft were to take effect it would take less than a month to determine who is drafted and provide orders as to where to go. Then another 15 weeks for our current basic training (more depending on what they will be doing). So, approximately 5 months before a drafted force would be battle ready.

            Most people who were drafted for Vietnam actually reported for duty, so getting 1,000,000 people to report will not be a problem if it came to that.

            But like I said before... It is NOT going to happen because the Iranians may be crazy, but they are certainly not stupid.
      • MattB123, on 05/13/2008, -5/+17And then it's "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"! It can't fail!
        • yingjai, on 05/13/2008, -3/+3it always starts with Mission Accomplished, then it goes backwards. haven't you seen that episode of colbert report?
      • publiclurker, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2And their follow up of a huge volley or two of anti ship missiles against our aircraft carriers.
        • bjornski, on 05/14/2008, -2/+3Don't forget their stockpile of Sunburns. And I think they probably have a LITTLE bit more Russian tech than we realize.

          And what would we do when Russia OPENLY starts arming Iran after our first strike? Or China?

          This is a MUCH bigger playing field than most people imagine. Iran isn't some bombed-out backwater like Iraq was.
    • thebaron2, on 05/13/2008, -3/+7Check the source-
      http://www.CAMPAIGNIRAN.org/

      And from the article:
      “A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was canceled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran."

      They're talking about a specific group of weapons that were set to be detonated in front of reporters. It doesn't say *anything* about the original of weapons or explosives in general, just about this particular group. I wouldn't freak out quite out yet.
      • thebaron2, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Crap...

        "...*anything* about the ORIGIN of weapons or explosives in general..."
    • Calcularius, on 05/13/2008, -7/+11It's all part of the NEOCON strategy. LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE then briefly, quietly and only once say you were wrong.
      Then 9 out of 10 Fox News junkies will think, remember and repeat it as the truth.
      Just like Obama is a Muslim and the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq.
      • 5urr3al5am, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1He does have Muslim blood, his father and grandfather... actually his grandfather became Muslim and added the Hussien to his name... his father.. married and divorced like ten times.. oh and OBama was born to a women out of wedlock while OBama's father was married to some one else.. that makes him a bastard.

        Oh and there were terrorist training camps located in the mountains of Iraq -- but you're wrong.. they never said that Iraqi terrorists were part of 9/11
    • diggingaround, on 05/14/2008, -4/+2False flag event is coming...
    • IKORKYI, on 05/14/2008, -1/+5all it said was those weapons weren't from Iran, not all the weapons they have claimed were from Iran.
      • bjornski, on 05/14/2008, -3/+1And it's very easy to believe that many of the other weapons shipments "from Iran" actually weren't either.

        But then maybe the NeoCons are right. This was the ONE weapons shipment that they said was from Iran that actually wasn't. One in a million!

        Absolutely tired of the ***** and lies. I don't believe a ***** word this administration says anymore, about anything.
  • Wacer, on 05/13/2008, -59/+25The story and comments on this site reach almost cultist proportions.
    • CryRightardCry, on 05/13/2008, -13/+52Yeah, the cult of being disgusted by Bush administration lies.
    • yellowcakewalk, on 05/13/2008, -11/+29Don't forget the cult of being disgusted by those bootlickers that still lap up Bush lies.
    • Ne007, on 05/13/2008, -15/+6cult this cult that....cult cult cult......***** YOU!
    • fluoro, on 05/13/2008, -7/+28Yeah, the cult of democratically voted upon stories?
      • akamurph, on 05/13/2008, -20/+12Look at the stories voted upon! Obama this! Obama this! USA sucks! Obama this!
        It's not hard to see it's a site with plenty of liberal kiddies.
        • RonBurgundy76, on 05/13/2008, -10/+19That's probably because reality has a liberal bias.
        • 10lbhammer, on 05/13/2008, -7/+15then just ***** go somewhere else akamurph! nobody's making you read or comment!
        • swrostmore, on 05/13/2008, -9/+11Democrats are turning out in the Primary 2:1 over Republicans, and you're supposed to be surprised that a website where the majority determines what shows up on the front page happens to feature articles about the Democratic frontrunner? Wait, that makes too much sense - it must be some kind of librull conspiracy!
        • masterm1nd, on 05/13/2008, -10/+7That's probably because liberal doesn't have a reality bias.
          • bjornski, on 05/13/2008, -2/+10You stretched pretty hard to reach for that one. And it was still stupid.
          • RonBurgundy76, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2Most of his posts are, bjornski. Most of mine probably are, too, for that matter.
          • CryRightardCry, on 05/14/2008, -3/+2LOL
            Yeah, the GOP worldview over the last 7 years has be deadly accurate.
            The Bush administration has been 100% in their predictions, right?
            What a dumb ***** you are if you think any believes your rightard crap.
            Do you get a check when you try to lie and pretend we live in the bizarro world?
            I honestly can't think of any other reason someone would intentionally be so dishonest.
            Do you REALLY think anyone does anything with your comments other than LAUGH at them?
            After all this time cheerleading for failure you'd think you'd finally be able to recognize it.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2Crytard, I never said or implied any of that. Thats never stopped you from running with it, I guess. My comment has no more value and is no more wrong or right than ron burgandy's similar comment. The fact that I'm at -7 and he's at +8 only disproves his comment and supports mine in the context of digg being biased (akamurph's comment)
    • masterm1nd, on 05/13/2008, -10/+8You guys can say democracy this, popular that. But it boils down to diggs demographic being 10 to 1 liberal. Not reality having a liberal bias lol.
      • WiseWeasel, on 05/14/2008, -2/+7It's populist, not liberal. Information that seems socially and individually beneficial gets promoted, while antisocial, coercive or divisive information is buried. The same bias is evident in all social media. If you can find a way to appeal to social consciousness or individual empowerment, then your ideas will be promoted and spread. Otherwise, you will fail to reach a wide audience.

        If Digg is so liberal, how do you account for the love-fest for Ron Paul we saw here last fall? Maybe you're just confusing being politically liberal with not being a neoconservative tool? If so, then it's got to be way over 10:1 "liberal"...
      • CryRightardCry, on 05/14/2008, -3/+2You can pretend that all you like.
        Since you are so comfortable lying to yourself you might even believe it someday.
        But I doubt it.
        As a matter of fact, i bet in real life you don't DARE talk the ignorant rightard talk.
    • smoothdogg00, on 05/13/2008, -7/+5/agree

      Because people here just won't stop posting anti-Bush and pro-Obama comments and stories.
    • ClosedCaption, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2@ smooth...maybe because ppl are anti-Bush and Pro Obama?
  • michael532111, on 05/13/2008, -25/+81I no longer believe anything coming out of the White House or the Pentagon. They have lied so consistently, it's probably more accurate to believe the exact opposite of whatever they say. Truth means nothing to them.
    • noahhoward, on 05/13/2008, -12/+18So then you believe the weapons ARE from Iran?
      • RonBurgundy76, on 05/13/2008, -6/+14So what if they were? What are we gonna do about it? Nothing. Iran is a far more capable foe than Iraq ever was.
        • Railz, on 05/13/2008, -2/+9You know we won the Military war in Iraq in little under 3 days. Its the political unrest and idiocy of removing the one real leader they had that keeps us there.
          • WiseWeasel, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3There is no such thing as a separate "mlitary war" and what we're currently doing in Iraq. It's all one war, and establishing a stable country to replace the old regime is necessarily one of the main objectives of the war. Knowledgeable military analysts always expected to need more resources to maintain stability in Iraq than it would take to bring down Saddam, often by an order of magnitude. The criticism is still valid, as bombing Iranian infrastructure is not going to resolve the alleged problem with Iran unless you can maintain widespread control after the fact.
          • Railz, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I'm fairly positive that, if it comes to thank (which I hope it doesn't with all my heart), caring for their government won't even be a priority for us.
        • masterm1nd, on 05/13/2008, -13/+6Iran is still nothing compared to the US on paper. It takes many men to police Iraq. It only takes one pilot to neutralize Iran.
          • bjornski, on 05/13/2008, -2/+4So a pre-emptive nuclear first-strike?

            Real good thinking there, ace. There won't be any repercussions to that. None at all.

            Or are you trying to speed up this whole "let's bring back Jebus" *****?
          • masterm1nd, on 05/14/2008, -8/+1straw, man.
        • yingjai, on 05/13/2008, -2/+9the question should not be if US is capable of taking down Iran. that's just saying, if i have the power, then i guess i'll bully you. the question should be is there a REASON to attack iran. and not just false reasons that the white house gives.
        • HoratioHellpop, on 05/13/2008, -6/+4Er ... Iran would be steamrolled in maybe a week or two, at most. Your concept of the military might of the US vs. other countries is astoundingly poor.
          • bjornski, on 05/13/2008, -1/+7And Iraq will take 6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months. And it will pay for itself. Mission accomplished!

            Do you think the war would be "over" after a few weeks of air-strikes? Was Iraq? Are we out yet? *looks at the headlines* Looks like we're a long way from "winning", whatever that means this week.

            Don't you feel stupid falling for these lies over and over?
          • HoratioHellpop, on 05/14/2008, -1/+0Don't you feel stupid for completely missing the point? I was speaking in MILITARY OBJECTIVES ... controlling the country AFTER the objectives are accomplished is a different topic ... one which, in Iraq, was botched, no question.
          • RonBurgundy76, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2Er... sorry to burst your bubble, but I was in the military. I know very well how capable we are. If we want to beat them down, we can. Maintaining control there, however, would be nearly impossible. Hell, we can't even keep the Iraqis under control.

            If we go to war with Iran, it had damn well better be a different war than what we are doing in Iraq or we will lose at a cost in lives that will make Iraq look like a drop in the bucket.
          • mem2, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Dont give Hora the time of day, he is just a maladjusted troll (clueless to boot).
      • Terr01, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Only if you're cherrypicking instead of averaging.
    • anillop, on 05/13/2008, -3/+5In the White House every day is opposite day.
    • CajunDigg, on 05/13/2008, -11/+6Soooo you'd rather believe Iran? You are more than a little naive.
      • publiclurker, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4I'd say being correct is a LOT more than naive.
      • Bodhinature, on 05/14/2008, -0/+6More "If your not with us, your with the enemy" talk. Heard it! Dugg down, bitch.
    • Calcularius, on 05/13/2008, -0/+6It's all part of the NEOCON strategy. LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE then briefly, quietly and only once say you were wrong.
      Then 9 out of 10 Fox News junkies will think, remember and repeat it as the truth.
      Just like Obama is a Muslim and the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq.
  • someguyouknow, on 05/13/2008, -18/+19But didn't Pres. Bush just say that they were?.....

    Wait... nvm. F***, I hope the American people don't fall for it again.
    • mzx639, on 05/13/2008, -10/+1So you are smarter then the American people? haha....
    • CajunDigg, on 05/13/2008, -7/+4Yeah, go get'em someguy. WHO does Bush think he is keeping us safe for these last 7 years. Maybe the next Pres will do "better" in your book. If we bleed a little maybe the world will love us more.
      • cupid311, on 05/13/2008, -2/+3And by "keeping us safe" you mean sending over thousands of troops to Iraq to fight in a war. Not having enough military staffed or being fast enough to respond to a natural disaster, spying on it's own citizens, proposing the Federal Government reduce spending on local law enforcement nation wide, the list goes on and on..... Yeah i feel really safe.
  • Yage2006, on 05/13/2008, -8/+37Good thing you did not invade them and find this out later hehe .
    • Anonchrist, on 05/13/2008, -5/+13Will I be called a libtard for mentioning Iraq?
      • ad33lshahid, on 05/13/2008, -6/+3its ok we will still invade
      • masterm1nd, on 05/13/2008, -9/+6Typical libtard. WMD is one of dozens of factors. And you can't prove WMD were never there like you can prove something was not made somewhere.
        • bjornski, on 05/13/2008, -2/+7You're right. You can't prove they were never there. The proof would lie on the side that they WERE there. And "We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat" just isn't reason enough to invade anymore.

          It was a lie. One of many. In fact, almost every single excuse we've been given for "liberating" Iraq has been shown to be a lie.

          It sure sounds like you're all amped up to invade Iran because "they can't prove the weapons weren't there".

          Except it's up to the job of the attackers to prove they were. And so far, that's not working too well.

          More lies.

          But you cheer on your "team", MM. They'll keep you safe from the brown people.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/14/2008, -4/+2Straw, man. I never once advocated the invasion.

            "But you cheer on your "team", MM. They'll keep you safe from the brown people."

            more hypocrisy and strawman
  • trollick, on 05/13/2008, -8/+17Damn it! I really thought it was a slam dunk this time.
    • tucsonsun13, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2Instead of two slam dunks we've had a) a miss-timed alley-oop and b) a technical foul
  • HencheMann, on 05/13/2008, -34/+11HA! Never let something small, like, THE TRUTH, ever get in the way of a good war! IRAN IS GOING DOWN! Godspeed ye o' holy crusader!
    Johnny Mac 2008!
    Obama? YO MAMA!
    • RonBurgundy76, on 05/13/2008, -7/+9*****. You.
      • HencheMann, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1NOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo....

        ...sheesh! Lighten up people!
  • imofirey, on 05/13/2008, -12/+36We are such dicks... seriously
    • Buzzbean, on 05/13/2008, -7/+11Speak for yourself.
    • centerblack, on 05/13/2008, -2/+10At *least* we're organized.

      ..oh wait...
      "In contrast, the Pentagon in August 2007 admitted that it had lost track of a third of the weapons distributed to the Iraqi security forces in 2004/2005. The 190,000 assault rifles and pistols roam free in Iraqi streets today."

      MISSION COMPLETE
      • WiredLain, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3It was a huge mistake to take away small arms (rifles and pistols) from the civilian populace in the first place. With them they would have had some chance of self defense instead of relying entirely on the U.S. or Iraq military.
        • bjornski, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4Many of them ARE defending themselves and their home from the invaders.

          We call them "insurgents".

          And if another country invaded and occupied the US, I'd expect a few of these 2nd amendment rights nuts to become a version of them too.
          • centerblack, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3No doubt. It's really depends on the peoples perceptions though...

            From the 1st person accounts I've read, there are at least two groups of "insurgents", one pro-usa one anti-usa and they're basically fighting each other for territory... the citizens mostly want to be left alone. Imagine that.
        • centerblack, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Maybe... arming a populace whose allegiance is questionable sounds like a bad idea to me. That and I'm pretty sure we're more worried about our guys not getting shot by some guy who we decided not to disarm.
      • WTFppl, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3@centerblack - "we're more worried about our guys not getting shot by some guy who we decided not to disarm"
        Or some guy who's daughter and five family members we decided to blow up!
        • centerblack, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1:-(

          Despite the desensitization to violence, dehumanization of the enemy and devaluation of life that I would imagine takes place to some extent on the battlefield, I don't believe any mentally sane soldier would just "decide" to blow up a guy and his family for the ***** of it. I don't really think it's an accurate depiction of the average U.S. soldier. Not the ones I know anyway.

          War isn't clean, especially when you're in a situation where the people aren't necessarily aligned with the government or the military. That's why war should be an absolute last resort when you're given no other options... not a policy of preemptive aggression.
  • vikingdiplomat, on 05/13/2008, -8/+48now the question is: who will they be trying to put the blame on next, if not Iran?
    • willskillz, on 05/13/2008, -3/+13probably Syria or China.
    • fluoro, on 05/13/2008, -3/+36They'll keep trying to blame Iran, but for something else. This is just the latest piece of "evidence" that didn't work out for them. But after publicly failing like 5 times to provide the evidence, if they suddenly come up with something that can't easily be -proven- wrong then they'll claim it to be true and will try to push for an attack. They really, really want to attack Iran.
      • GhostyBoy, on 05/13/2008, -4/+4Iran is part of the master plan, just like Iraq was. America is an empire looking to invade it's next target, and it needs something to sell to the people to make it happen.
      • Tommyhawk, on 05/13/2008, -4/+4They won't have to make something up. What will happen is we will keep ramping up our presence there until an incident is inevitable. We just sent another aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf. That makes 2 in the region and we "only" have 11 for god sakes. Then all they have to do is say "look we got attacked". It will be the Gulf of Tonkin all over again.
    • coresnake, on 05/13/2008, -10/+7Pakistan if Obama is elected (he threatened to nuke them)
      • bjornski, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Citation and context, please?
      • moonlessrat, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1what the ***** are you babbling about??
    • tendonut, on 05/13/2008, -4/+11Some place with a huge stockpile of oil I presume. That is, if history repeats itself.

      Needless to say, you'll never find heavy US occupation in African countries. All they have is genocide and *****. You can't make a profit of genocide.
    • DrWho520, on 05/13/2008, -0/+5That article describes one cache of weapons that was described by an Iraqi general as Iranian in origin. When US weapons experts determined they were not, it was announced they were not.
    • wolfkeeper, on 05/13/2008, -4/+2If not Iran, then Iran.

      They don't have to have done anything, the administration just has to make wild accusations that aren't provably wrong until after Gulf war III/disaster/invasion/WWIII is over.
    • lhbaker, on 05/13/2008, -4/+3Iran is planning on converting its oil market to the Euro, in which case the Dollar will be seriously devalued. This isn't about weapons, or training, or nukes, or anything else. It's about defending the value of the already weakened Dollar. Iraq converted its market to the Euro in 2000, and look what happened to them.

      Google 'Iran Oil Bourse' for more.
      • dkapuchino, on 05/13/2008, -3/+3When will you ***** propagandists realize that the US has more oil reserves than we could ever take from the middle east. It never was about oil. It's all about global stability, and the fact that Isalmic terrorism is a global threat, that will only grow if ignored.
        • lhbaker, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2Google what I suggested. This has nothing to do with terrorism. Just Google it. Please.
    • WTFppl, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Londoners or maybe your fellow Statesmen.
  • BigManOnCampus, on 05/13/2008, -11/+25Made in Japan, Made in Taiwan, doesn't matter. What matters is who sold them.
  • kalvinb, on 05/13/2008, -2/+10Direct link to source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008 ...
  • samk, on 05/13/2008, -12/+58The LATimes article just says that the arms cache recently found in Karbala wasn't made in Iran. It's quite a leap to conclude that no arms found in Iraq were made in Iran.
    • vexingmodstwo, on 05/13/2008, -20/+17Shhh... These morons don't like facts.
      • arplayer2k, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2How about who cares because the US is the biggest manufacturer of Arms in the world? I mean even if Iran made some of the weapons, chances are there are more US weapons in Iraq than Iranian made.......... RIGHT?
    • Wargalas, on 05/13/2008, -17/+22That fact seems to be lost on Digg users and Keith Olbermann. I guess if one weapons cache was thought to be from Iran and found to be not, then they ALL must not be from Iran right? Idiots.
    • ad33lshahid, on 05/13/2008, -11/+15alot of weapons floating around the world are made by US...
      • vexingmodstwo, on 05/13/2008, -8/+15... and that doesn't really change anything samk said.
        • masterm1nd, on 05/13/2008, -4/+11He knows, just trying to put the blame back where he wants it.
        • kanabiis, on 05/13/2008, -1/+11Your right, facts are facts...

          I do believe that pointing it out allows one to put things into perspective....

          That being said, the moment I can be shown proof positive that the weapons being used against US soldiers in Iraq, by anyone, came directly from the State of Iran with government participation, I will be in the front of the line to sign the petition to do what it takes to cease those actions.

          Until then, I will meet any rabble rousing with clear direct opposition. Diplomacy never works under direct threat. Thats the great thing
          we learned from high school, you never ever stop a fight by talking ***** to eachother, the outcome is always the same, violence.

          I expect my leaders to be a little more mature then some punks down the street..... you should too.
          • masterm1nd, on 05/13/2008, -3/+5Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not the first time we've found Iranian weapons. This is however, the first time we've been proven wrong about it. And we weren't even wrong. The Iraqi's that gave them to us said they were Iranian and when we looked at them we saw they were not.
          • kanabiis, on 05/13/2008, -3/+2Did you even read what I said.....

            I never disputed the origins of the weapons....

            Nobody has shown me proof that any Iranian weapons were purchased from the Iranian Government.... thats what Im saying.

          • masterm1nd, on 05/13/2008, -4/+4Well theres plenty of proof that says Iran is killing our soldiers. Not sure what else you need. Not advocating a war, but it's not something you can just look the other way or let happen.
          • kanabiis, on 05/13/2008, -4/+2Ummmm Iran, or Iranians? There is no proof of State Sponsored attacks on American soldiers by Iran, or there would be a war....... and justified at that.

            I have absolute proof that 17 Saudi Arabians killed 3000 American innocent civilians, 7 years ago... where is your drumbeat for Saudi Arabia??

          • Nevarius, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2And some odd reason funding/supplies coming up from Saudi Arabia is ignored.
          • kanabiis, on 05/14/2008, -2/+2I am actually being dugg down for stating the fact that proof of the Iranian state being directly responsible for attacks on American soldiers in Iraq does not exsist?

            Are you serious? Are there really that many Digg readers who are really this misinformed?
          • Wargalas, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3@Kanabiis

            Here's the proof you seek.

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1542559/ ...
    • zbrojovka, on 05/13/2008, -11/+12Agreed!!! I know for a fact there are weapons over there with Iranian markings on them. I have friends over there who have personally seen the weapon caches with their own eyes. Even if Iran didn't provide the weapons directly themselves they are using low life black market people to do it. And yes, the USA has done the exact same thing over and over again. We ourselves have provided weapons to foreign entities in hopes things would be swayed in a more favorable US direction. Iran or any other country would do the same. This article only points out the close minded liberals point of view that everything is black and white.
      • MixMastaKooz, on 05/13/2008, -1/+5What are these Iranian markings? I don't want to diminish your friends' service to our country, I just find it astounding that you would know men in the military that know Persian (unless they're in a super elite, secret regiment). Now, if it was some sort of general arabic/middle eastern writing, could they translate it or do they automatically attribute it to Iran?
        • kanabiis, on 05/13/2008, -4/+8Oh you know Iranian markings, just like on TV. Every American soldier is trained to distinguish the difference between Iranian Arabic and Saudi Arabian Arabic, its easy, its like telling the difference between Kentukian and Coloradioan, from say New Yorkian, except those guys from New York, write it more like New Yawkian. you know.

          I know this for a fact, I live in Colorado Springs, and there are like army guys living here too, and sometimes I see them driving around.
          • dkapuchino, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3Iranians speak Persian idiot.
          • kanabiis, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2I was being sarcastic..... don't know how many clues I could have thrown in there for you.
          • lhbaker, on 05/14/2008, -3/+1dkapuchio: No they don't. They speak Arabic, which makes you the idiot.
          • Viend, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2lhbaker: You called him an idiot and tried to disprove him even though he is right.

            That makes YOU the idiot.
        • publiclurker, on 05/13/2008, -3/+1Easy, it said "MAID IN IRAN" on them in purple crayon.
    • themonkman, on 05/13/2008, -5/+8The statement that "This doesn't mean there are no weapons in Iraq that were made in Iran" is incredibly vapid. I'm sure there's weapons made from all over the world in Iraq. Guns, grenades, etc from Russia, China, the US, Germany, Italy, etc. Iraq likely doesn't have the resources to produce it's own weapons. What is important is how the weapons are getting to Iraq. Have they been there for decades? Are they new? Were they smuggled or were they purchased by the government or licensed weapon dealers? Had there been any laws restricting who dealers could buy weapons from or what country of origin they have?

      What would count as proof to me of Iranian interference and supplying of weapons would be to catch them in the act of a weapons trade or sale. Secondly to make a case for military action you would have to prove to me that the government of Iran was somehow involved, either actively or by clandestine means. If it wasn't by the government, then what you need to have is a police action and cooperation with the countries authorities to crack down on the illegal arm smuggling. That is how we catch smugglers and illegal arms dealers in the US and abroad. A sting operation is one of the only ways to prove such a thing in court and that is the only way you will know for sure. Requiring anything less to draw up a case for war is pure warmongering or creating a deceitful war that has a totally different aim or purpose from what is being declared to the public.

      To make the case for war with Iran based off of weapons that may have been manufactured in Iran and found in Iraq is preposterous and irresponsible. That's like making a case to go to war with Germany because there are German made VW's on the road and sometimes they kill people. See how ridiculous that statement becomes?
      • themonkman, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2If your going to digg me down, at least have the testicular fortitude of arguing your point.
      • zbrojovka, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I agree 100% with your statements sir. This is by no means a meaning for war, but does require some serious action and cooperation with multiple entities.
    • skews13, on 05/13/2008, -5/+5exactly. my nephew is there, and has seen those iranian markings with his own eyes, but hey, a news reporter looking to sell papers i'm sure has better information than a soldier holding one in his hands. couple that with a bunch of braindead pacifists ho don't believe there is ever a good time to defend yourself, and there you go. a half ass story, based on halfass information, from a half ass news reporter, working for a half ass newspaper, repeated on the internet, by bunch of halfass sissy geeks.
      • lhbaker, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2What is an Iranian marking? Could your nephew send a photo?
    • fyten, on 05/13/2008, -3/+2It also said that this weapons cache wasn't from Iran because an Iranian official said they weren't. Not an unbiased source.
    • boner79, on 05/13/2008, -4/+4A good friend of mine just got back from his second deployment to Iraq and says that it's a matter of fact that Iran is providing the brains and training behind a fair amount of the IED technology the Iraqis are employing to blow up our troops. This finding that a particular weapons cache in Iraq didn't originate from Iran doesn't change anything but will give K.O. and Arianna Huffington their talking points for the next few days. It's too bad since I'm on their side most of the time too.
      • publiclurker, on 05/13/2008, -3/+3They also said it was a matter of fact that weapons of mass destruction existed. Repeating opinions loud and often does not make them facts.
    • lhbaker, on 05/13/2008, -4/+3They were about to parade the press past these weapons, but experts pointed out the error. For all the nieces and nephews who've seen these weapons, it's remarkable that none have been shown to the press, don't you think? And do you really want to go to war with Iran over this? We supply weapons all around the world.
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1They have announced that they have captured Iranian weapons a dozen times and every time it has turned out to be a lie.

      I'm still waiting for any proof at all.
  • germ5150, on 05/13/2008, -18/+21This is a false article from linking a Press release from a Pro-Iranian organization. I would love to actually find something real and damning about the Bush administration but this is just a pack of lies from an obviously biased source. How does this make the front page? I sure miss the days when Digg was full of liberal but critical thinkers. :(
    • dswinscoe, on 05/14/2008, -2/+2do you want to provide the missing evidence as refutation? After reading, " The US, which until two weeks ago had never provided any proof for its allegations, finally handed over its "evidence" of the Iranian origin of these weapons to the Iraqi government ... Consequently the Iraqi government announced that there is no hard evidence against Iran," I am very keenly interested in any evidence you can provide for your claims.
      • TheSuperunknown, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3What? You don't provide evidence of no evidence, that's not how this works. In fact that argument is what got us into Iraq. germ5150 is right, Digg has been going nuts over any article that claims to have damning proof against the administration but does nothing to verify the source or its legitimacy. I would like to see something solid, but this--and the dozens of dubious submissions before it--are not it.

        I'd also add that the MSM would indeed be all over something like this. That kind of story is too much to just sit on and to think otherwise requires buying into some elaborate media conspiracy that says they won't run stories that would attract huge audiences.
        • dswinscoe, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1great name SuperUnknown ... totally apropos. This article says that despite the administartion's CONTINUOUS propaganda, including a hugely failed grandstand demonstration that blew up in their face as Iraqis pissed on their parade and told them point blank "those aren't Iranian weapons," THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS. Was that clear enough, or do you just want to keep on with the Bush apologetics. And not to burst your bubble, the MSM has nearly zero credibility, after DoD infiltrations, so stop waiting for any major revelations on that front.
  • Picaroon, on 05/13/2008, -10/+7I hope that this is a trend that continues. Iran arming Iraqi insurgents puts the US and coalition forces in a tough position--doing nothing about it isn't good, but neither is militarily striking out against yet another country.
    • RonBurgundy76, on 05/13/2008, -6/+8A country that could probably run us out of the Middle East if they were really determined to do so.
    • masterm1nd, on 05/13/2008, -5/+6Haha, that was about as fair and balanced comment as you could get and it gets buried.
  • Anonchrist, on 05/13/2008, -7/+20Good thing Hillary never threatened to nuke their civilian population and the refuse to retract the statement.
    • RyanB18, on 05/13/2008, -1/+9She said she would nuke them only in retaliation of a nuclear attack on Israel, get your facts straight.
      • pintomp3, on 05/13/2008, -5/+5does that go for every country? why isn't she making that threat to china or russia?
        • RyanB18, on 05/13/2008, -0/+6Because China or Russia didn't say that they would wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
        • bjornski, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3Hillary was only talking about using nukes to defend the people she takes her orders from.

          I don't see Russia or China threatening to attack "God's Chosen People®".
        • mitikomon, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2because China and Russia actually have nuke.
    • wolfkeeper, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4Who cares? She's not going to be in charge.
  • IphtashuFitz, on 05/13/2008, -4/+15I'd really be interested in knowing where the weapons the Iraqis are using are coming from. It wouldn't surprise me if some are in fact coming from Iran, but it also wouldn't surprise me if some are coming from Russia and other countries. Hell, thanks to the way our government does things it wouldn't surprise me if some of it was US made as well. It's happened before... But it'd take an independent third party investigation for me to trust any reports as to the origins. I certainly don't trust the Bush administration.
    • pintomp3, on 05/13/2008, -3/+2maybe they are using the weapons we gave them to fight iran.
  • ePuck, on 05/13/2008, -16/+12Good thing Iran doesn't have any enriched uranium or plutonium either. Oh wait..nvm
    • yosserhughes, on 05/13/2008, -2/+4They don't. You must be thinking of Israel, easy mistake they both begin with the same letter.
  • bigsteve, on 05/13/2008, -12/+15Record this URL, remember it. Keep a favorites folder or something. With all the BS that surrounded the Iraq war over the past few years, they have weapons, they don't, they were involved with 9/11, they weren't, they were in talks with Bin Laden, they weren't, yada yada... the internet allowed people to make their own evidence trail; links to information releases, links to reversals. It was hard to start doing it mid-way, so when I started seeing the writing on the wall with strife building between US and Iran, I started building such a trail, and this will make a fine piece of it.

    To this day I still hear people saying Sadam had some role in 9/11. They're few and far between but those people are still out there. So it's nice to have a link to their leader saying otherwise just a click and an email away...
    • egeo2000, on 05/13/2008, -4/+6I do the same thing, post any links to good stories on Facebook for others and save the text on my external hard drive.
    • mzx639, on 05/13/2008, -7/+4And so why did congress, including all of the idiot libs, give Bush the go ahead for the war in Iraq? He couldn't do it alone, so tell me why the congress allowed that to happen?
      • swrostmore, on 05/13/2008, -2/+6The majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the authorization to use force - and that was AFTER the aggressive propaganda campaign to get them to believe Saddam had WMDs.
        • mzx639, on 05/13/2008, -4/+2Haha, you are funny...and a naive, uninformed idiot.
        • floorman56, on 05/13/2008, -3/+2The majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the authorization to use force
          Then why did these amendments fail?
          The Spratt Amendment
          Required U.N. Security Council authorization for any use of force against Iraq. In the event that the Security Council would not authorize use of force, the President would be required to come back to Congress for a second vote before acting unilaterally. Sponsored by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC).

          Defeated 155 - 270.


          The Lee Amendment
          Urged the President to work through the United Nations to resolve the dispute peacefully. Sponsored by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).

          Defeated 72 - 355.[5]


          Amendments Offered to the Senate Resolution

          The Byrd Amendment
          Affirmed that no additional constitutional authority was being ceded to the President outside of that necessary to deal with the threat posed by Iraq Sponsored by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV)

          Defeated 14 - 86.


          The Levin Amendment
          Urged to U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding that Iraq grant immediate and unconditional access to U.N. weapons inspectors. Authorized U.S. use of force only if Iraq failed to comply with the U.N. resolution. Sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)

          Defeated 24 - 75.


          The Durbin Amendment
          Restricted the use of force authorization to cover only an immediate threat from Iraq rather than a continuing threat. Sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).

          Defeated 30 - 70.

          • swrostmore, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2Good point, many amendments attempting to avoid war were suggested by Democrats, and many Democrats voted for amendments attempting to avoid war.
      • MidnightRealism, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3Flawed intelligence or a campaign of misinformation. Either way, saying it's their fault is ridiculous.
    • thebaron2, on 05/13/2008, -0/+6Come on... it's from campaigniran.org - that's like posting a supportive article of Bush from whitehouse.gov.

      There are plenty of real things to be pissed about, and there's no way anyone's gonna let Bush hit another country before the election. They'd have to nuke us for the citizenry to get that pissed, and even then 1/2 the people would probably think it was an inside job.
  • Ne007, on 05/13/2008, -12/+15I don't expect any announcement of who actually DID supply the weapons. You know why? Because George W. doesn't give a ***** who they belong to, he just wants to attack Iran!

    I'd have more respect for them if they told us they were going to attack them for their oil!
    • mzx639, on 05/13/2008, -4/+9"Everyone" always says the oil, the oil....wasn't that we attacked Iraq too?? We should be paying pennies for a gallon of gas, what happened??
      • swrostmore, on 05/13/2008, -3/+9Aww, he thought we invaded Iraq to make gas CHEAPER...lol, naivete is so endearing.
        • mzx639, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2Are you responding to me?? haha, if you think I thought the US attacked Iraq for the oil, you have your head up your a$$! Read my response again, I was implying that oil had NOTHING to do with our decision to go to war with Iraq, and if you think it did, tell me just how the US is profiting from the oil in Iraq? Oh, let me guess, you think the US went to war with Iraq to cause an oil shortage, and then that way the price would go up, and the oil companies, and all of the hands involved would make a killing, so to speak, is that the theory?? You Diggtards never cease to amaze me how uniformed, naive and idiotic you are.
          • Ne007, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1You have no sense of the military industrial complex. Look it up.

            People get put in positions of power in the government in order to turn favors for certain companies. Once out of those positions of power then they get rewarded with big salaries for doing nothing.

            It's not the U.S. that's profiting from the oil in Iraq it's Big Oil companies that are....and eventually the government officials that made it all possible.

            But why I waste my time on people like you I don't know.
        • mzx639, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Haha, you know what's scary, you actually think you are right. So tell me Mr. "Military Industrial Complex", who are these "People that get put in positions of power in the government". You seem to think you know it all, give me some names, and some proof. And I don't want to hear Cheney, blah, blah...You are a, paranoid, misguided, conspiracy theorist, nothing more. I know this, because if you were privy to even 10% of the information you THINK you know, you would be someone, and you are not.
      • makkaveli19, on 05/13/2008, -2/+4*cough*exxon stocks*cough*
        • mzx639, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1And how exactly does that work? How does the US involvement in Iraq cause in increase in Exxon stock?
      • phufufoo, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2"Oh yeah. Lets go invade a country and kill people so we can save some money for our own country. "
        "I got an better Idea, lets pocket the profits.The people have to buy oil for everything in everyday life anyways."

        So damn naive. You think everyone is trying to do you a favor? When all the people who have their hands in this are done, they will just pocket the cash and move to a nice new neighborhood. Dubai is looking real nice with its robotic jurassic theme park and giant buildings......
        • mzx639, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Great idea, move to Dubai, idiot.
          • phufufoo, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Nah I can't afford. I was talking about the people who got rich off of all this war. They sure as hell can afford it. They have a place to play with all their money when this is all over without looking bad over here.
      • Ne007, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4Are you a dumbass? Do you actually think they attacked Iraq for the betterment of the people? NO! They did it to line their own pockets.

        The reason why oil prices are increasing is BECAUSE the U.S. now has more of a monopoly. The U.S. government handed out no-bid oil contracts to Halliburton and Halliburton is reaping the oil profits like a whore.

        hehe...you actually thought they'd give us the oil for cheap....hahah...DUH!
        • mzx639, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Haha, another Diggtard idiot.
        • Ne007, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Yeh...you got me there...

          You just seem SO highly intelligent with that sort of statement.

          Very well done. I stand corrected.
  • Pstmann, on 05/13/2008, -7/+23We won't be hearing this on Fox news anytime..........ever.
    • mzx639, on 05/13/2008, -11/+3Maybe we will, maybe we won't, but we WILL be hearing reported on every other extreme liberal media outlet, which come to think of it, is ALL of them, except Fox.... sounds fair, huh?
      • Pstmann, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3I think it would be fair if news shows, papers and periodicals actually just show the news and leave the commentary/slant to the editorial page.
        • mzx639, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2That would be fair, but it will never happen.
  • egeo2000, on 05/13/2008, -2/+4So where did they come from and what are we doing to recover the 1/3 of the weapons we gave to the Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005? Thank God we didn't attack Iran over the misinformation or things would be ten times worse for sure.
  • davidg11, on 05/13/2008, -2/+8Sooooo...another case of the Iraqi's providing us critical intelligence which turns out to be false. At least our military refuted their "intelligence" this time.
    • ZenMojo, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1We should have been suspicious at the "MADE IN IRAN" stencils on the sides of the crates.
  • RobotLeAwesome, on 05/13/2008, -5/+1...but this nuke we think we found was!
  • tehjarvis, on 05/13/2008, -5/+8Lies about helping terrorists in our current warzone, conspiracy about possible weapons of mass destruction programs, raising concern about a possible attack on Israel...this all sounds familiar.

    For a really good look into our situation with Iran and what's really going on over there, check out this series of videos with former Marine intelligence officer and U.N. weapons inspector Maj. Scott Ritter and Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh: http://youtube.com/watch?v=4brbS0cl7oc
  • fin01, on 05/13/2008, -9/+15Next thing you know they'll tell us that Iraq didn't take part in 9/11...
    • mzx639, on 05/13/2008, -10/+7Hey Diggtard, WHOEVER SAID IRAQ HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH 9/11?
      • m3th0dm4n, on 05/13/2008, -5/+10Fox News
        • mzx639, on 05/13/2008, -6/+3Yeah, it's all Fox News' fault... you idiot.
      • trollick, on 05/13/2008, -2/+9I think the commenter was using a type of verbal irony known as "sarcasm"
      • swrostmore, on 05/13/2008, -5/+12Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, huge numbers of American idiots
        http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06 ...
        • mzx639, on 05/13/2008, -7/+1The article says many people thought there was a connection, but when congress gave Bush permission to pursue the war in Iraq, it was NOT based on any assumptions that Iraq had anything to do with the attack on 9/11, you f*cktard.
        • swrostmore, on 05/13/2008, -2/+7You're clearly off your medication so I don't know if you can understand what I'm saying to you, but this is what the The USA Today article says:

          "President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however."
          • mzx639, on 05/13/2008, -6/+1I don't want to read it some f-ing article written by some loser in USA Today. Do you know what was presented to congress by the Bush Administration? If you don't, then you don't know what the f*ck you are talking about!
          • MidnightRealism, on 05/13/2008, -2/+3"I don't want to read it some f-ing article written by some loser in USA Today."
            I know. Facts are hard to deal with, aren't they? Poor you. :[
    • fin01, on 05/13/2008, -1/+6I was being sarcastic, in case anyone missed it...
      • mzx639, on 05/13/2008, -4/+3Iraq didn't have anything directly to do with 9/11, and the Bush administration never said they did. The intelligence at the time, and the general consensus was that Saddam had weapons he was willing to use, and had repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions. That was the reason congress gave the Ok. So where is your sarcasm? Do you or do you not believe Iraq had anything to do with 9/11?
        • Tommyhawk, on 05/13/2008, -1/+5Cheney has said multiple times that Iraq and Al Queda were linked together before 9/11. He wouldn't say that if he wasn't trying to convince people they had something to do with 9/11. Maybe that wasn't the reason given in the Iraq War Resolution... but it was part of the propaganda campaign. To say the Bush Administration never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 is blatant dishonesty as far as I'm concerned.
      • swrostmore, on 05/13/2008, -0/+5"The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two. President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between [Saddam and 9/11] in the months before the war in Iraq."
        "Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link"
        The USA Today, 2003
        http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06 ...
        • mzx639, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2You don't get it. I READ THE 'STATS' from the newspaper article!!! Even if those stats are true, and I'm not sure they are, they represented what the people THOUGHT, not what the Bush Administration had presented to congress! You can blame it on some 'propaganda campaign', but then where was the media to counteract and inform the people of this evil propaganda? Are you implying the media had a bias in favor of the Bush Administration? haha... The Bush Administration was presented by intelligence gathered by the CIA. This intelligence came to the conclusion that the U.S. was in imminent danger. This intelligence was convincing enough that congress allowed the Bush Administration to pursue the war on Iraq. Bush NEVER said the American public, "Saddam Hussein is responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center on Sept 11th", HE NEVER SAID THAT! And if you think he did, show me. I want to see some proof. Video footage would be nice.
        • mzx639, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Apology??? For what??? Haha, are saying that poorly edited youtube video proves your assertions? Haha, no wonder you support a socialist like Obama, you can't think for yourself, you want someone to think for you, typical Diggtard.
  • 1aPowerDigger, on 05/13/2008, -6/+15The White House belongs to a long international lineage of regimes who practice aggressive propaganda to support self-serving policy. Historically, it's a very old story. They represent one thing, and one thing only: Their class.

    But it would be a mistake to believe that their counterparts in the Iranian government are victims (or 'good guys'). Ahmadinejad is likewise, part of a long historic tradition of unpopular leaders who consolidate supporters by creating the perception and reality of external threats. (See Hezbollah if you're confused). Ahmadinejad not only wants conflict, he *needs* conflict with the West because without it, his fascist platform would fail.

    We, the not-rich, not powerful, pro-democratic members of our society -- are the losers in this game because it's being played by two parties who stand to gain from conflict.

    And the scariest part of that is this: If we manage to take the whitehouse from the Repugnants, it will absolutely not deter Ahmadinejad from his current strategy. Anyone who thinks the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend', just doesn't understand international politics.

    I hope the democrats take the White House. But (and this is not flame bait) there's still a very big storm coming.
    • sonaboy, on 05/13/2008, -1/+10mostly agreed, but the quick answer to everything said here is: Israel can take care of itself. So let's just sweep up in Afghanistan, pull up the tent spikes in Iraq and come home to build a new emerging industry based on greener energy and infrastructure. No one over there will miss us or call us for help when we're gone.
      • 1aPowerDigger, on 05/13/2008, -1/+5Philosophically, I agree. But the word "just" can't precede "build a new emerging industry based on greener energy", any more than you could say "'just' develop starships to leave the Earth". We're further from sustainable, economically viable green fuel than the zealots would care to admit.

        And the notion that we can pull up stakes and allow an aggressive nuclear-armed power to establish hegemony in the center of the world's energy source, is more wishful thinking. I'd like to get out too. But like it or not, our nation runs on oil (literally). And it will do so for the next 20-30 years until we establish viable alternatives.

        What we *need* is unified international economic pressure on Iran. (And that means full cooperation from Russia and China...which so far, we don't have).
      • floorman56, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4No one over there will miss us or call us for help when we're gone.
        Just like in Nam ...oh wait
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Fields
  • toastgodsupreme, on 05/13/2008, -6/+12Does it matter at this point?

    How many weapons have we supplied to that area? We've given weapons and money to just about every middle eastern country involved in any large conflict at some point or another.

    So who cares if Iran is or isn't supplying people with weapons? We did it too, so we're just as bad as anyone else.

    I'm really tired of the politics of this country. The hypocrisy of the system. The inability to do what's best for the citizens. It's gotten to the point where I've pretty much lost all faith in our govt to do anything worth doing.
    • mzx639, on 05/13/2008, -9/+3And let me guess, you probably think Obama is the man to make all of this change, right? Hahaha..... but if you are't from the U.S. don't bother answering, I could care less what you think.
      • toastgodsupreme, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2No, at this point no one person can fix things. Metaphorically, our govt needs a giant enema to get rid of all the ***** officials and start clean again.

        And I'm from the US, and I've served in the military, and I have every right to point out the (numerous) flaws in our govt.

        But hey, you must be one of those happy little Christian republicans who think our govt is doing a GREAT job.
  • akamurph, on 05/13/2008, -9/+23So the LATimes article says that the arms cache recently found in Karbala wasn't made in Iran... Good enough for diggtards to declare Iran hasn't made/shipped/trained arms or insurgents in Iraq! I love this site.
    • saigumi, on 05/13/2008, -7/+7No joke. By diggtard logic, there are no humans in North America because you can put a camera in a field in Kansas and not see any people.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 05/13/2008, -3/+3Diggtard! I like it... is that trademarked? Can I use it?
    • makkaveli19, on 05/13/2008, -2/+5ok i do agree on that. but is there any proof that iran is supplying them with weapons?
      • swrostmore, on 05/13/2008, -2/+5The Pentagon: "We have proof, it's right here!"
        The Pentagon: "Oh wait, our 'proof' actually didn't come from Iran"
        • bjornski, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2"We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
  • bunit03057, on 05/13/2008, -1/+11The weapons we indirectly gave Afghanistan were not American made either. This does not prove they have not been influencing the Iraq war. Iran obviously has an interest in Iraq's future and it would be better for them to have a neighboring government that is not tied to the US.
    • dkapuchino, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2It would be better for them to have Iraq in complete chaos. A strong Iraqi government has invaded both Kuwait and Iran. A strong Iraqi government used chemical weapons on Iran. Iraq divided by terrorists, consumed by Iraqis killing Iraqis, will never pose a threat again to Iran. That's why the want to keep Iraq in constant state of instability. This can't be applied sadly to the west, as the Islamic terrorists have always shown unity in their common "Infidel" enemies, and first wanting to destroy them before turning on each other.
  • nickert0n, on 05/13/2008, -14/+7Surpise ***** Surprise,
    America Gov: Ooops I did it again, I started a war, Who knows what for? Oh baby baby, oooh Im swimmin in oil, Are men are dyyyyyyyyyying. Were not-that-innocent!!!!!
  • mzx639, on 05/13/2008, -27/+12Iran needs to be nuked.
    • lolinyerface, on 05/13/2008, -4/+16You can get on that, once you use the WMDs that were in Iraq...oh wait their weren't any....lol!
      • dkapuchino, on 05/13/2008, -3/+2Then what was it that they used on the Iranians in the Iran Iraq war?
    • Delphium226, on 05/13/2008, -2/+9You need to be my rottweilers girlfriend.
    • GhostyBoy, on 05/13/2008, -1/+11Do you understand what a nuke does?
    • kemp34, on 05/13/2008, -2/+9Disgusting.
    • MidnightRealism, on 05/13/2008, -2/+7You need to participate in a ground invasion. Have fun!
      • bjornski, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4Someone with that mentality? Enlist? HAHAHAHAHA

        The closest 95% of those types get to the military is their Xbox.
    • Carl306, on 05/13/2008, -2/+6Ladies and gentleman, stupidity at its finest
    • blacktriangle, on 05/13/2008, -2/+4It's Frank! John McCain's Neo-Con Parrot!
  • zantos420, on 05/13/2008, -5/+16they're probably american weapons sold to the iranians just like reagan did in the iran-contra affair.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair
    it is exactly like the movie 'Lord of War'; in a capitalistic society money is king and this isn't the first time it would have happened. General Motors and Ford were both brought to court for ties with providing the Nazis with war machinery. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dail ...

    Where there is money and high ranking officials, there are people ready to sell you whatever you need no matter what side you're on
  • JasonCox, on 05/13/2008, -3/+7From Russia with
  • bincoder, on 05/13/2008, -8/+12The ones found and documented in the recent past were from Iran. I guess if a few are found that weren't from Iran, that means none of them were, ever. US policy isn't to be decided by some lady who works for a newspaper. The constitution makes no mention of absolute rule by the gossiping magpies known as 'the press'.
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Actually every single instance of the army claiming Iranian weapons have been found have turned out to be false. Seems that there are thousands of local machine shops in Iraq that are all turning out land mines and other explosive devices in their down time.
  • SaladCactusKing, on 05/13/2008, -7/+8Information Clearing House is a terrible source, I wouldn't doubt Iran is weaponless though.
  • executorzz, on 05/13/2008, -5/+12This only mentions some weapons recently found in iraq. The title & article insinuates that iran had nothing to do with weapons and such in iraq all along. But actually only provides evidence for a particular case where the weapons are not from iran.
    • dkapuchino, on 05/13/2008, -2/+3Don't let the truth confuse you. When the propagandists have an agenda, they'll skew the truth however they want to. Most people don't even read the article, or they read the title and first few sentences. Then they base their opponion on what the Digg summary has to say, and the first three comments (which were posted by friends of the original poster, summoned by a Digg Shout).
      This is how the lie machine has expanded itself to the Internet.
      • hdar3415, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1Check my profile, the first three comments are not from people on my friends list and there were no shouts sent.
  • anubis2night, on 05/13/2008, -4/+8I say that we just stop listening to what our government and this administration tells us until it leaves office. It's obvious that they have their head up their ass and couldn't run a McDonalds much less the country. At this point we just need to make sure that none of them ever step foot into any position of power again. Dropkick them into retirement please.
    • fitriidayu, on 05/13/2008, -1/+5retirement? I think you mean JAIL ....
  • empirefalling, on 05/13/2008, -8/+8Iran is one of the most progressive countries in the Middle East. With allies in South America, in Europe and in Asia, Iran would prevent any US military assault on it’s realm and demolish once for all US military capability in the region. One can say this: If Iran had invaded Mexico for oil...What would the United States have done?
    • dkapuchino, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3Nuked the ***** out of Iran, because Mexico is our ally. Iraq never was Irans ally. The Iraqis used chemical warfare against Iran in the 80s. The Iranians were as happy to see sadam hussien executed as the Iraqi people were.
    • bjornski, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2That's an interesting way of equating them.
  • BECoole, on 05/13/2008, -12/+14The article only says *those* weapons were not of Iranian origin. It does *not* say that no weapons of Iranian origin have been found.
    The article notably makes no mention of the Iranians who have been captured.
    Buried as misleading.
    • empirefalling, on 05/13/2008, -4/+4So the population in Iraq is made up only of Iraqis and Americans?
    • swrostmore, on 05/13/2008, -3/+5Buried as a dedicated apologist
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1 Of course there are a lot of Iranians in Iraq. Unfortunately the ones we are arresting are just low ranking government personnel trying to make Iraq a better place and support the Iraq government.

      The countries are beside each other and Iran has a lot of business ventures and supports the current Iraq government, the same one we are supposed to be supporting.
  • stix213, on 05/13/2008, -9/+11Guys, just because one batch of weapons found recently in Iraq turned out not to be made in Iran doesn't mean that it isn't true that Iran is supplying weapons. The author acts like this is the first time the media was going to be shown Iranian weapons in Iraq, but the media has been shown Iranian weapons time after time with little question from independent experts (or even people watching the report and seeing the weapons) that these weapons are not from Iran. The Iraqi's made a mistake and the show and tell had to be canceled after the US actually did their own testing - that is all. That doesn't disprove time after time when the US has actually checked and verified authenticity of Iranian weapons and then shown the media (and anyone watching)!!!!!

    In addition, American solders by the thousands are corroborating the made in Iran allegation all the time.

    You people are getting your news from some opinion blog at the LA Times full of half truths and a press release from "Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Action in IRAN"??? A group who's sole goal is to prevent anything from happening to Iran? How gullible are you morons???

    (Yeah did this down... you only reinforce my point - moron...)
    • Delphium226, on 05/13/2008, -5/+4"How gullible are you morons???"

      About as gullible as the bootlickers who believed in WMD and Iraq being linked to 9/11.

      • stix213, on 05/13/2008, -2/+7No one is alleging that Iraq is linked to 9/11 - not even Bush.
        • bjornski, on 05/13/2008, -3/+3Cheney still does.
          • stix213, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1No he doesn't lier. Cheney alleges a link between Saddam's Iraq and Al Queda, which is not the same as a link between Iraq and 9/11.

            The link between Iraq and Al Queda though has actually been proven true through lots of different evidence, including the fact Al Queda member al-Zarqawi was being harbored by Saddam in Iraq. Al-Zarqawi being harbored by Saddam was one of the main points Colin Powell made in his pre-war presentation to the UN, which obviously was proven true after al-Zarqowi went on to command "Al Queda in Iraq" after Saddam's government fell.
        • Delphium226, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1@stix213

          Please back up your allegation that 'Al Queda member al-Zarqawi was being harbored by Saddam in Iraq.'.
        • Delphium226, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1@stix213

          Yeah I didn't think so.
  • atish505, on 05/13/2008, -4/+5The Bush administration has always blamed Iran (and sometimes) Syria for its troubles in Iraq. Troubles that did not exist before 'Invasion'.

    White House and Pentagon officials maintained that Iran was behind the cache of arms confiscated in Kurdistan and elsewhere. They are on record to state that the markings on the arms and ammunition point to ammunition factories in Iran.

    This is a 180 degree turnaround from those assertions (read lies).

    It is now impossible to believe anything that comes out of White House, Pentagon or Bush Administration. They are living in a parallel world.

  • LogicBomB, on 05/13/2008, -4/+2"We were wrong, however, we still plan to bend them over into the near future to your great expense. Just an FYI. Your friends, the White House"
  • verkon, on 05/13/2008, -4/+3That was what I was trying to tell you all the time!
  • liuite, on 05/13/2008, -7/+6CNN would love it if anyone found a cache of weapons labelled "Made In China"...but having seen Ironman, it could be our own
    • vexingmodstwo, on 05/13/2008, -1/+5Okay, did you just use a movie about a superhero / comic book character as the basis for an opinion regarding a real world event?
    • exomni, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Are you ***** kidding me? It took IRON MAN to make you realize we've been arming the world since before the 50's?
    • donjuan571, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2I was in Iraq in 2004, one of our duties was to locate Iraqi weapons caches and blow them up, detonating 250,000 pounds(per day) (meaning there is a ***** *****, more than you could even imagine) of landmines, surface to air missiles, RPGs, pallets of grenades, 155mm russian tank shells, 2000lb bombs, they had everything. I saw crates of weapons from France, Russia, China, Germany, Italy, and yes, even the U.S.
      Its not who makes them, its who sells them.
  • nj10ii, on 05/13/2008, -1/+7The sad fact is, "So ***** what if they were"! It still proves nothing. Weapons dealers will sell to anybody!
  • empirefalling, on 05/13/2008, -11/+7What is the solution to the Iraqi turmoil?
    The immediate withdrawal of all American troops, hardware and advisor's in the region.
    What is the solution to the Iranian issue?
    Immediate talks and cooperation with the Iranian government on all levels.
    What is the solution to the Palestinian issue?
    The immediate isolation and removal of the illegal State of Israel.
    • vexingmodstwo, on 05/13/2008, -4/+7Awww... this one's a cute little wacko.
    • floorman56, on 05/13/2008, -5/+6What is the solution to the Iraqi turmoil?
      The immediate withdrawal of all American troops, hardware and advisor's in the region.
      Death to Iraqis ?
      What is the solution to the Iranian issue?
      Immediate talks and cooperation with the Iranian government on all levels
      Submission?
      What is the solution to the Palestinian issue?
      The immediate isolation and removal of the illegal State of Israel.
      Death to Jews?
      RIGHT.... ( rolls eyes)
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Letting a democracy run it's own country in the way that they want in accordance with international law is submission to you?
  • SmilinChris, on 05/13/2008, -10/+7Did anyone else notice that this "article" was written in the future?

    12/05/08 "ICH" -- - In a sharp reversal of its longstanding accusations against Iran arming militants in Iraq , the US military has made an unprecedented albeit quiet confession: the weapons they had recently found in Iraq were not made in Iran at all.