I think there's already been plenty Iran has done that could be construed as an act of war against Iraq/America.

Furthermore, this isn't something that is going to get people riled up about... after all, don't the Democrats do this at home?

Jay Tea,

The NY Times is having a Mary Mapes moment.

Might want to caution that there are some reports that the original report is not true.

http://tinyurl.com/bkh9k

Hey, you posted this at 8:00 a.m. and it's now 8:57. The blogosphere reacted against this false story almost 15 minutes ago? How come Wizband is so far behind the curve?

Don't worry, you still have 3 weeks to correct the story and still be in front of the NYT.

Ha ha nice one Jay tea, anything to start another war you really are a true rightwing war monger, however one problem your troops are too busy getting their arses kicked in Iraq to even think about starting a war with Iran...so carry on dreaming

The NY Times is having a Mary Mapes moment.

I posted on that too. What a dilemma! When the NYT reports one thing and "Reuters" contradicts it, who do you believe??

"...your troops are too busy getting their arses kicked in Iraq to even think about starting a war with Iran..."

Actually, the terrorists are getting their "arses kicked" in Iraq.

...and don't you mean the NYT is trying to start a war with Iran?

If the Iranians had the balls to launch any kind of offensive into Iraq, they would soon see the awesome power of the U.S. military brought to bear on their untrained, poorly equipped, chicken-shit army.

Getting our arses kicked? We conquered two countries and have occupied them for more than two years each while losing just about 2,200 KIAs.

Shak, you're a bloody idiot by any measure...

Yes you are getting your arses kicked, by a bunch of rag tag fighters dressed in nothing more than rags and flip flops and that are from a minority population from a country of barely 25 million people. Even now American troops don’t dare venture into hostile cities unless it has been flattened using B52s first, I got to give it to you, you’re good at doing that bombing from 30,000 ft above. The two countries you have conquered were done successfully because of money, the Iraqi army did not even fight the generals were all sold out and in Afghanistan you used the local Afghans to fight.

We even had a documentary here in the UK with interviews with American soldiers showing Iraqi tanks and weapons that were not used but simply parked up. Even the American soldier said if this equipment was used the initial war would have lasted a lot longer the war was won by money not by no bravery or awesome power on Americas behalf.

How the hell would you pathetic forces cope if the Shia in Iraq rebelled as the Sunnis have, if you cannot contain 20% of the population how would you contain 80% with out any help from the locals, and no Iran would not dare attack America but America will not dare Invade Iran, Iran does not have the ethnic splits to take advantage off.

So like I said before dream on….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Wow Shak, it must take quite an effort to be so uninformed and delusional.

Yes you are getting your arses kicked, by a bunch of rag tag fighters dressed in nothing more than rags and flip flops and that are from a minority population from a country of barely 25 million people. ----No, we're not getting our "asses kicked". My opinion vs. yours…since you provided no evidence for your opinion, niether will I.

Even now American troops don’t dare venture into hostile cities unless it has been flattened using B52s first, ----Which city would that be?

I got to give it to you, you’re good at doing that bombing from 30,000 ft above. ----Finally, credit for something…..

The two countries you have conquered were done successfully because of money, the Iraqi army did not even fight the generals were all sold out and in Afghanistan you used the local Afghans to fight. ----Well I guess not only is our Military superior, so is our economy. I guess if it worked to break the USSR…it will work with the Middle East too.

We even had a documentary here in the UK with interviews with American soldiers showing Iraqi tanks and weapons that were not used but simply parked up. ----Wow..a DOCUMENTARY! So what, we're to blame for the inability of the Iraqi military to have some esprit de corps? Maybe that should be blamed on Saddam.

Even the American soldier said if this equipment was used the initial war would have lasted a lot longer ----Yes, probably 15 days this time vs. the first Persian Excursion. It would have also been a LOT worse for the Iraqis than how it turned out. Why don't you ask THEM which outcome they would have preferred?

the war was won by money not by no bravery or awesome power on Americas behalf. ----Technically speaking, all wars are won by money… if we didn't have the resources to build hundreds of thousands of Sherman tanks during WWII, we would not have won that either.

How the hell would you pathetic forces cope if the Shia in Iraq rebelled as the Sunnis have, if you cannot contain 20% of the population how would you contain 80% with out any help from the locals, ---- We'd use a heavier hand… ie. We'd be killing a helluva lot more people… we can do that you know. Just because we've tried to keep a small footprint in Iraq, doesn't mean that we couldn't flatten the entire country if we so desired.

and no Iran would not dare attack America but America will not dare Invade Iran, ---- If we did, those or your ilk would be the first to complain. But we also haven't had a reason…give us one (say an attack on a US city or into Iraq) and you can bet Iran would taste the sharp end hard.

Iran does not have the ethnic splits to take advantage off. ----That's not taking advantage of… that's called intelligence. Why kill everyone if there's no need. But our not killing everyone and letting God sort them out is not an indication that we cannot do that if we need to.

So like I said before dream on….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ---- Stay ignorant because it's obvious you've never spent a single day in the military of any nation let alone ours.

Tell you what, What we have in Iran is a heck of mixed up state, and the last thing that we need to do is go saber rattling. The young population is remarkably western oriented, but also strongly nationalistic (unlike iraq which is tribally and ethnically based). Cro for all your vaunted military knowhow, I think a land war in Iran is the last thing I or most people in the world want. And if your morals say that "But our not killing everyone and letting God sort them out is not an indication that we cannot do that if we need to." than say Hi to Tookie when the day comes.
Last words, lets not get into a shooting war with Iran, look up what happened in Gulf War I (Iran-Iraq) and I don't want to see wave on wave of suicidal iranians coming after us, remember that they have alot more terrorist experience than Bin Laden or the Qaeda do.

Not Iranian - You are misinterpreting what I wrote. I agree with you on the make-up of the Iranian country and I agree that we don't want a general war for the same reasons... but don't confuse not wanting a war with inability to execute one.

As for the Iran-Iraq war...that's what happens when you try to replay WWI...our military isn't that stupid or incapable... just because a possible participant might be the same (Iran) doesn't mena that it'd be a replay of their war with Iraq.

History is a teacher and we are not doomed to repeat the last war, regardless of what you think. That's the reason that the MSM thinks every war since 1974 is a Vietnam replay.

Wait, I actually see an odd bit of humor in this.

Iran is run by Shiites. 60% of Iraq's population is Shiite. And, if I'm not mistaken, the current majority in the Interim Government, including the Interim President, are Shiites. Are the Iranians just trying to "really make sure" Shiites win? It gives me a slight pause and a chuckle because it seems unnecessary to me to go to such lengths when there's already a tremendous Shiite influence in the government.

Believe me, i understand the reasoning for wanting to influence the outcome in any way possible, but it also strikes me as proving that the Iranians oddly uneducated about how democracy works and the basic demographics about their next door neighbor.

So I don't see it as an act of war, but more like stupidity and (my favorite phrase) superfluous overkill.

Are the Iranians just trying to "really make sure" Shiites win? It gives me a slight pause and a chuckle because it seems unnecessary to me to go to such lengths when there's already a tremendous Shiite influence in the government.

What it looks like, and this is purely speculation here, is that an anonymous person in the interior ministry who has a problem with the Shiite majority (A Sunni? A Kurd?) made up this story, the NYT ran with it, and then Reuters talked to someone who would know if it was true and wasn't afraid to give his name.

Or maybe the Shiites in Iran really want it to be a blowout for their side, and the border chief is in on it. This seems less likely, if only because the original truck source remains anonymous.

mantis:

I would be at all surprised if either of your scenarios proved to be true, given how Iraqis and the Arab population loooooove to make up stories based on hearsay, innuendo and rumor.

I think it's even more laughable that the NYT and Reuters seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker for it. I mean "a truckload of ballots"? Come on, even the mental visual that makes seems made up.

Somewhere, somebody's bullshit meter is malfunctioning.

Certainly wouldn't the first time the NYT has got the story wrong, based on the testimony of a single lying source. Unfortunately, we had to wait util after the invasion of Iraq before people (most people) finally acknowledged that paper's biggest lie of all.

What I find funny here is that the very people who accuse "al-Reuters" of distortion are quite happy to believe what they say if it contradicts the NYT.

My lying enemy's lying enemy is my lying friend?

The scare tactics about Iran controling a majority Shiite Iraq, I believe, is generally aimed internally rather than at us. It's sort of *rhetorical* the same way that every sentance uttered by certain groups includes the US and Israel in the list of guilty parties no matter how impossible... heck, we had that quote from a bathist the other day who said that *Zarqawi* was a US and Israeli puppet, fer chrissakes.

A united Iran and Iraq is a frightening prospect in the region but it's not actually a realistic prospect. Sistani (unless he's changed his tune, which I doubt, and besides, why would he want to dillute his influence by becoming subservant to Iran?) supports a secular government (made of religious sorts... but not run by the religious authorities). More-over... Iranian Shiites and Iraqi Shiites are separate ethnic groups and speak different languages. If you don't think that's important, consider that the Kurds are Sunni for the most part. Does this make them natural allies for the Bathists and Al Qaeda?

And while we're at it... when was the last time we heard of *any* middle eastern nation moving to help the oppressed people in the nation next door? Well, unless the "help" is blowing up Americans, I mean. They don't seem interested, hardly.

Now THIS is real progress! The Iraqis have already discovered their democrat party!

Faith

You called me uninformed and delusional dam the American right has really lost the plot its actually funny to be called that from someone who most like gets the news fed by Fox and still believe saddam was behind Al quida and that WMD exist. I have been to the middle east seen the area lived there you most likely in the 90% of the American population who don’t even hold a passport but yet become an expert on world affairs.

Cro

No, we're not getting our "asses kicked". My opinion vs. yours…since you provided no evidence for your opinion, neither will I….

Erm yes you are, you are losing soldiers at a rate of 3 a day and god knows about the ones who get injured, and since an insurgency has to simply keep itself going and inflict casualties it is perfectly managing to do that, you have not subdued it, or made it weaker in any sense at all in fact it is getting stronger and stronger now that is an insurgency from 20% of the population and you cannot even contain that, how would you cope of the Shias rebelled which the Sadr group could well do.

What is victory for America in the war, no doubt you beat the Iraqi army which did not even fight but your losing to the insurgency victory for America now is to weaken the insurgency and since it is getting stronger you are losing that war.

Amazing you ask me which city, erm have you heard of Falluja and what happened there, it was flattened from the Air and then the Brave American army dared to go in but that’s all fair its part of war just like sneaky roadside bombs are. But I certainly would not say American troops are brave

We'd use a heavier hand… ie. We'd be killing a helluva lot more people… we can do that you know. Just because we've tried to keep a small footprint in Iraq, doesn't mean that we couldn't flatten the entire country if we so desired.

If we did, those or your ilk would be the first to complain. But we also haven't had a reason…give us one (say an attack on a US city or into Iraq) and you can bet Iran would taste the sharp end hard.

That's not taking advantage of… that's called intelligence. Why kill everyone if there's no need. But our not killing everyone and letting God sort them out is not an indication that we cannot do that if we need to.

Above just some of your gun ho dream land comments, I do not doubt that America could flatten the whole of the middle east, So could China, Russia, India, Pakistan France and Britain, however in today’s world no country would go and nuke another just to satisfy blood thirsty morons like yourself. Also any of these countries as I said could flatten the middle east but none of them would be able to hold it as you are now finding out in Iraq the only reason your still there because you got tongues stuck so far up sistanis ass so that he keeps telling the Shia not to fight, just think for one moment how America would cope if 80% of the population was rebelling and not just the Sunnis.

When Iraq becomes a commercial force to reckon with they'll need more parking. Thousands of square miles of newly hardened glass where Iran or Syria used to be is a good start. Just go in and paint the lines.

Saudi Arabia should of come before Iraq.
Lets not slip this one up. Iran can wait their turn.

WWL, you have now convinced me that you are either insane, a moron, or a troll.

Saudi Arabia is a slow-burn problem. They're trying to keep their own grip on power by exporting their troubles. They pose a long-term threat to stability generally, but nothing imminent.

Iran, on the other hand, is BUILDING NUKES. They have also spent literally decades calling us "The Great Satan" and called for the utter obliteration of Israel.

"Wait their turn?" You're not stuck on stupid, you're fixated on FUCKING IDIOCY.

Now if you'll excuse me, I think I need to drink. Heavily.

J.

Wow Jay Tea, I can really feel the love.
Relax, I was joking.
eesh.

WWL, try a little harder next time. You've spouted similar idiocies before, and it's just barely within the realm of possibility that you'd say something like that.

I'm more inclined to think you're just surprised your stupidity didn't slide like it normally does, and now you're trying to cover your ass.

J.

You really think I meant that we should invade Saudi Arabia and then Iran?
Its such an absurd statement. Perhaps you are just quick to accept the absurd?
Sure my sense of humor may suck but do you really need to call me stupid all the time?
I come to Wizbang for a fresh and usually intelligent perspective on the issues of the day, I'm coming from the liberal side and it's a nice change of pace, usually without all the rhetoric.
Perhaps I was wrong.