You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
Iraqi sources in Kuwait: Iran increasing its influence in southern Iraq
2005-10-08
On a recent visit to Kuwait as part of a high- level delegation, several Iraqi figures revealed to their Kuwaiti counterparts classified information about the current social and political situation in Iraq and the extent of Iranian meddling. They also confirmed that a mass exodus of Sunnis was taking place and said Iranian designs were being assisted by this migration and the continued boycott of the political process by some Arab Sunnis as well as their support for the insurgency.

According to the Iraqi figures, security and municipal establishments in southern Iraq have fallen under the control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Iranian agents were now focusing on garnering ideological support after ensuring their security control over the area through a number of militias and the purging all those opposed them, politically, socially, and culturally. The visiting delegation pointed out that Tehran was putting pressure on schools and universities, and appointing teachers that were loyal to it. It was also flooding educational establishments with books and manuals from Iranian-financed publishing houses, radio stations, and television channels as well as distributing publications by the Lebanese group Hezbollah which it has long backed. Of the estimated two million Iranians to have traveled to Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein, the delegation indicted that 1.6 million have returned home while the others are alleged to have settled in Iraq and obtained identity cards.
Posted by:Fred

#14  I'd SPECIFICALLY target the known holdings of ANY of the MM's or Basij or any other of their little brownshirt cowards
Posted by: Frank G   2005-10-09 00:00  

#13  Sounds good to me... There wouldn't be an "A" List (or B or C) much less a wank-o-matic circuit for them, if I wuz King of the Werld.
Posted by: .com   2005-10-08 23:57  

#12  Specific to MM ownership /control? YEAH - I wanna see MM poverty vows unvoluntarily!
Posted by: Frank G   2005-10-08 23:54  

#11  I want very specific targeting - symbolic targets don't impress me - they're for press consumption... That would be a waste of time since I've got the MSM on my secondary list.
Posted by: .com   2005-10-08 23:49  

#10  Lol, mee too, heh.
Posted by: .com   2005-10-08 23:38  

#9  Vlad chgs my self-esteem from bloodthirsty jerk to just...jerk
Posted by: Frank G   2005-10-08 23:30  

#8  I'll trust you on that, Grereper Hupung4295. I thought he'd only threatened to, or the Japanese leadership was realistically concerned at the result if he should.

But does that fact change the logic of the argument?
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-10-08 22:30  

#7  TW, FDR had cut off their access to oil and scrap steel. That's why they concluded they had to attack south to get the Oil in the Dutch East Indies. And I suspect FDR expected they would responsd.
Posted by: Grereper Hupung4295   2005-10-08 22:12  

#6  I'm sorry, that should read

Saudi Arabia has only ever had money and cannon fodder and control of the haj.
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-10-08 22:10  

#5  If you had your way, Vlad dear, there would have been a world-wide depression due to lack of petroleum by 1. November, 2001... at best.

Iraq and Iran would have turned off the pumps in response to an attack on Saudi Arabia, even though they've never been fond on those Beduin camel riders -- and most of the world doesn't have even as much of a strategic reserve as the U.S. does, and the rest have no reserve at all. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941 out of fear that Roosevelt would cut off Japan's access to the raw materials, including coal and oil, that it needed to survive. In 2001, the world believed that Saddam Hussein had weaponized chemicals, probably weaponized biologicals, was getting close to a nuke, and had both his own hard boyz and hired terrorists to deliver them, even without the missiles he was known to be working on. Saudi Arabia has only ever had money and control of the haj.

So tell me, Vlad, should Bush have attacked the threat that had been feared imminent throughout the latter half of the previous decade by the leading intelligence agencies of the world, or the longer term threat that might well be brought down by internal dissent without Anerican troops to protect the ruling family?
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-10-08 22:07  

#4  Good points. Wrap twice.
Posted by: Alcoa the Vlad Hat   2005-10-08 21:36  

#3  "Clearly, Bush won't export Secularism abroad, because he doesn't believe that it should exist at home."
That's a bunch of Shiite, to be sure. You think Bush prefers Shiite to secular?

If you had turned Mecca and Medina to "charcoal", Iran and Saddam would have picked up the pieces and we'd be in a far bigger mess than we are in today. If you're going to be a Monday morning quarterback, at least play to have won.
Posted by: Darrell   2005-10-08 21:35  

#2  The pervasive Rantburg majority denial of the galloping cultural unification of Shiite Iran and Iraq, makes me surprised to see an article like this one get through the Bush sieve: THE PRESIDENT IS INFALLIBLE, THEREFORE WE MUST FLOCK WITH THE SHEPHERD.

Don't get me wrong: if I had my way Mecca and Medina would have been charcoal by Sept. 13, 2001, when the identities of the 9-11 hijackers were partly established. You do yourselves an immense disservice when you deny the utter depravity of the Bush-Powell butchery of Secularism in Iraq with Order #1 of the Coalition Provisional Authority. While Iran's Ayatollahs were facing implacable opposition at home, Bush gave them a present, at the cost of 200 plus billion dollars. Clearly, Bush won't export Secularism abroad, because he doesn't believe that it should exist at home.

Leave the Iraq war to the field generals, and they will deliver a bloody end to the Bush gift.
Posted by: Vlad the Muslim Impaler   2005-10-08 21:22  

#1  The pervasive Rantburg majority denial of the galloping cultural unification of Shiite Iran and Iraq, makes me surprised to see an article like this one get through the Bush sieve: THE PRESIDENT IS INFALLIBLE, THEREFORE WE MUST FLOCK WITH THE SHEPHERD.

Don't get me wrong: if I had my way Mecca and Medina would have been charcoal by Sept. 13, 2001, when the identities of the 9-11 hijackers were partly established. You do yourselves an immense disservice when you deny the utter depravity of the Bush-Powell butchery of Secularism in Iraq with Order #1 of the Coalition Provisional Authority. While Iran's Ayatollahs were facing implacable opposition at home, Bush gave them a present, at the cost of 200 plus billion dollars. Clearly, Bush won't export Secularism abroad, because he doesn't believe that it should exist at home.

Leave the Iraq war to the field generals, and they will deliver a bloody end to the Bush gift.
Posted by: Vlad the Muslim Impaler   2005-10-08 21:21  

00:00