• Quote from: Chengora on Today at 10:03:09 AM
    Rather, Iran has on several occasions attempted to foment disruption in Iraq by encouraging Shiites and Kurds, as they did during the first Gulf War (1980-88).

    Thank you Chengora.  You just validated one of MY two points:  that Iran was assisting the Shites in southern Iraq for more than a decade, and that perhaps those same Shites (you know the ones that have no ties to Iran culturally despite both being Shite…) returned the favor.

    I think this is a good point.  As far as I know, there could have been elements within Saddams army that had ties to Iran.  Is it possible that they could have been dealing with Iran without Saddams knowledge?

    Quote from: Chengora on Today at 10:03:09 AM
    Like I said, Saddam sent his planes to Iran because they were getting destroyed, but he did so because he had little choice.  It wasn’t an agreement, it was a gamble, and a mistaken one at that.  In this war, the force deployment was more conducive to shuttling materials to Syria (if they went there) rather than Iran.Â

    Question:  How DID those additional fighters get to Iran in 2003 then?

    I think it is more likely that the pilot who has been told to engage the much superior and more numerous US pilots and planes, once clear of the airfield, decided to take their chances in Iran.  By heading that direction as quickly as they could, they could avoid being shot down by the US.


  • @ncscswitch:

    Another question:
    The IAEA says all that “stuff” was there in '03.  …

    Why is it so hard for you to consider the possibility that they were wrong there.
    I myself can’t remember reports of the IAEA about “stuff” that went missing from before to *after the invasion. I remember that there was a report covering the time after the invasion and during the occupation that deals witrh “missing stuff”, suspected that it was transporeted out of Iraq by the US.
    But that is just me and my memory. I won’T do the work to look either statement up, just claim that mine is correct.


  • Thank you Chengora.  You just validated one of MY two points:  that Iran was assisting the Shites in southern Iraq for more than a decade, and that perhaps those same Shites (you know the ones that have no ties to Iran culturally despite both being Shite…) returned the favor.

    Not quite enough still.  You’re forgetting the nature of the assistance.  Iran could very rarely afford to send weapons over to Iraq, even small arms.  In fomenting disruption, they chiefly provided political incentives and some economic/fiscal ones too.  And the fact that Iraqi Shiites and Iranian Shiites are both Shiites didn’t mean they didn’t kill each other from 1980-88.  That’s the other cultural/ethnic dimension that you keep missing:  Arabs and Persians have not coexisted well since 1979, and their tribes certainly don’t get along.  It’s a much more delicate situation than you acknowledge, and the loyalties don’t always work in the way you’re thinking.

    This is important because you’re making a very strong claim:  that Shiites in Iraq actually transfered weapons material to Iran, likely independent of Saddam Hussein’s knowledge and authority.  This assumes that they had access to those weapons (generally no, that was kept by Saddam loyalists), they had the capability to move it undetected, and that they would choose to do so.  The question of course is why?  They like Iran?  They feel that Iran can put the materials to better use?  Why would the Shiites, who are receiving protection from the U.S., choose to piss off the U.S. in a huge way by transfering weapons?  And especially when they realize that their political futures depend on working with invading forces?  And what about Saddam’s police and spy network?  They weren’t hampered from operating by the no-fly zone, and Saddam maintained up to half a million people in his police and security services.  Why do you place so much importance on the no-fly zone as if it curtails all Iraqi state action?  Big questions that your idea needs to resolve.

    My idea, however, is much more plausible.  If Saddam did in fact transfer weapons (and I’m not sure he did), then it would make more sense to look for them on the Syrian border.  You’re right, US troops were in that area.  But that is a highly unprotected and porous border, and you’re asking two divisions to immediately scout an entire province.  And this assumes that Saddam didn’t effect a transfer before troops arrived.  This position avoids all the problems that plague your analysis, maintains the chain of command that Saddam personally oversaw regarding his weapons and his efforts to conceal them from inspectors, and coincides more with regional politics.  Of course, there are problems with this, one being your argument about US troops in the region.  But that isn’t a crippling point in the way that prior relations between Iran and Iraq are, nor in considering the interests of the Shiites, nor in ignoring the efficacy of Saddam’s police force.

    And in the end, I’m not certain that weapons were transferred or, better stated, that they actually made it out.  In addition, I must confess ignorance as to Iraqi planes suddenly appearing in Iran in 2003.  Do you have a link?


  • @F_alk:

    @ncscswitch:

    Another question:
    The IAEA says all that “stuff” was there in '03.  …

    Why is it so hard for you to consider the possibility that they were wrong there.
    I myself can’t remember reports of the IAEA about “stuff” that went missing from before to *after the invasion. I remember that there was a report covering the time after the invasion and during the occupation that deals witrh “missing stuff”, suspected that it was transporeted out of Iraq by the US.
    But that is just me and my memory. I won’T do the work to look either statement up, just claim that mine is correct.

    Even Bush et al is finally acknowledging that they made mistakes w.r.t. WMD’s.  I’m not sure why members on this board are still so certain that they existed.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @cystic:

    @F_alk:

    @ncscswitch:

    Another question:
    The IAEA says all that “stuff” was there in '03.  …

    Why is it so hard for you to consider the possibility that they were wrong there.
    I myself can’t remember reports of the IAEA about “stuff” that went missing from before to *after the invasion. I remember that there was a report covering the time after the invasion and during the occupation that deals witrh “missing stuff”, suspected that it was transporeted out of Iraq by the US.
    But that is just me and my memory. I won’T do the work to look either statement up, just claim that mine is correct.

    Even Bush et al is finally acknowledging that they made mistakes w.r.t. WMD’s.  I’m not sure why members on this board are still so certain that they existed.

    I can’t speak for everyone, but for myself - the reason I believe they existed is directly related to the difficulties the UN Weapon’s Inspectors had in the performance of their duties in Iraq.  If they had been witness to the destruction of weapons that were supposed to be destroyed, then I don’t think there would have been any problem.  Actually, if that had happened, I imagine that Saddam would still be in power, but the nation would be under sanctions for human rights violations.

    But as I said, that’s my imagination and thought process, nothing factual.


  • @Chengora:

    This is important because you’re making a very strong claim:  that Shiites in Iraq actually transfered weapons material to Iran, likely independent of Saddam Hussein’s knowledge and authority.

    Actually, no, I am floating a hypothesis, tis being one of two hypoteses actually, to account for A:  “missing” WMD’s that most of the world acknowledges that Saddam HAD (at least at one time) and B:  why Iran may be so beligerant recently.

    This particular hypothesis is supported by an initial review of the known facts:  material is missing, Saddam was not in total control in this area from 91 to 03 and had NO control over it after 03, area is adjacent to Iran, area received assistance from Iran for more than a decade, area is majority population of same religious element as rules Iran, it is known that some types of materials (notably jets) did leave this area for Iran (possibly wihtout orders based on other’s posts in this thread), etc.

    @Chengora:

    Why would the Shiites, who are receiving protection from the U.S., choose to piss off the U.S. in a huge way by transfering weapons?  And especially when they realize that their political futures depend on working with invading forces?

    Um, perhaps because Saddam was still able to wield SOME influence in portions of this area from 91 to 03 and killed a lot of them in retaliation for their aid to the US the first time?  Perhaps because they no longer trusted the US to stick around and protect them (since we didn;t the first time) and Iran was the big-dog on the block that WOULD be there afterwards?  Just a few idle thoughts…

    @Chengora:

    And what about Saddam’s police and spy network?  They weren’t hampered from operating by the no-fly zone, and Saddam maintained up to half a million people in his police and security services.  Why do you place so much importance on the no-fly zone as if it curtails all Iraqi state action?  Big questions that your idea needs to resolve.

    Not really.  The Shite assisted moves could have all occured 03 and later.  I simply said they could have started as early as 91 when Saddam’s control was weakened.

    @Chengora:

    My idea, however, is much more plausible.  If Saddam did in fact transfer weapons (and I’m not sure he did), then it would make more sense to look for them on the Syrian border.

    You’re right.  Let’s just ignore the known fact that jets went to Iran and assume that anything else went to Syria (which got no jets, either in 91 or 03).  Also, your statement “and I’m not sure he did”… do you dispute the jets being moved both in 91 and in 03?  Do you not consider Mirage Jets, et.al. to be weapons?

    @Chengora:

    You’re right, US troops were in that area.  But that is a highly unprotected and porous border, and you’re asking two divisions to immediately scout an entire province.

    Yes, it is so much LESS porous of a border when you have NO US troops in the way, and border guards that would WELCOME the materials you were bringing to their nation.


  • sigh  It’s always got to be harsh criticism with you, huh?  Fine, let me put it this way:  I agree that Iraqi fighters fled to Iran in 1991, as I’ve said and posted links for.  However, I do not know of any similar action in 2003.  If you post a link, I’ll judge that on it’s merits, but I have been unable to find any references to it, not that I was searching that hard.  Also, I agree that Iran is a plausible destination for arms.

    However, I contend that Syria is a better destination and more likely to have occurred.  This, however, is assuming that Saddam moved his WMDs to another country, which I am not certain he did.  Scott Ritter, who was a top inspector in Iraq, contends in his book that the IAEA had catalogues of destroyed and preserved equipment and weapons.

    (This is in a small response to Jen - btw, glad to have you back and that you’re safe!)  :-)

    So, we’re dealing with quite an amount of hypotheticals here.  And, I believe you mischaracterize the situation on the ground between 1991 and 2003, and are using the penumbra of action to justify your argument, rather than articulating something more in line with ground-level realities of interest and power in that period.  For example, Saddam was denied air capability and the ability to enact an atrocity in the southern no-fly zone, this is true.  However, he still had an extensive police and security presence right up to the US invasion in 2003.  In the records that inspectors uncovered, that police system was as advanced as any in the world, perhaps not in terms of technological capability, but certainly in terms of information on each individual in the country.  However, you are ignoring this fact to assert that Saddam had little control over the weapons in the area, which is not the case.

    And this is because of the Iraqi military’s force structure, and in particular the WMD program.  After all, I am not concerned with the transfer of conventional arms, and I don’t think that’s what we were really talking about.  Critical weapon systems - WMD, airforce - were staffed and controlled by people directly loyal to Saddam, either through the Republican Guard as opposed to the regular army, or more generally based on tribal affiliations with direct familial ties to Hussein.  And those people did not come from the Shiite tribes in the south.  Remember, the inspectors concentrated their efforts in and around Baghdad, precisely because those were Saddam’s power bases and he hid his weapons there.  Shiites therefore did not have access to critical weaponry, and as a result, I find your assertion of a transfer of arms doubtful.

    In addition, we still have the question of Shiite motivation to transfer arms.  First you argue that Saddam had relatively less control in the south, which I take as a partial concession to my point.  Then you say he is still able to kill a wide number of Shiites in the south.  These aren’t necessarily contradictory statements, but they should give some pause to your assertions.  Secondly, you keep missing the Arab-Persian dimension of relations.  As stated in the latest issue of the Atlantic Monthly, Shiites in Iraq have not always liked Shiites in Iran.  In fact, most are generally hostile.  I said that Iran tried to foment disruption, not that it was successful.  Indeed, success has most often come from working with the Kurds, not the Shiites.  Again, just because certain people share a common religion, doesn’t mean they don’t kill each other or hate each others’ guts.

    I have to go, but I’ll finish this up a bit later.


  • @Chengora:

    sigh  It’s always got to be harsh criticism with you, huh?

    I remember when i admired Chengora’s stamina at being very polite in the discussion and repeating and explaining his points over and over. I told him that by that time i already had lost that faith in some people, that these people would actually listen/read and then think over what they just have heard/read. I fear he is going a similar way. If he is, then all i can do is hope that those (three? four?) of the right wingers who do listen will come to the conclusion that it is not the “liberals” fault if he gets tired and disheartened by the stubborness of others, but that it is that stubborness that needs to be changed.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    @F_alk:

    @Chengora:

    sigh  It’s always got to be harsh criticism with you, huh?

    I remember when i admired Chengora’s stamina at being very polite in the discussion and repeating and explaining his points over and over. I told him that by that time i already had lost that faith in some people, that these people would actually listen/read and then think over what they just have heard/read. I fear he is going a similar way. If he is, then all i can do is hope that those (three? four?) of the right wingers who do listen will come to the conclusion that it is not the “liberals” fault if he gets tired and disheartened by the stubborness of others, but that it is that stubborness that needs to be changed.

    I take this to imply myself is included…given our past arguements.  To which I shall retort that I always read what is said and try to do so with as open a mind as can be possible in an educated mind.  Unfortunately education leads an individual to formulate his or her own opinions and those opinions will color all other ideas regardless of how open you try to make your mind.

    The problem is not with us “right wingers” so much as it is with your “left wingers” being unable to make your points in a persuasive manner.  Perhaps if you were more eloquent in your dialogues you would be able to convert us to your opinions much like missionaries do when converting “heathens” to their religions.  Then again, perhaps you should also come to the realization that your opinion may also be wrong and try to open your own mind to that possibility as well.  Not that I’m saying you are wrong, F_alk (or anyone else who is devoutly entrentched on one side of the discussion or the other) but rather that perhaps you should consider if you are wrong, and if you decide you are not, then figure out why you are right and then think of a diplomatic way of telling those who you think are wrong how they are wrong.


  • Jen…
    look at the sentence i quoted. Then look at your last sentence.
    Please explain why i should make the effort of being diplomatic (your last sentence) when it doesn’t help anyway (the sentence i quoted)?
    I personally have come to the conclusion that some people here hold most to all of their opinions on the level of believe/faith. No rational will ever convince them. (I too have two opinions that i hold like that: (a) start nice, (b) follow a tit-for-tat strategy. This means if someone is a follower of an ideology that would not grant me a specific right/politeness … then IMHO that person should be denied that right/politeness as well.) And note that i used the word  “convince”, and not “convert” …

    Anyway, Chengora has tried to explain his point. Over and over. With different words. Very eloquent, very precise (an important point for me as you might remember).
    I hope he is not that disheartened as i am to stop that behavior. I doubt he will continue for very much longer though, as it leaves the feeling of “pearls before the swines”.


  • To continue:

    Shiite motivations:  I still find your comments hard to accept because I cannot see any motivation for Shiites as a loose group to transfer weaponry to Iran.  Given their mutual hostility, lack of capability to locate, obtain, and transport those materials, and the sheer lack of justification for action, I find your argument to be not as plausible.  Let me unpack the last point.  I am unaware of any reason for Shiites pre-2003 to feel animosity towards the U.S. or think that Iran would somehow give them a better deal, whatever that might be.  You’ll have to supply some concrete evidence to support that critical contention.  Given the insecurity of the run-up to war, the various Shiite factions should and did work more closely with the U.S., not against it.  Consequently, you’re going to need some substantiation of your points that directly shows why trade with Iran (to which most Shiites are hostile) is more appealing than political control following an invasion.

    Moreover, you point to 1991 as a sign of a transfer of weaponry between Iraq and Iran, and that that point should give credence to some collusion between the two.  Again, though, the circumstances were entirely different, and Saddam had those planes go there because it was the only option available, limited as it was.  It wasn’t a transfer and it wasn’t a deal:  it was a desparate gamble.  This points to exactly the opposite conclusion that you want to make.  Hussein would be less inclined to send material to a country where previous equipment was stolen.  As I also mentioned, there has been no rapprochement between Iran and Iraq, and therefore no cause for thinking that 20 years of animosity have evaporated.

    In addition, Saddam thought of nuclear weapons as his final crutch against other regimes, and chief among them was Iran.  He is highly unlikely to transfer exactly that technology to Iran.  In addition, Iran wouldn’t necessarily be able to integrate that technology in a manner that would allow a quick turnaround (and hence the current belligerence).  They do not have the factories scaled to that kind of missile technology, and they are still acquiring the equipment to conduct some of the enrichment process.  The recent belligerence has much more to do with Ahmadinejad trying to bolster his power internally, particularly after a contentious election and what he feels is a slide into immorality (i.e. liberalizing reforms).

    For these reasons, Syria is a much more plausible destination, if weapons even went there.  Think: the Israelis, who have the most to lose from an nuclearized Iran, even they don’t claim it went in that direction.  You’re talking about two US divisions patrolling an enormous area, and you haven’t responded to my statement about a possible transfer before the invasion.  Turkey is definitely out, and Jordan is highly unlikely.  Syria shares political and foreign policy orientation, similar internal problems, and a history of positive relations (with some fits and starts of course).  It does not have a history of war or theft with Iraq, and has oftentimes allied with Iraq in some critical wars.  Two units are simply not enough to patrol that border, as U.S. troops are realizing now.  Consequently, while I think your idea is interesting, I find the Syria dimension to be significantly more plausible.  And from what I have heard informally in the intelligence community, they tend to hold with this assessment as well.

    As for Falk’s point, it is not so much the argument that has me riled, but the way it is presented.  There is no need for polemics in this debate.  There is no need to ridicule another poster or use language that implies they have not thought through issues carefully enough.  As I’ve said, the points made here have been plausible, but not enough.  I believe there is a way to have a respectful disagreement that does not attack the other person.  However, it is difficult when posters on all sides take the absolutist, derogatory stance to have that kind of conversation.  For example,

    The problem is not with us “right wingers” so much as it is with your “left wingers” being unable to make your points in a persuasive manner.  Perhaps if you were more eloquent in your dialogues you would be able to convert us to your opinions much like missionaries do when converting “heathens” to their religions.

    This, I think, has it wrong.  It’s not the speaker’s fault if he can’t convince.  Likewise it’s not the listeners fault if he can’t accept.  It’s a dialogue, and it involves both sides.  As a result, this

    Not that I’m saying you are wrong, F_alk (or anyone else who is devoutly entrentched on one side of the discussion or the other) but rather that perhaps you should consider if you are wrong, and if you decide you are not, then figure out why you are right and then think of a diplomatic way of telling those who you think are wrong how they are wrong.

    has it much better.  It’s the lack of respect and discipline in thinking and argumentation that has me riled, and I will let my posts speak for themselves in terms of who in this debate has the balance of civility.


  • I have apparently been VERY mistaken in a significant “fact” that I have posted in this thread, and others.

    I remember hearing on the news (FOX) in the early part of the war about a repeat performance of the Iraqi airforce flying to Iran.  But upon being asked to provide references to this fact, I can;t find a single reference to a 2003 jet transfer.  1991 is well documented, but for 2003, all I can find are the stories of the buried jets (mostly MiG 25 Foxbats)

    http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_247.shtml

    So, unless and until I can find confirmation of what may be an erroneous memory, I must concede the points made by others regarding any potential official transfer of WMD’s or related materials to Iran by Saddam, since my primary argument in support for such an argument is not confirmed.

    I still maintain the potential for un-official transfers to have occurred in the period immediately following the US invasion in 2003.


  • Yes i did a long search as well when i was debating that point and could not find anything about the second war-just 1991. He may not have much of an air force to move anyway at that time.

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 4
  • 2
  • 9
  • 12
  • 9
  • 93
  • 11
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

35

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts