Plus by using people lower on the execution chain, the higher-ups in Iranian gov’t have their plausible deniability. It would be a tough go to actually get proof that president Ahm@#$%*& is explicitly ordering the arms and parts to Shiites in Iraq. Either way it stinks.

Surgical? That’s a McNamara term I remember from long ago..Personally, I prefer amputation, like in keeping the Iranian people in the dark, cold and hungry while destroying anything of military value in the infrastruce. No invasion. No occupation. Bad behavior must be rewarded. Payback time Baby! It will happen fliterman-just hang in there.

Exacerbate is sorta like escalate, ain’t it? I know where you’re coming from. I reckon you never got my hornets nest thang either.

b2

PS- From what I’ve read Stingers are like milk- they have a definable expiration date…

While I have little doubt as to Iranian meddling in Iraq, given the varying Iranian factions it’s difficult to determine direct responsibility to any faction, or the State.

Indeed we once had some U.S. citizens funding and supplying arms to the IRA terrorists ?

While I have little doubt as to Iranian meddling in Iraq, given the varying Iranian factions it’s difficult to determine direct responsibility to any faction, or the State.

Indeed we once had some U.S. citizens funding and supplying arms to the IRA terrorists – but that was certainly not justification for Great Britain to attack America and bomb the Boston Irish sympathizers.

Also, I don’t doubt that terrorists and weapons are also coming into Iraq from friendlier nations, i.e. Saudi Arabia. Should we then also attack the Saudi’s? (And didn’t most of the 9/11 terrorists come from there?) And if we attacked every country that supplied AK-47′s to Iraq, much less a hundred sniper rifles, we would indeed have a long list of disparate targets on many fronts.

Are we looking for excuses here, or trying to solve a grave and serious problem intelligently?

Whether the influx of weapons is state sponsored, state-supported or not, what’s wrong with trying effective interdiction first?

We did that with the Ho Chi Minh trail. But it was a longer and far more difficult route for the enemy; multiple trails concealed by jungle, and wandering through other countries.

The open Iraqi desert roads should be much easier. Why can’t we seal the border, and interdict any insurgents and/or weapons crossing and coming into Iraq? We certainly should have the technology and weaponry. And if we don’t have the manpower for effective interdiction, we certainly will not have the manpower for what will follow from an attack on Iran, especially with Iraq still boiling.

Surgical strikes in Iran will not solve the problem, they will exacerbate the problem. Then what?

[And as far as losing weapons, did we ever find the 80 Stinger missiles we once gave to the Muhajadeen who became Taliban, or the (thousands?) of hand-held surface-to-air missiles missing from Iraq, shortly after our invasion? ]

Lots of enormous and essential questions; few real concrete answers.