NationStates Jolt Archive

I was recently looking into the U.S administration's recent assertions that Iran is supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency, and their new "evidence". Ignoring the fact that the Iraqi insurgency is primarily Sunni-dominated, and Iran is a Shiite country, one piece of evidence provided proving that Iran is supplying mortar shells to be used in IED's targetting Coalition troops and vehicles in Iraq, is an 81mm mortar shell, complete with serial numbers and production dates. However:

Iran does not produce 81mm mortar shells

According to the Jafee Center for Strategic Studies: http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/balance/toc.html#military

Click on Iran, and then look at page 15 of the document. Iran only produces two mortar shells under 160mm; a 120mm and a 107mm.

By the way, the JCSS is an Israeli group that "conducts basic research that meets the highest academic standards on matters related to Israel's national security as well as Middle East regional and international security affairs. The centre also aims to contribute to the public debate and governmental deliberation of issues that are – or should be – at the top of Israel's national security agenda."

It is interesting to note that Pakistan produces an 81mm mortar shell. Any thoughts?

My thought is that if this is verified, it will slip the minds of those who want to beat the war drums.

So let me get this straight...

America is making shit up about a country that they might invade at some point?

Who. Would. Have. Thought.

Iran need not produce 81mm shells to supply them to others...if they have any supply of their own that they purchased from (INSERT ANY NATION HERE), then that's all it takes. A batch number, and proof of sale from Nation "X" to Iran...that's all you really need.

...of course, the whole matter strikes me as stupid anyways. Even if the justification for war with Iran was present (which it currently isn't), the U.S. doesn't have the resources for such a course of action while it's still in Iraq.

Iran does not produce 81mm mortar shells

According to the Jafee Center for Strategic Studies: http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/balance/toc.html#military

Click on Iran, and then look at page 15 of the document. Iran only produces two mortar shells under 160mm; a 120mm and a 107mm.I suggest you note page 5, defence production, where the 81mm ones get their check?

And you don't need to produce something to supply - you only have to own it. Which Iran - according to the document you provided - does.

Edit: Even better. If I'm reading this right, the 81mm mortar (Munitions) are included in production, but not in the equipment of the Iranian army.

Well. What conclusion does this suggest? Export, perhaps?

So let me get this straight...

America is making shit up about a country that they might invade at some point?

Who. Would. Have. Thought.

Right. I just wish Bush and the boys would just be honest, and say "screw you, and world opinion. We don't like you, and we want your oil, so wea re going to invade. You don't like it? tough." No other great empire in history had to come up with excuses to expand its possesions.

So let me get this straight...

America is making shit up about a country that they might invade at some point?

Who. Would. Have. Thought.

In other news, trees are found to contain a suprising amount of wood.

No other great empire in history had to come up with excuses to expand its possesions.

No other great empire in history had people who could nuke them.

I just wish Bush and the boys would just be honest, and say "screw you, and world opinion. We don't like you, and we want your oil, so wea re going to invade. You don't like it? tough."

I just wish they'd keep it at the drunken, "well-y'know-what-I'd-do" level of conversation it deserves. Fuck, it's like a gang of thick-headed frat boys with one keg too many have been calling the shots for six years.

No other great empire in history had people who could nuke them.

Or could nuke back.

I just wish they'd keep it at the drunken, "well-y'know-what-I'd-do" level of conversation it deserves. Fuck, it's like a gang of thick-headed frat boys with one keg too many have been calling the shots for six years.

Yah. Makes me kinda wonder what kind of morons we're going to elect next. Not that it matters much.

In other news, trees are found to contain a suprising amount of wood.
What!!?? :eek:

But they could form militant organisations and fight back against the evil humans who steal their wood! What would happen to Ikea?! Where would we get our furniture from? Society could crumble!

Trees must be stopped!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/08/Family-Guy-4ACX29-Evil-Tree.png/200px-Family-Guy-4ACX29-Evil-Tree.png

It's plausible either way, actually. Iran had the facilities to produce knockoffs of American equipment, as their two smaller mortars listed on that site are.

Is the site listed an exhaustive report on weapons systems in the Middle East, or is it incomplete.

What!!?? :eek:

But they could form militant organisations and fight back against the evil humans who steal their wood! What would happen to Ikea?! Where would we get our furniture from? Society could crumble!

Trees must be stopped!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/08/Family-Guy-4ACX29-Evil-Tree.png/200px-Family-Guy-4ACX29-Evil-Tree.png

We need more lumberjacks!
*plays the lumberjack song*

I suggest you note page 5, defence production, where the 81mm ones get their check?

And you don't need to produce something to supply - you only have to own it. Which Iran - according to the document you provided - does.

Edit: Even better. If I'm reading this right, the 81mm mortar (Munitions) are included in production, but not in the equipment of the Iranian army.

Well. What conclusion does this suggest? Export, perhaps?

Ah, righto! but you're missing a major piece there dear chum. Whether or not it's even happening. The Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs says he doesn't see any intelligence evidence that Iran is supplying weaponry to Iraqi insurgents. Further, I find it funny that Douglas Feith is being singled out as having "inappropriately" influenced intelligence leading up to the Iraq war. As much as a dick I think he is do you really think he came up with this plan all on his own? Or do you think a higher power of the Dark Side had a hand. DARTH CHENEY once again folks.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/16683913.htm

No other great empire in history had people who could nuke them.

Are you asserting Iran possesses this power?

Aye, the 81mm Mortar does get reference on page 5.

George Bush knows he has only two years to push his agenda on the world so he is going to do everything possible to complete as much of it as he can.
I bet with in three months he will provide proof of WMDs being made in Iran for use by the terrorists.
The US military now has the resources to commit to a war with Iran. With the North Koreans standing down from the nuclear program and possibly having formal relations with the US. The US military could conceivably strip South Korea and Japan of troops and send them to the Middle East for use in an Iranian invasion.

Ah, righto! but you're missing a major piece there dear chum. Whether or not it's even happening. The Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs says he doesn't see any intelligence evidence that Iran is supplying weaponry to Iraqi insurgents. Further, I find it funny that Douglas Feith is being singled out as having "inappropriately" influenced intelligence leading up to the Iraq war. As much as a dick I think he is do you really think he came up with this plan all on his own? Or do you think a higher power of the Dark Side had a hand. DARTH CHENEY once again folks.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/16683913.htm

From your source: "We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government per se knows about this," Pace replied. "It is clear that Iranians are involved and it is clear that materials from Iran are involved. But I would not say based on what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit." So its clear that Iran is involved, just there isn't proof that Iranian government is behind this.

Olmedreca;12324736']From your source: "We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government per se knows about this," Pace replied. "It is clear that Iranians are involved and it is clear that materials from Iran are involved. But I would not say based on what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit." So its clear that Iran is involved, just there isn't proof that Iranian government is behind this.

So here's an example just to be clear. A man in Plano Texas builds a bombs that is used in Guadalajara, Mexico and kills 107 people. Is America responsible for this? Is America as a nation, government, involved? Or is this the work of the specific man who built the bomb? I find it wrong to blame someone without any specific evidence. It's like all the nut-jobs who claim "Iraq was involved with 9/11, I mean they are both Muslim right?"

Olmedreca;12324736']From your source: "We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government per se knows about this," Pace replied. "It is clear that Iranians are involved and it is clear that materials from Iran are involved. But I would not say based on what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit." So its clear that Iran is involved, just there isn't proof that Iranian government is behind this.

So I've got a meth lab in your basement where I make and sell meth. You somehow don't know this is going on. Tell me the police aren't gonna take your house anyway.

So here's an example just to be clear. A man in Plano Texas builds a bombs that is used in Guadalajara, Mexico and kills 107 people. Is America responsible for this? Is America as a nation, government, involved? Or is this the work of the specific man who built the bomb? I find it wrong to blame someone without any specific evidence. It's like all the nut-jobs who claim "Iraq was involved with 9/11, I mean they are both Muslim right?"

Oh, and can we talk about how the administration MANIPULATED intelligence to fit their needs contrary to what the intelligence community was telling them? Maybe the "Bush lied and they died" bumper stickers are just God damn right!

So I've got a meth lab in your basement where I make and sell meth. You somehow don't know this is going on. Tell me the police aren't gonna take your house anyway.

Are you suggesting we take their country away? Yes, let's take away the counties where gun crimes happen because law enforcement there surely sucks. Can we attempt to find logic in an argument. Are you suggesting the government can know every single thing that happens in their country at any given moment?

So here's an example just to be clear. A man in Plano Texas builds a bombs that is used in Guadalajara, Mexico and kills 107 people. Is America responsible for this? Is America as a nation, government, involved? Or is this the work of the specific man who built the bomb? I find it wrong to blame someone without any specific evidence. It's like all the nut-jobs who claim "Iraq was involved with 9/11, I mean they are both Muslim right?"

If American government knew about that man in Plano texas building bombs and did nothing to stop him and maybe even encouraged him(and other's like him) with anti-mexican rethoric then I would say that they are responsible.

Well, shouldn't we go after the real source of weapons supply? Last time I checked, insurgents and various other forms of militaries are using weapons of Russian design. Mayhaps we should accuse Russia of supplying weapons, and satisfy that Cold War itch.

Olmedreca;12324757']If American government knew about that man in Plano texas building bombs and did nothing to stop him and maybe even encouraged him(and other's like him) with anti-mexican rethoric then I would say that they are responsible.

Yes, but you're making a leap here that has no proof behind it. Don't you think we should reserve the "the sky is falling, help me help me" rhetoric for when there is definitive proof. Or should we shoot our mouths off and engage ourselves in another war with no definitive solution, of which we have nary the manpower to complete? We already went into one war with half asses assumptions, another one is needed? And what do we say to MANIPULATED intelligence for Iraq as described by the IG of the USA. Bush and Cheney are a disgrace to anyone who has ever worn the uniform. Bush's "service" was bullshit and Cheney ran like a coward. It's always the kid who never had to see a fight who wants others to have at it. Bush/Cheney are a danger to the American way of life and hopefully they'll see the inside of a cell or a yardarm as soon as possible. I'd much sooner give up my grunt-stick than salute either one of those vermin.

Well, shouldn't we go after the real source of weapons supply? Last time I checked, insurgents and various other forms of militaries are using weapons of Russian design. Mayhaps we should accuse Russia of supplying weapons, and satisfy that Cold War itch.

surely. AK's were made in Russia. I'll draw the battle plans for taking Siberia now.

So let me get this straight...

America is making shit up about a country that they might invade at some point?

Who. Would. Have. Thought.I'm shocked! SHOCKED! that this administration would stretch the truth when it comes to intel on Iran.

I'm shocked! SHOCKED! that this administration would stretch the truth when it comes to intel on Iran.

the trick is they went back through all of the paperwork on Iraq and changed the q to an n with a red magic marker. It saved them time and money for having to do more investigating. :eek:

Are you suggesting we take their country away? Yes, let's take away the counties where gun crimes happen because law enforcement there surely sucks. Can we attempt to find logic in an argument. Are you suggesting the government can know every single thing that happens in their country at any given moment?

Y'know, the thing about a metaphor is that it's got equivalences. The equivalent of a SWAT team busting down your door and dragging you out while a week later auctioning your house off would be akin to some sort of military force attempting to take control of the country, or more realistically, some political strategy with the goal of trying to get Iran to take responsibility for themselves.


And no, the government can't "know every single thing that happens in their country at any given moment", but certain latin countries are responsible for drug trafficking, Mexico is responsible for their shitty self that causes their citizens to want to leave en masse, Afghanistan is responsible for allowing the taliban to take control, Japan is responsible for tentacle hentai and Iran is responsible for allowing mortars being made in their country being used against the US in Iraq.

Yes, but you're making a leap here that has no proof behind it. Don't you think we should reserve the "the sky is falling, help me help me" rhetoric for when there is definitive proof. Or should we shoot our mouths off and engage ourselves in another war with no definitive solution, of which we have nary the manpower to complete? We already went into one war with half asses assumptions, another one is needed? And what do we say to MANIPULATED intelligence for Iraq as described by the IG of the USA. Bush and Cheney are a disgrace to anyone who has ever worn the uniform. Bush's "service" was bullshit and Cheney ran like a coward. It's always the kid who never had to see a fight who wants others to have at it. Bush/Cheney are a danger to the American way of life and hopefully they'll see the inside of a cell or a yardarm as soon as possible. I'd much sooner give up my grunt-stick than salute either one of those vermin.

You are misunderstanding me, I oppose invading Iran. I also opposed Iraqi war from beginning and about Afganistan I have also been very suspicious all the time. Im quite sure that Iran actively supports insurgents in Iraq but at same time I consider war with Iran completely unpractical.

I'm shocked! SHOCKED! that this administration would stretch the truth when it comes to intel on Iran.
Indeed.:eek: You mean that dissident groups and random battlefield captures of widely-produced military equipment aren't beyond question? ZOMG!
Seriously, AFAIK most of our info about the nuclear program either comes from some highly dubious opposition groups (in terms of howm much "better" they'd be in power than the current regime), who surely have learned the "lessons" of Iraq as far as they apply to Taking Down a Government 101; or equally dubious "smoking guns" such as the laptop presentation oh so conveniently outlining a nuclear weapons program, in proper PowerPoint format, that fell into our hands just shy of two years ago.
The lessons of Taking Down A Government 101 exactly being? Just seize (or fabricate) enough evidence for your little group with a grudge to allege a nuclear weapons program plus terrorist support (this bit is easy enough in Iran's case, granted) on the regime's part, then sit back and watch the American-sponsored fireworks if it all works out.:rolleyes:

Olmedreca;12324790']You are misunderstanding me, I oppose invading Iran. I also opposed Iraqi war from beginning and about Afganistan I have also been very suspicious all the time. Im quite sure that Iran actively supports insurgents in Iraq but at same time I consider war with Iran completely unpractical.

indeed, then we are in agreement. War in Iran, especially now is near impossible and should be a last resort. Not Cheney/Bush last resort, but a real last resort.

Y'know, the thing about a metaphor is that it's got equivalences. The equivalent of a SWAT team busting down your door and dragging you out while a week later auctioning your house off would be akin to some sort of military force attempting to take control of the country, or more realistically, some political strategy with the goal of trying to get Iran to take responsibility for themselves.
.

Well the first time Iranians tried to take responsibilty for themselves, certain nations financed the Shah to stop them. The second time, they had to take hostages to get their funds unfrozen.

The proper metaphor for US military intervention against Iran is a small time weed dealer getting a "visit" from some pipe bangin, chainsaw wieldin, major league gangsters, with rope and duct-tape in a holdall. Whatever might happen, it will not end well.

Y'know, the thing about a metaphor is that it's got equivalences. The equivalent of a SWAT team busting down your door and dragging you out while a week later auctioning your house off would be akin to some sort of military force attempting to take control of the country, or more realistically, some political strategy with the goal of trying to get Iran to take responsibility for themselves.


And no, the government can't "know every single thing that happens in their country at any given moment", but certain latin countries are responsible for drug trafficking, Mexico is responsible for their shitty self that causes their citizens to want to leave en masse, Afghanistan is responsible for allowing the taliban to take control, Japan is responsible for tentacle hentai and Iran is responsible for allowing mortars being made in their country being used against the US in Iraq.

Let's not get into the Latin country aspect and how the United States government funds (or has), supports, and encourages the drug trade. Are you telling me you actually believe in the "war on drugs" as if it was meant to end drugs here in America? The problem with the United States is that we create many of our own problems. We are too short-sited...ie. support Pinochet and other dictators because they help us short term. Iran-shah vs. Ayatollah and so on. Maybe we should live and let live as public policy or it might be too late.

No other great empire in history had people who could nuke them.

Might I point out...

The British Empire, CCCP, De Gaulle's France, PRC, India...

I think these countries qualify as great empires who lived/live under nuclear threat, don't you too?

Well the first time Iranians tried to take responsibilty for themselves, certain nations financed the Shah to stop them. The second time, they had to take hostages to get their funds unfrozen.

The proper metaphor for US military intervention against Iran is a small time weed dealer getting a "visit" from some pipe bangin, chainsaw wieldin, major league gangsters, with rope and duct-tape in a holdall. Whatever might happen, it will not end well.

Responsibility, as in saying "Yes, we can't control our borders and have allowed military-grade weaponry to be exported from our country without our consent. We're trying to stop them the best we can, and that's all we can do."

And yes, you can also say the metaphor requires us to be assholes with pipes and chainsaws, but not if they're responsible for it. If they allow such weapons to get out of their country and into Iraq, then they need to be told to smack themselves in the face and get their shit together.

Let's not get into the Latin country aspect and how the United States government funds (or has), supports, and encourages the drug trade. Are you telling me you actually believe in the "war on drugs" as if it was meant to end drugs here in America? The problem with the United States is that we create many of our own problems. We are too short-sited...ie. support Pinochet and other dictators because they help us short term. Iran-shah vs. Ayatollah and so on. Maybe we should live and let live as public policy or it might be too late.

Blah blah... if you've read a few of my posts, you wouldn't even consider me to support any kind of WAR ON VAGUE NOUN the US is going off on. Regardless, the fact remains that a large amount of cocaine and other drugs comes from latin countries.

I didn't even mention what the US is responsible for, because the list is fucklong. Generally anything you can think of that's going on in the world, and we're at least partly responsible for it - at least. Usually more.

So yes, we're all responsible for what we do, and everyone else is responsible for what they do. I thought that was pretty much a given.

Responsibility, as in saying "Yes, we can't control our borders and have allowed military-grade weaponry to be exported from our country without our consent. We're trying to stop them the best we can, and that's all we can do."

And yes, you can also say the metaphor requires us to be assholes with pipes and chainsaws, but not if they're responsible for it. If they allow such weapons to get out of their country and into Iraq, then they need to be told to smack themselves in the face and get their shit together.



Blah blah... if you've read a few of my posts, you wouldn't even consider me to support any kind of WAR ON VAGUE NOUN the US is going off on. Regardless, the fact remains that a large amount of cocaine and other drugs comes from latin countries.

I didn't even mention what the US is responsible for, because the list is fucklong. Generally anything you can think of that's going on in the world, and we're at least partly responsible for it - at least. Usually more.

So yes, we're all responsible for what we do, and everyone else is responsible for what they do. I thought that was pretty much a given.

not we as a government vs. we as individuals and their differences. You just assisted me in proving my point. Cheerio.

I suggest you note page 5, defence production, where the 81mm ones get their check?

And you don't need to produce something to supply - you only have to own it. Which Iran - according to the document you provided - does.

Edit: Even better. If I'm reading this right, the 81mm mortar (Munitions) are included in production, but not in the equipment of the Iranian army.

Well. What conclusion does this suggest? Export, perhaps?

Funny how everyone just ignores this because the facts aren't convenient to their cause.

Funny how everyone just ignores this because the facts aren't convenient to their cause.

Oh no don't get me wrong I didn't try to deliberately decieve anyone. I didn't notice that part of the list on page 5. Perhaps there is a possibility that Iran is sending those imported mortar shells to Iraq. But it's still not definite proof.

This 81mm shell that has been presented could well be a dressed-up Pakistan shell for all we know.

The Iranians probably are supplying weapons to the Shia insurgency.

Why wouldn't they? It is the same thing we did to the soviets in Afghanistan.

IN a pretty interesting turn of events, Steyr firearms of Austria was denied permission by the US government to sell its semiautomatic rifles in the US, and because of that was forced to take its business to Iran.

Iran was sold a great deal of .50BMG rifles, very similar to those used by US forces.

A lot of these rifles are turning up in Iraq, and their extraordinary firepower is being turned on US troops.

Thanks Jaw Bush, better that the Iranians have those rifles than the Americans. Why, they might be used in a crime! :rolleyes:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JPKY4R41A1KIBQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran13.xml

The Iranians probably are supplying weapons to the Shia insurgency.

Why wouldn't they? It is the same thing we did to the soviets in Afghanistan.

The Shia are the majority in the U.S proclaimed legitimate Iraqi government. And the Shia militias and army units are more often than not loyal to the government. Which in turn is helping the Coalition fight against the largely Sunni insurgency, largely led by former Saddam loyalist Ba'athist soldiers. If what you're saying is true, Iran is being slightly counter-productive.

The Shia are the majority in the U.S proclaimed legitimate Iraqi government. And the Shia militias and army units are more often than not loyal to the government. Which in turn is helping the Coalition fight against the largely Sunni insurgency, largely led by former Saddam loyalist Ba'athist soldiers. If what you're saying is true, Iran is being slightly counter-productive.

Why let a silly little thing like sectarianism ruin a sweet deal eh?

Did anyone see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's interview with Diane Sawyer last night? I am not surprised that he would not answer any of her questions, and tried to downplay the documents presented. I was surprised, however, that he allowed a woman to interview him!

Right. I just wish Bush and the boys would just be honest, and say "screw you, and world opinion. We don't like you, and we want your oil, so wea re going to invade. You don't like it? tough." No other great empire in history had to come up with excuses to expand its possesions.

Not actually true. Caesar spent a whole book justifying his invasions of Gaul and Britain to the Senate and he's not the onlyt one to have had to spend half his time begging his people for permission.

The Shia are the majority in the U.S proclaimed legitimate Iraqi government. And the Shia militias and army units are more often than not loyal to the government. Which in turn is helping the Coalition fight against the largely Sunni insurgency, largely led by former Saddam loyalist Ba'athist soldiers. If what you're saying is true, Iran is being slightly counter-productive.

The sunni insurgency is fighting the shiites by suicide bombing them, the shiite insurgency is fighting the americans by shooting and roadside bombing them.

Iran wants to do to the US what the US did to the soviets in afghanistan, hurt them and drive them out on the cheap.

Responsibility, as in saying "Yes, we can't control our borders and have allowed military-grade weaponry to be exported from our country without our consent. We're trying to stop them the best we can, and that's all we can do."

And yes, you can also say the metaphor requires us to be assholes with pipes and chainsaws, but not if they're responsible for it. If they allow such weapons to get out of their country and into Iraq, then they need to be told to smack themselves in the face and get their shit together.
.

Given the beligerence of the current administration, why on earth would they make life easier for the Americans. They already offered, and it was rejected.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6274147.stm

Did anyone see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's interview with Diane Sawyer last night? I am not surprised that he would not answer any of her questions, and tried to downplay the documents presented. I was surprised, however, that he allowed a woman to interview him!
Um. Iran isn't Saudi Arabia. (Native) female journalists exist. Just as women have the vote, can be elected (Not sure about the present stats - the Chamenei administration had about 1/3 of the parliament filled with women, and a handful of female ministers), and so on. Restrictions apply to social conduct and appearance - I.e. clothing -, but not to, lets say, their choice of profession (Unless it's prostitution, anyway). There's certainly a significant degree of inequality left, particularly with regards to the sexual conduct expected from each gender, but overall... You're severely missinformed.

As such, it's hardly surprising Ahmedijihad had a woman interview him - he's used to it, really. The only odd thing would've been the lack of a headscarf...

Back on topic - from what I can tell, the evidence seems to be rather conclusive (And hell - it'd be odd if Iran didn't provide assistance to Shia groups. On the plus side, it's a safe bet that they fire more often at Sunni formations than 'merican soldiers).

It's of course perfectly apt to compare the present propaganda campaign (The one by US gov, that is) with the campaign that preceded the last iraq war - however, it is worth noting the differences: The 'WMD' issue involved a whole forest of intelligence papers with lots of ink, and no hard evidence whatsoever. Just accusations (Which were disproven post-invasion).

This issue involves the observable presence of weaponry in Iraq. Weaponry that was, in all likelyhood (And in some cases beyond all doubt), produced and/ or acquired by Iran.

And generally speaking, don't ya'll think that the latter is slightly more believable? What with having actual examples available... For everyone to see, touch, and smell.

Funny how everyone just ignores this because the facts aren't convenient to their cause.

Or your/Israel's cause? If I make a product in the US that kills someone in Canada is it the US government fault if I was selling it at a flee market? When they find strong evidence that Iran's government was involved I will change my mind. I do these things based on facts and not wishful thinking. By the way, what ability do we have to carry on an invasion of Iran as well?

Um. Iran isn't Saudi Arabia. (Native) female journalists exist. Just as women have the vote, can be elected (Not sure about the present stats - the Chamenei administration had about 1/3 of the parliament filled with women, and a handful of female ministers), and so on. Restrictions apply to social conduct and appearance - I.e. clothing -, but not to, lets say, their choice of profession (Unless it's prostitution, anyway). There's certainly a significant degree of inequality left, particularly with regards to the sexual conduct expected from each gender, but overall... You're severely missinformed.

As such, it's hardly surprising Ahmedijihad had a woman interview him - he's used to it, really. The only odd thing would've been the lack of a headscarf...

Back on topic - from what I can tell, the evidence seems to be rather conclusive (And hell - it'd be odd if Iran didn't provide assistance to Shia groups. On the plus side, it's a safe bet that they fire more often at Sunni formations than 'merican soldiers).

It's of course perfectly apt to compare the present propaganda campaign (The one by US gov, that is) with the campaign that preceded the last iraq war - however, it is worth noting the differences: The 'WMD' issue involved a whole forest of intelligence papers with lots of ink, and no hard evidence whatsoever. Just accusations (Which were disproven post-invasion).

This issue involves the observable presence of weaponry in Iraq. Weaponry that was, in all likelyhood (And in some cases beyond all doubt), produced and/ or acquired by Iran.

And generally speaking, don't ya'll think that the latter is slightly more believable? What with having actual examples available... For everyone to see, touch, and smell.

point taken, now prove it was government sponsored and I'll change my opinion.