Why do the Iranian 81mm mortar rounds - manufactured in Iran - have english markings on them rather than Farsi? (see page 11).   Is this to be deceptive as to the origin or for export purposes - where English may be the "universal" language?  I suppose there's another possiblity - the western equipment they purchase for manufacturing didn't only came with English fonts or die stamp tools... Not that I doubt any of this as I'm certainly convinced of this, but I'm just curious.

They probably bought the dies from Western Europe (Germany or even England hmm??) so off the shelf its cheaper to keep English markings and doesn't arouse any suspicion from die makers. Some of those dies are high prescion hardened steels--best die makers out there are German machine shops.

Here is proof that Iranian weapons are being funneled to anti-US forces in Iraq.

Some on this board seem to refuse to believe it, so here is the powerpoint presentation:http://www.iraqslogger.com/downloads/Iran_in_Iraq__English_.pdf" target=_blank>link

There is no doubt that iranian weapons, training and money are distributed by the Qods-brigades (part of the revolutionary guards) inside Irak to help shiite insurgents and even Sunni insurgents too (to create sectarian violence). People who denie it - like herc - do it for rethoric reasons only. But what does it mean, "iranian" support? Iran is a potentionally failed state with many different parties. The ruling shiite mullahs are split in moderate conservatives (stay in power and enjoy life), real conservatives (force iranian shiites into the real faith and stay in power) and revolutionary conservatives with its revolutionary gurads(force all shiites into the right faith, fight sunnis and any western influence, export terror for the sake of faith, destroy Israel). Add ethnic kurds, socialist guerrillas, western interlectuals, drug trafficking tribes, sunni/arab opposoions and some other ethnic problems. And add the army as the only real different source of power. Currently the revolutionary conservatives and their revolutionary guards place the president (with this name I will never be able to spell) and the religious leadership (Ayatollah Chatami). But even if the moderates or the real conservative will take power (Rafsanshani) the revolutionary conservatives and the revolutionary guards will last. Their power is based on arms. And they do it their own way. So even if the iranian state departement and the iranian army would oppose any help to iraki insurgents the revolutionary guards would do it anyway. Same problem with the iranian nuke program. The iranian revolutionary conservative and the revolutionary guards are seeking nukes. They may fire them at Israel and other western targets as a last stand in future iranian civil war (or commit nuke terrorism by deploying nukes in containers or trucks around the world). You cannot deter people with such a faith and hate waiting for the mhadi. So military action against iranian nuclear facilities is unavoidable. But we should spare - if possible - the iranian army. The iranian army is the wests potential ally. We can't invade and occupy Iran anyway. Air strikes and raids against nuclear facilities and some other action against the revolutionary guards will do it. Maybe some other parties unite against the revolutionary guards to save Irans economy (oil drills and refineries will be easily destroyed). And  the the army would not like to loose its assets in a senseless war against the west. The army will defend Irans formal unity and not the revolutionary guards behavior. So the the west - the US and the UK, maybe the Aussies - shoud focus on the revolutionary guards. They should be fought inside Irak. If cross border action should be neccessary any opertion should end the iranian nuke program too. To destroy the revolutionary guards and the nuclear facilities is in the interest of Iran (no nuke counter strike, no revenge genocide) and in our interest. Nowadays we mostly are fighting political and religious movements (like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Taleban in Afghanistan, the islamic courts in Somalia and the revolutionary guards in Iran) and not the states (usally failed ones) itself. And we learned in Irak the hard way that nation building and the export of democracy western style - a noble cause - may fail. So let's support "our" guys. But the future of there country belongs to them as long as they do not threaten us (like the revolutionary guards and the nuke program and the suppport of irake insurgents does).

I just can not believe anything this administration says anymore. They have proven to be liars and it is foolish to take the word of liars. We have 140,000 troops in Iraq and the best evidence they can come up with is a the capture of a couple of dudes in Kurdistan and snapshot pictures of ordinance. That is not a smoking gun. Very high scutiny should be put on the administartion because if they do not get the evidence they want history proves they will lie or try to fabricate the evidence.

 

And you'd rather believe the Iranians, who are obviously quite innocent. 

 

Just what kind of evidence do you want?  Not mentioned is a cache of Steyr-Mannlicher .50 HS Steyr "sniper" rifles, fitted with a telescopes, that was discovered. Over 100 of these have been found in Iraq and have apparently killed some 170 American and British troops.  Guess what?  These were part of a batch of 800 sold to Iran by Steyr. Steyr, threatened with sanctions by the US, is now bitterly complaining that it was a "legal" sale.  I hope the US places extremely long term sanctions on them.

 

But then it appears incredibly easy for you to say its a lie too.  But its all too real to the US troops in Iraq.  Ask them who's providing this stuff. Ask Iraqi's who's providing this stuff. They all seem to know.  Admittedly, the Iranians appear to have no idea who's doing it...

 

Oh, if you read around a little - you'll find the 16 pages above are just a small part of the dossier.

 

Who refuses to believe it?  I thought it was common knowledge.  My only question is for how much longer will we fail to exhibit the fortitude to really do something about it.  Oil flow, mid-east stability, allies, creating a coalition, etc. are immaterial.  One member of an Iranian government organization (such as the IRGC) participating in one act of violence against one American is an act of war by Iran against America, and Congress has no excuse for doing anything other than declaring war on Iran today.

1.)  It is not common knowledge as the evidence hardly incriminates the Iranian regime.

 

2.)  The use of EFPs was (according to the US) first introduced in June 2004.  The US to my knowledge was, at that time, fighting a mainly Sunni Arab nationalist insurgency that was diametrically opposed to Shiites coming to power.  The only conflict the US had with Shiites after that point was Sadr's Mahdi Army in August 2004 (which did not use EFPs during the battle of Najaf).  So we are to believe that Persian Shiite Iran started giving EFPs to Sunni Arab nationalists who fight against Iran's Shiite allies in Iraq?  Not likely.

 

3.)  There is the proposition that the Iranians wanted to keep the Americans tied down and thus funneled the armament to the Sunnis, but in doing so they would have taken the risk that those arms would be used on their Shiite allies; a dubious proposition.  The Army cites as "evidence" an attack on the Iraqi (Shiite) Police that Iran is funding the insurgency, though it leaves unexplained why Iran would attack their Shiite allies in Iraq.

 

4.)  No doubt Iran has a vested interest in what goes on in Iraq and no doubt there are Iranian agents in Iraq, just as there are Turkish, Syrian, Israeli, and Saudi agents in Iraq.  However is the Iranian government responsible for everything that crosses its borders?  Is it omnipotent that it can regulate the flow of illegal/legal arms shipments across its borders?  The US government cannot control everything that passes through its borders so it is doubtful that Iran could do better.  There are millions of AK-47s and RPG-7s in Iraq, does that mean that Russia is directly responsible for American deaths in Iraq?  How about American made weaponry that falls into the hands of insurgents; is that automatic grounds for believing the US is responsible for US deaths?

 

5.)  It is likely that there are Iranian arms in Iraq just as there are Russian, American and Israeli arms in Iraq.  Most probably Iran has been funneling them to their proxy armies (Badr Brigade, SCIRI, and Dawa) for protection at the least.  None of these militias are currently at war with the US, and it doesn't seem likely that Iran would support Sunni Arab nationalists.  It could be that some of these weapons were sold on the black market and Sunnis got a hold of them that way, or through raids of Shiite strongholds. It may still be the case that Iran wishes to harm the US through a Sunni Arab nationalist insurgency, however I see scant evidence of that.  No C2 coming from Iran, no money flows (it all comes from ex-Baathists and kidnappings), etc. 

Who refuses to believe it?  I thought it was common knowledge.

WOW!

Well, there are some people on this board who continue to refuse to see or believe the obvious. I will equate to them holocaust deniers.