# A Nuclear Iran NOT Iraq is the world's biggest threat!



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Iraq is nothing in comparison to this threat!

-------------------------------

Cheney: Iran must not have nuclear weapons

Iran may be referred to U.N. Security Council
03.27.06

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday that Iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and warned "the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime."

Cheney said the Iranian government "continues to defy the world with its nuclear ambitions" and that the issue may soon go before the U.N. Security Council.

"The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences," Cheney said in a speech to the to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an influential pro-Israel lobbying group.

He said the United States joins "other nations in sending that regime a clear message: we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

Earlier Tuesday, the White House said it opposes allowing Iran to enrich any uranium, and expects the U.N. Security Council to move forward to rebuke Tehran for its disputed nuclear program.

"The international community has spelled out what Iran must do -- that means suspend all enrichment activity," presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said ahead of President Bush's meeting Tuesday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

McClellan's comments came as a diplomat in Vienna, Austria, where the International Atomic Energy Agency is meeting, told The Associated Press that Iran is offering to suspend full-scale uranium enrichment for up to two years. The offer reflected Tehran's attempts to escape Security Council action over the activity, which can be used to make nuclear arms.

The diplomat, who demanded anonymity in exchange for divulging confidential information, said the Tehran's offer was made Friday by chief Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani in Moscow in the context of contacts between Iran and Russia on moving Tehran's enrichment program to Russia. But Iran's envoy to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said Tuesday his country was not prepared to freeze small-scale enrichment.

Russian foreign minister in Washington
The Bush administration is getting closer to a U.N. Security Council rebuke of Iran, but the latest round of diplomacy shows the United States needs the help of Cold War foe Russia to close the deal.

Lavrov is holding multiple meetings with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, plus the highly unusual session in the Oval Office. U.S. presidents customarily receive foreign heads of state in the presidential office, but seldom invite a lower-ranking official such as a foreign minister for a meeting there.

"This is an issue of confidence with the international community," McClellan said. "The regime has shown it cannot be trusted. It hid its nuclear activities for two decades from the international community. It has refused to comply with its international obligations. This is about the regime and its behavior. That's what this is about and that's what our focus is."

Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley had dinner with Lavrov Monday evening.

Russia is also a key player in the U.S. drive to limit aid to the extremist group Hamas, which has taken control of the Palestinian legislature.

The U.S. desire for Russian help against Hamas is just one of several cards Lavrov holds as the Security Council prepares to take up the case of Iran's disputed nuclear program.

Russia, which has veto power as one of the permanent members of the Security Council, is perhaps Tehran's most important ally and business partner. Russia also has crafted a potential compromise to head off sanctions or other punishment of Iran.

China, which also has veto power on the Security Council, is appealing for further negotiation. "Iran should cooperate closely with the IAEA to settle the nuclear dispute," Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said Tuesday in Beijing at a news conference. "There is still room for settlement of the issue in the IAEA."

The United States won a diplomatic coup in February when Russia went along with the U.S.-backed effort to report Iran to the council, but had to agree to a delay of at least a month before the council could take any action. That window is closing without the progress Russia hoped to claim on its proposed nuclear compromise.

It is not clear, however, that Moscow will support a U.S. move for penalties against Iran.

Negotiations continues
Russian agencies quoted Lavrov as saying Monday that Russia's proposal to move Iran's uranium enrichment program to Russian territory remains on the table, but that Iran must reimpose a moratorium on the enrichment of uranium and agree to new scrutiny by the IAEA.

"The result of the IAEA session that has begun in Vienna can be satisfactory only if the remaining questions about Iran's past nuclear program are completely answered," Lavrov said in Ottawa, according to the ITAR-Tass news agency.

Rice telephoned Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA at the agency's Vienna headquarters on Monday to reiterate the U.S. position that Iran "must cease all (uranium) enrichment-related activity," according to State Department spokesman Tom Casey.

Meanwhile, a top State Department official warned that the Security Council will intervene "quite actively" if Iran does not act quickly on the nuclear issue.

The IAEA will reaffirm its stance this week in Vienna, "unless Iran does a dramatic about-face and suspends all of its nuclear activities," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told the Heritage Foundation, a private research group.

He did not say what the United States would ask the Security Council to do. While the Bush administration takes a stern line toward Tehran it is not seeking economic or other penalties immediately, and might not be able to win Russian or other backing for that move in any case.

----------------------------------

If the world allows Iran to continue down this path, it is only a matter of time before we will intervene militarily. Can you imagine the scenarios?

The Muslim world will definitely be calling for an expanded Jihad against the West.

This is getting scarier by the day....

Ryan

.


----------



## boondocks (Jan 27, 2006)

Anyone see the documentary on FOX News the other night entitled IRAN and the bomb.Yeah,their gonna have nukes in no time and they are threatening to blow the US and Isreal off the map.Makes you wonder, to be making threats like that they probably already have nukes.I guess they didn't say they are gonna, they said we should be blown off the map.If their is a difference.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Lovable, peaceful little fellas.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

We've got maybe 5 years before they can develop one on their own. We can't attack thanks to having our hands tied in Iraq, and a tactical bombing strike would do little. We must negotiate peacefully until and unless another option comes to the table.


----------



## wyley (Mar 7, 2006)

Look where peace talks have gotten us in the past... :roll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

wyley said:


> Look where peace talks have gotten us in the past... :roll:


I'm open to any solution you might have. As of now, peace is what we have to work with. If we went for peace in Iraq we would still have a military capable of redeploying if it becomes necessary.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Here is something I posted in August (about four pages back in the forum) ... didn't gather much attention then ... but it ties in well here now ESPECIALLY THE FIRST FEW PARAGRAPHS.

Mostafa Mohammad-Najar, brigadier general in the Revolutionary Guards, has packed a lurid, blood-spattered biography into his 49 years.. 
Last week, the Iranian majlis automatically approved the new cabinet tailored by president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to conform with the ultra-conservative policies of the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Of the 21 new ministers, 18 hail from the Revolutionary Guards and the dread secret police, forming a war cabinet par excellence. 
Mohammad-Najar's credentials stand out enough - even in this company - to attract the attention of watchers in Washington, Jerusalem and most Middle East capitals. They mark him out as one of the most brutal products of Iran's secret services and therefore, by definition, a high-ranking and seasoned terror master. 
He is in fact the longtime senior controller of Imad Mughniyeh, one of Washington's most wanted terror masters, who currently serves as chief of the Hizballah's special security apparatus and Tehran's go-between with al Qaeda. 
The new defense minister is notorious for his role in the earliest terror attacks on US targets in the Middle East. The first was the October 23, 1983, suicide bombing of US Marines headquarters in Beirut which killed 241 Marines. The second was the Khobar Towers blast in eastern Saudi Arabia on June 25, 1996. This was a joint Iranian intelligence-al Qaeda operation targeting the facility housing American fighter pilots and air force crews guarding the Dharan oil fields. The death toll of that atrocity was officially put at 19 with 200 injured, but was certainly much higher. 
In 1982, after the Iran-Iraq war, Muhammad-Najar was placed at the head of the Revolutionary Guards Middle East department which controls Iranian intelligence bodies in the region, including Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf emirates, and runs clandestine projects for the "export of the Islamic revolution" to these countries. He quickly proved himself an able organizer and operations chief. He forthwith planted 1,500 Revolutionary Guardsmen in the Lebanese Beqaa Valley. Their transit through Syria was approved by the Damascus government. This Iranian outpost established the first recruiting center for the new Lebanese Shiite terrorist organization calling itself Hizballah. 
Right from the start, Muhammad-Najar worked closely with a rising star in the Islamic terrorist firmament, Imad Mughniyeh, who debuted with spectacular abductions of foreigners, mostly American and British hostages. The two became firm friends in this period. In February 1988, the pair organized the kidnapping of Colonel William R (Rich Higgins, the most senior American intelligence officer in Lebanon. He was tortured to death by Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen and Hizballah operatives on an unknown date. 
Later in the 1980s, when Lebanon became too hot for him, Mughniyeh fled the country ahead of American pursuit. His Iranian friend and future Iranian defense minister arranged for Iranian intelligence to protect him and smuggle him to safety in Tehran. 
Muhammad-Najar also has a history of deadly strikes against Israel. More than one account ascribes him a role in the suicide bombings of Israeli army command posts in the southern Lebanese towns of Tyre and Sidon in 1983. 
After his 1985 appointment as head of Iran's Military Industries Organization under the aegis of the Revolutionary Guards, he kept up his connections with the Iranian terrorist machine including the Hizballah. One of his jobs was to develop weapons adapted to terrorist warfare outside Iran. He took a personal interest in developing the 230mm Iranian super mortar that was supplied to the Revolutionary Guards' al Quds battalion and the Hizballah for use in the Middle East and also in Europe. 
The new defense minister is also credited with organizing the 12,000 Katyusha short-range rockets Hizballah has positioned on the Lebanese-Israeli border as a deterrent against Israeli attacks on Iran and itself. 
In October 2000, a month after the outbreak of the Palestinian suicide terror war against Israel, Muhammad-Najar took a hand in the Hizballah's kidnap of three Israeli soldiers, Adi Avitan, Benny Abraham and Omar Suweid. At the end of 2001, he helped prepare the 50-ton illegal weapons cargo for loading at Kish Island aboard the Karine-A smuggling ship. Vessel and cargo were seized by Israeli commandos on the Red Sea before they reached Arafat's terrorist squads in the Gaza Strip. 
In nearly five years of the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the new Iranian defense minister stayed in close touch with the Hizballah's 1800 Unit, which interacts with the Palestinian terrorist organizations and whose agents are actively present in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and among dissident Israeli Arabs. 
Ahmadinejad picked him as defense minister in appreciation of his expertise as an intelligence and terror mastermind with long experience of violent covert operations against American and Israeli targets in such places as Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and his work in conjunction with Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist organizations. Muhammad-Najar's presence in a key position in the Iranian government is bad news above all for the United States and Israel. They see him as an omen of the imminent stepping up of Iranian involvement in Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist campaigns across the Middle East.


----------



## wyley (Mar 7, 2006)

Do you guys remember when Dr.Evil was on the moon about to take over the world. And the president suggested they blow up the moon. Would you miss it?

Anyways...Ya I know there must be some good on our holy land.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

> We've got maybe 5 years before they can develop one on their own.


You know this for a fact?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> You know this for a fact?


No one could possibly know that for fact. Those are the best estimates I have come across.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have heard 6 months to 5 years. I think it is very dangerous to assume the later. I would guess it is somewhere in between. I have never ever heard anyone say 10 years.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> I have heard 6 months to 5 years. I think it is very dangerous to assume the later. I would guess it is somewhere in between. I have never ever heard anyone say 10 years.


You have now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01453.html 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4217824.stm


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Thanks. Most of my information came from news TV interviews with military people, and some policy types. I think there are alarmists, but I am alarmed more by those who think we are perfectly safe.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> Thanks. Most of my information came from news TV interviews with military people, and some policy types. I think there are alarmists, but I am alarmed more by those who think we are perfectly safe.


Care to cite those?


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

You are right. Iran is a real threat. Saddam was bluffing, but Iran is not. This is why Iraq war is a major fault of current administration. We wasted a lot of money and drained our resources on Iraq. Iran has the capacity and motivation and, unlike Saddam, Iran has a tremendous support among shiites in all countries, including Iraq. Military option? What to bomb there? They hid and dispersed their nuclear research and production units.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Iran is mostly Sunnis, not Shi'ites.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

You have to love Iran's threats in response...

-----------------------
U.S.: Iran remarks 'provocative'

VIENNA, Austria (CNN) -- The United States has dismissed Iran's comments that it can inflict "harm and pain" on Washington for its role in pushing for U.N. Security Council action over Tehran's refusal to halt its nuclear program.

The White House said on Wednesday Iran continued to move in the wrong direction and would be better served to make the decision to work with the international community.

"I think that provocative statements and actions only further isolate Iran from the rest of the world," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters traveling with President George W. Bush to hurricane-affected states along the Gulf of Mexico, according to The Associated Press.

Washington is seeking international pressure to force Iran to stop its nuclear program, which U.S. officials believe is aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Iran says its program is for civilian purposes. (Watch how nuclear bombs are made -- 2:46)

Earlier Iran, the world's No. 4 oil provider, said it would review its oil export policy if the Security Council tackles its case. European Union countries said this was now inevitable as Tehran had flouted demands to prove its program was peaceful.

Javad Vaeedi, the deputy head for international affairs of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, blamed the United States for closing the door on diplomatic solutions to the situation.

"In this stage we are trying to avoid confrontation," Vaeedi said.

He hinted that if Iran is subject to U.N. sanctions, it could cause problems for the United States.

"The United States may have the power to cause harm and pain but it is also susceptible to harm and pain," Vaeedi said. "So if the United States wishes to choose that path let the ball roll."

After weeks of talks and diplomatic maneuvering over the crisis, the international community Wednesday moved one step closer to taking action against Iran.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, formally presented his report to the United Nation's nuclear watchdog on Wednesday, the final day of the IAEA board of governors' meeting in Vienna.

The report raised questions about Iran's claim that its pursuit of nuclear technology is for peaceful purposes only.

Under the terms of an agreement reached last month, the matter of Iran's nuclear dossier will be handed over to the U.N. Security Council now that ElBaradei has presented his report to the board.

The 12-page report states that the Iranians are testing 20 centrifuges and enriching uranium in 10 others, well shy of the thousands that would be required to produce enough fuel for nuclear weapons.

The report showed that "the leaders in Iran have done nothing to raise international confidence" about what Tehran says is a peaceful nuclear energy program, according to Greg Schulte, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA.

"Quite the contrary, their behavior has only contributed to mounting international concerns about its pursuit of nuclear weapons," Schulte said in a statement.

"The time has now come for the Security Council to take action."

Over the past few months, Iranian officials have made veiled threats about what it would do if the matter is handed over to the council, which could issue sanctions against the Islamic republic.

A modified Russian proposal, considered by some diplomats to be the last shot at diplomacy before the Security Council addresses the issue, went nowhere on Tuesday.

High-level diplomats close to the IAEA told CNN's Matthew Chance that the proposal to let Iran enrich a small amount of uranium on its soil was floated by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during his trip to Washington on Tuesday.

But Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters after their meeting that no such proposal was discussed, or even existed. They both stood by the original Russian plan to enrich uranium on Russian soil and then ship it to Tehran.

Rice said the United States would not back away from its position "that enrichment and reprocessing on Iranian soil is not acceptable because of the proliferation risk."

While Russia and the United States, both permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, announced their solidarity in finding a diplomatic solution to the crisis, a rift could emerge should the council consider sanctions.

Russia and another permanent council member, China, have voiced their opposition to sanctions. Lavrov would not address the issue in Washington, saying no proposal for sanctions was under consideration.

Talks between Iran and the EU3 -- Britain, France and Germany -- stalled in January when Iran began small-scale uranium enrichment and ended its voluntary cooperation with the IAEA, which had been conducting surprise inspections.

The United States and European Union demanded that Iran reconsider its decision, but Tehran accused the West of holding it to higher standards than it does the rest of the world.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Sevendogs ... even setting everything else aside about "changing Iraq" ...

Simply having Military Bases in Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan, Qatar and UAE) could hardly be considered a "Bad thing" in my book ...

Building an Iraqi army to defend it's self.

Plus looking like a decent Coalition building for potential events in Iran ...

Folks who look at things and choose to see only what they view as bad ... truely amaze me.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks. Most of my information came from news TV interviews with military people, and some policy types. I think there are alarmists, but I am alarmed more by those who think we are perfectly safe.
> ...


Your kidding, you think I keep notes while I watch television. I am sure the controversy will continue, so next time I see it I will write it down for you. I don't remember names very well, but the guy with the shortest prediction was a retired hmmmm general or something. He is often a contributor to Fox news. One fellow was on I think Hannity and Colmes. I would like to hear what Ole North would have to say.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> He is often a contributor to Fox news. One fellow was on I think Hannity and Colmes.


So you know its "fair and balanced".



> Simply having Military Bases in Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan, Qatar and UAE) could hardly be considered a "Bad thing" in my book ...


It is because you will simply cause the people in the area to hate us that much more for being an occupying force.



> Building an Iraqi army to defend it's self.


Which isn't happening.



> Folks who look at things and choose to see only what they view as bad ... truely amaze me.


We are looking at what is actually unfolding there. Yes, I have heard of girls without veils going to school. That is great, but it is outweighed by the cost in human life, not to mention funds.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

It would seem that you are a little mistaken again. This was the official report given to congress, if you take the time to actually read it.

http://www.defenselink.mil/home/feature ... Report.pdf


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You do realize that only one group of Iraqis were cleared as "combat ready", that is to fight without American support, and have been subsequently downgraded, right?


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I hate to get too carried away with what may come off as a personal attack ...

But if you believe there has been no progress made in Iraqi forces taking command to the degree their capabilities will allow ... you are either blind, or intellectually dishonest as to what is happening.

The notion that any of this War against Radical Islam will be easy is just plain naive.

I'm not quite sure what your thinking is ... but from where I sit ... if we are going to fight "Radical Isalm" I can't help but believe it's a really good idea to have Military Bases in the neigborhood and personal contact with our supporters in the region.

You seem to believe that if we packed up all our toys and went home ... all of Islam would adore us ... Me thinks NOT.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> But if you believe there has been no progress


There has been progress, just not nearly enough and not nearly rapidly enough.

I saw an interview with a soldier in the Iraqi army, he was asked "What will happen when then Americans leave?" He replied "They will never leave." He was asked "What will you do if they leave?" He replied "I will go home to my family in the north."



> The notion that any of this War against Radical Islam will be easy is just plain naive.


A war on radical Islam was not the motive of this war, at least not the actual motive. No one claimed it would be easy, but it might be wise to fight it where it is actually present.



> You seem to believe that if we packed up all our toys and went home ... all of Islam would adore us ... Me thinks NOT.


Absolutely not, but giving the next generation reasons to hate us is counter productive. I want out, now, but I know it is not for the best. We stepped in quicksand with this mess.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

> I saw an interview with a soldier in the Iraqi army, he was asked "What will happen when then Americans leave?" He replied "They will never leave." He was asked "What will you do if they leave?" He replied "I will go home to my family in the north."


One soldier says this so it must be true for all of them right?



> There has been progress, just not nearly enough and not nearly rapidly enough


Name wars that have where things have went faster.



> but it might be wise to fight it where it is actually present.


Ya, let's bring em here to fight it.



> Quote:
> You seem to believe that if we packed up all our toys and went home ... all of Islam would adore us ... Me thinks NOT.
> 
> Absolutely not, but giving the next generation reasons to hate us is counter productive. I want out, now, but I know it is not for the best. We stepped in quicksand with this mess.


We have to loose this, otherwise you have nothing to gain. Funny the generation right now feels their future is much brighter.[/quote]


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> One soldier says this so it must be true for all of them right?


No one claimed such a thing, don't "spin".



> Name wars that have where things have went faster.


The problem is the progress or lack there of. If there was substantial progress being made, and it was evident that the army was more ready to support itself today than it was a year ago, the wait would be reasonable. I have seen no such evidence.



> Ya, let's bring em here to fight it.


Racer I don't believe the Iraqis attacked us on 9/11, in fact I'm certain they didn't. Seems to me that you are arguing for the sake of it.



> We have to loose this, otherwise you have nothing to gain. Funny the generation right now feels their future is much brighter.


What in God's name are you on about?


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

MT ... my basic premise is this ... In the best situation ...

What would you see as proper and correct warfare?

Would it be better if we had carried on elsewhere and had Saddam rattling his Sabre around the Middle East?

Would we be better off with Iran AND Iraq being WMD threats?

Would we be better served without the straigic positioning we now enjoy with our Military?

What you say seems to me to leave us in a position of Inaction ... Are you just upset because you didn't get to call the shots?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> It is because you will simply cause the people in the area to hate us that much more for being an occupying force


Those that hate us now want to kill us. How much more could they possible hate us? Maybe kill us twice..............


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

> MTI saw an interview with a soldier in the Iraqi army, he was asked "What will happen when then Americans leave?" He replied "They will never leave." He was asked "What will you do if they leave?" He replied "I will go home to my family in the north."


You surely implied here that that is what the Iraqi's will do.



> If there was substantial progress being made, and it was evident that the army was more ready to support itself today than it was a year ago, the wait would be reasonable


This statement is outright


> inaccurate


, I gave you facts earlier in the thread. And again you didn't answer the question, which wars have gone faster.



> See above edit. Trying to be fair here guys.
> Plainsman


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

> DecoyDummy Building an Iraqi army to defend it's self.


mt


> Which isn't happening


mt


> There has been progress, just not nearly enough and not nearly rapidly enough.


So let me get this straight, we're not getting anything done helping to build an Iraqi army to defend itself, but progress is being made just not fast enough.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> So let me get this straight, we're not getting anything done helping to build an Iraqi army to defend itself, but progress is being made just not fast enough.


We are taking two steps forward, and two steps back.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

> We are taking two steps forward, and two steps back.


Also not a true statement, if you agree that progress has been made then we are taking more forward steps than backward steps.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Also not a true statement, if you agree that progress has been made then we are taking more forward steps than backward steps.


Are you going to point out minor discrepancies in my text or focus on the actual issue? A few groups were named as ready to fight on their own, now none are. Some progress was made, we have regressed from that point. Little is getting done.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Here's some more minor discrepancies, anybody got a plug, MT's got another hole is his credibility.

Army transferring bases to Iraqi forces
March 6, 2006

BALAD, Iraq (Army News Service, March 6, 2006) - A 4th Infantry Division brigade announced this weekend that it will turn over responsibility for Forward Operating Base O'Ryan, near Balad, Iraq, to the Iraqi Army March 10.

This transition of responsibility is one of many ceremonies to come, officials said, as more Iraqi Army units prepare to take responsibility for the security of their country.

Last week, the 10th Mountain Division transferred Forward Operating Base Constitution to the Iraqi Army. Along with the base, the Iraqi troops took over operations of western Baghdad and eastern Abu Ghraib. This transfer of operations was one of the largest and most prominent since the training of Iraqi forces began, officials said.

Field Artillery preps for FOB transfer

In the upcoming Transition of Authority ceremony Friday at FOB O'Ryan, the 3rd Battalion, 29th Field Artillery Regiment will transfer the base to the 4rd Battalion, 1st Brigade, 4th Iraqi Army.

With this ceremony, the Iraqi battalion will assume responsibility for security in its own area of operations previously controlled by the 3-29th Field Artillery.

The 3-29 FA is part of the 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, assigned to the Task Force Band of Brothers. The battalion took control of its area of operations Jan. 11 and has since been training Iraqi Army units in southern Salah ad Din Province.

Western Baghdad transferred last week

The 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, handed over operations of FOB Constitution, western Baghdad and eastern Abu Ghraib to 3rd Bde., 6th IA Div., during a transfer of authority ceremony March 2.

"We are comrades. The Iraqi Army and the American forces are brothers," said Brig. Gen. Aziz Noor, commander, 3rd Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division. "We bleed together. We shed tears over the same fallen comrades,"

These words rang clear to all present, including more than 1,500 members of the Iraqi Army standing proudly in formation for the ceremony.

"The American forces are giving freedom back to the people of Iraq, just as they did in Japan, Germany and Korea," said Aziz. "We are receiving this area of responsibility and the job to protect it. God willing, we will be able to do so."

'Iraqi Soldiers learning quickly'

"Today marks a great day for the people of Baghdad and the country of Iraq, as we celebrate the accomplishments of this brigade," said Col. Jeffrey Snow, commander, 1st BCT, 10th Mountain Div. "Never have I seen a group of Soldiers learn so quickly and advance so efficiently."

The two brigades have been working alongside each other for several months in training and combat operations - ridding the area of insurgents and winning the hearts of the Iraqi people.

"Soldiers of the 1-10th Mtn. Div., and the 3-6 Iraqi Army - are truly brothers in arms," said Snow. "We both sacrifice for life, liberty and the belief that all people - no matter their tribe, religion or background - can live together as one."

Local leaders aid transition

The Iraqi Soldiers' success has been aided by the support of tribal leaders, police, counsel members and the local citizens.

Local council members said that progress has been made despite resistance, and that it will continue to improve.

"Progress for the area has been hindered because the insurgents bomb our contractors and kill the innocent civilians," said Mr. Hamed, a chairman for the Kadha council of Abu Ghraib. "Still, we have completed more than eighty percent of what we have been tasked to do, including water treatment for the people."

Change in this landscape and infrastructure has been difficult and expensive for the Soldiers.

"The price of freedom will always be paid through the blood and hard-work of the Iraqi Soldiers and police force," said Snow. "Without your efforts, there is no future for this great land."

Iraqis enthusiastic to assume job

The Iraqi Soldiers were clearly excited as the day progressed, and displayed their enthusiasm to continue the fight.

"It is a great day and a great thing to be taking over these operations, and we gladly assume the responsibilities before us," said Aziz. "We were able to secure the Abu Ghraib area, and we will work together with the citizens to bring more security to the area and rid it of terrorists."

"The Iraqi Army has gained the trust and support of the local citizens, who are the ultimate source of strength for Iraq's future," said Snow.

"The Iraqi Army is here for all people, and just as the Army must be as one force in order to be effective, so must the people they serve," he said.

"This is your Army and they represent all Iraqis in words and deed," Snow said. "Follow its example, and this country will never fail, nor tire - and Iraq will once again take its place as the center of knowledge and culture in the Middle East."


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast ... topstories

It is amazing to see how differently each side tells this story.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

There are bad things and good things happening in Iraq. The problem is biased media people tell whichever story fits their agenda, and they have one. I am totally convinced much more good is happening than what the old school media wants us to know about. Many of them are the old flower children from my generation.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

> It is amazing to see how differently each side tells this story


Yes it is, you choose to only pick out the bad things, there are quite a few good things in this story also, here are a few of them.

The battalion is still deployed, and its status as an independent fighting force could be restored any day, Pentagon officials said. It was not clear where the battalion is operating within Iraq.

According to the congressionally mandated Iraq security report released Friday, there are 53 Iraqi battalions at level two status, up from 36 in October. There are 45 battalions at level three, according to the report.

Overall, Pentagon officials said close to 100 Iraqi army battalions are operational, and more than 100 Iraq Security Force battalions are operational at levels two or three. The security force operations are under the direction of the Iraqi government.

The numbers are roughly the same as those given by the president last month when he said 125 Iraqi combat battalions were fighting the insurgency, 50 of them taking the lead.

"In January 2006, the mission is to continue to hand over more and more territory and more and more responsibility to Iraqi forces," Bush said. "That's progress."


----------

