Can't get past the first page of your link due to work filters.

I do not believe that the media is the source of overblowing Irans involvement. I do believe that is a source of spin from the left, that we have nothing to fear from Iran's intrest in seeing us bogged down in a what is essentially a civil war. There is really no evidence that media sources are overblowing their involvement.

This is not a left-winged source. The guy that made this is the leading researcher in Iraqi insurgency.

Here is a bio of him:

Evan Kohlmann's comments do not support your comment, "The media is overblowing Iran's involvement in the war." His comments are about the pundits in Washington.

They are both overblowing the situation. If you look at the facts you can see that Iran is not doing anything close to as bad as the Saudis are.

The liberal bias in the media is overblowing the fact that they think the government is over blowing the actions of Iran. Did you even read any of the links I posted? There is direct evidence that Irainian weapons are killing US and British troops. The borders are pourous.

Once again, you fail to process what I have given you.

First, I have not posted any left-winged source.

Second, the leading researcher in field said:

Lets put this to a situation we can relate too. Lets say the Soviet Union was still strong and they invaded Mexico. Do you really think American weapons would not be in Mexico? Iran see both Sunnis and Americans as threats just as you see both Stalinism and Soviets as threats. The Sunnis are getting backed from Saudi Arabia and the Shiites are getting back (at lot less backing mind you) by Iran and yet we focus all the attention on Iran. Can you not see that double standard?

Once again, you fail to process what I have given back to you.

I did not say that the author or his site were from a left-winged source. I said your position that the media were behind it was. And I stated that your post did not support your statement;

"The media is overblowing Iran's involvement in the war."

I fully understand the motivation of the people in Saudi Arabia. Don't delude yourself. The discussion is about the strength of the influence of Iranian involvement. Which you believe, based on this single source, to be not significant. I say that there is evidence which is surfacing that such a notion is false.

My source does back up that statement.

That means both the government officials and the media.

This is where it becomes very complicated. No one is going to deny Iran involvement but then why do we pick them out when there influence, even if it has been growing, is much less than Saudi influence.

I have read your sources and they seem to imply that the Iranian influence is getting stronger, which makes sense to a response and equalizer of stronger Saudi support. I am not saying that there is no Iranian support or denying that it is getting stronger, just that it has no comparison to Saudi support and your sources don't compare it to Saudi support.

Lets take a hypothetical example (the number mean nothing except representing support):
Month 1:
-Saudi Support: 10
-Iranian Support: 2

Month 2:
-Saudi Support: 20
-Iranian Support: 5

Now if the media just comments on Iranian support it seems that Iranian support has greatly increased but as long as they don't compare it to Saudi support, that is very misleading since Saudi support has increased by 10 when Iran has only grown by 3.

Your examples are hypothetical at best. We really don't disagree except on what you and I believe are the weight of whom is influencing whom. The problem with the money trail is that it is not just Iraq where the money and weapons end up. The trail is basically as speculative as is the source of material goods. Much of the money out of Saudi could also be going to Afgan, Paki's, and Indonesian insurgencies. Most experts agree that the method of transfering monies through the money changers is impossible to trace. If it were easy we most likely could have cut the head off this snake a long time ago.

"Lets take a hypothetical example (the number mean nothing except representing support):" :D

That and probably the perspective we are looking at it from.

Another interesting view of Iranian intentions:

http://www.brookings.edu/views/artic...n/20070218.htm

Maybe we should give him a second chance to prove his point. . .

First, this is the propaganda I was talking about. The facts are not what I disagree with, I bet everything this guy says is true, it is just he makes it off like Iran is the only one doing it so it is somehow bad.

• The article does not once mention Sunni involvement.
• The article does not mention that the US has done the same thing as Iran is doing.
• The article does not mention why Iranians are anti-American.
• The article does not mention any deep analysis on.
• The article just takes the Iranian perspective and not the whole Middle East's perspective.

The article starts out by mentioning how bad Iran has been in the past to set the scene. I won't disagree that it is fact, just that it sets the mood for the rest of the article and you have remember that the US has supplied terrorist groups weapons as well to fight groups that have threatened our interests.

That is basically what everything comes down too, protecting interests. Iran, along with the rest of the Middle East, does not want US influence so to single out Iran is flawed. Yes, Iran will fight the US occupation but so are the Sunni nationalists and so are the Sunni Extremists, it isn't something that Iran is doing by itself. Along with past US-Iranian relations, this is not something that should be surprising or something that we should see as a direct attack against us. All this shows is that they want our influence out of the Middle East just like Europeans do not want their influence there.

Besides that, this article even says that the Shiites are not attacking Americans, but Sunnis. This shows directly that the civil war is the main cause for the Iranian arms in Iraq, not the American occupation even though that does have some effect.

No one in the Middle East wants a secular and pro-Western Iraq that America dreams of. This is just mentioning Iran and never in the article does it say that Iraqis or Saudis do not want a secular pro-Western Iraq as well.

Everything else that the article mentions is common sense. Of course Iran wants influence in Iraq, everyone wants influence in Iraq. That is the reason why we attacked Iraq in the first place, to spread our influence. But they give Iran a negative connotation when they do it as well, why?

My real question is why is Iran being attacked for doing something that everyone else is doing?

How about because Iran is nothing remotely resembling a democracy? How about because Iran's ruling oligarchy is determinedly anti-US, and thus likely in any case to oppose our interests, whatever they may be? These would seem reason enough for us at least to view Iran's actions with a jaundiced eye, and take measures to counter them.

And of course, anything that gouges an undemocrat's eye is good for democracy. It keeps the undemocrats helpless, and that is what the real democrats want.

It's not our place.