Iran and it's Nukes

[straffo]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Reza Pulavi was a mean sob, yes. SAVAK of course wasnt very nice. Yes the usa did protect the shah after his little medicalk trip. However I dont think it was terribly nice or smart of France to host and support khameni as they did either as he subjected the Iraians to just another type of terror as the revolution ran its course to clerical dictatorship....

Too bad you were not in France with your cristal ball in the 70's

[Octavius]

Originally posted by CAVY
nice writing..to bad it makes no sence

Having troubles comprehending?  Babek has posted this same detailed explanation in past threads.  It's spot on.

[Staga]

Originally posted by AKIron
That's a pretty big load of manure there Staga. May be a while before you're free from the stench.

Really? Somehow I expected that you'd prove my points wrong; just answering "Big load of manure" isn't enough.
Sometimes I wonder what is the level of knowledge of world's history in US: it seems like it's usually pretty low; just like in this case.
_____________________________ ___

Originally posted by Cavy
nice writing..to bad it makes no sence

Same goes to you; you might want to read at least something about world history before throwing those oh so intelligent "oneliners".
If you say "to bad it makes no sense" your opinion is worth of ****; if you would continue that sentence with "because..." someone could actually read your opinion about the issue.

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by CAVY
nice writing..to bad it makes no sence

You mispelled 'sense'.

[Lizking]

It makes perfect sense, and is true, though biased to one particular viewpoint.  Primarily, I would say that EVERY regime in Iran has been tyrannical; you can not pick and choose the "good" ones or the "bad" ones.

[RedTop]

*sits in his Texas Chair and listens intently to the Bashing..and shakes his head*

Heard one time something about opinions....Butts...and stinking. I'm older now and it's all a bit fuzzy....but I'm sure it will come to me.

Continue:lol

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Putting the Shah in power was not democracy, he was a hereditary monarch. The situation was nothing like we are doing in Iraq where we want the people to vote and decide for themselves.  The only people we are by your words "brutally opressing" in Iraq are those who want to blow up and shoot up the polling places next year and kill the voters in order to stop the Iraqi people having a democracy... Your defense of these criminals as poor opressed freedom fighters is beyond ridiculous, its lunatic...

   Grun..as you are going to painfully see in the next cupple of years, there is only one government that works in Iraq.  And it aint gonna be a democratic one.  Saddam Hussien was in power for 20 + years.  Call him what you want, but that fact alone is testimony to his political savvy and what it takes to run an orderly Iraq.   Saddam brutally eliminated his enemies, just as the US is brutally eliminating the new govts enemies.  There is no difference.  
 The simple fact that the US has to kill off, by its own admission, tens of thousands of insurgents, in order to hold peaceful elections, is so rediculously oxymoronic, that I cant even find words to describe it.
  We are there for the oil, we are going to kill all that will stand in our way of getting the oil, and we are not going home until the oil is secure.  Cut and paste.

[Lizking]

The difference is that they are enemies of the Iraqi's by their own choice.  They can be part of the Democratic process if they like, but since they are thugs and murderers, they know they have no chance in an election.  Do not blame their actions on the US or the Iraqi's.

[RedTop]

I like New England Clam Chowder. Saltines and a Dr. Pepper.





Liz...Call it a hunch...but no matter what the argument..there are those here that will make it the U.S. fault.

Could be wrong though:lol

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
 The shah of iran maintained control over the vast number of differing religiuos clans, much the same way Saddam did in Iraq, and just the same way as the US is doing in Iraq now.  Brutal supression of those that do or will oppose the interests of the occupying forces.    

WH, I am really starting to think you are the reincarnation of GS. The bovine scat your spewing is remarkably similar.

What the US is doing in Iraq now doesnt even begin to compare to those other instances.

Fist of all the insurgants/combatants are the extreme minority. Making up a very very very small portion of the population. And I have seen plenty of newsclips of Iraqis over there being critical of the US and nothing at all happening to them.
  The only ones I see being brutally supressed are the ones kidnapping and beheading innocents, indescriminantly blowing things up both military and civilian targets. and those shooting at US.

And I'll tell ya what. if you were to pull a knife or a gun on me I'd "Brutally supress" you too

Bottom line is those being "Brutally supressed" in Iraq deserve to be brutally supressed.

If anything they were the brutal supressors
 executing,beheading ,cutting arms hands and fingers off or ripping the toungues from the mouths of anyone who dissagreed with them.

As is usual with the posts I've read of yours as of late.
They are short on substance and long on unfactual rhetoric

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by WhiteHawk

 The simple fact that the US has to kill off, by its own admission, tens of thousands of insurgents, in order to hold peaceful elections, is so rediculously oxymoronic, that I cant even find words to describe it.
  We are there for the oil, we are going to kill all that will stand in our way of getting the oil, and we are not going home until the oil is secure.  Cut and paste.

Lets see your source

Last I heard in Falluja there were originally an estimated 3,000 insurgents, Around 1,000 were killed, around another 1,000 were captured and it is assumed around another 1,000 left before and during the fighting.

How does that equate to tens of thousands?

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by RedTop
I like New England Clam Chowder. Saltines and a Dr. Pepper.





Liz...Call it a hunch...but no matter what the argument..there are those here that will make it the U.S. fault.

Could be wrong though:lol

Hey, redtop.  No fair being the poodle yapping behind the big dog.
  Lets hear your opinion.  Why are we in iraq?  Try to use the official reasons to back up your justification.   E.g.  WMD's, etc.
  I find it curious that while we were building up to invade Iraq, N Korea was standing upon the hill screaming that it had Nukes and it was gonna use them  unless demands were met.  How curious that we choose to go into Iraq?  N Korea knew full well what was going on and had no fear whatsoever of being invaded by the US.  
  As the Perpretators of this great costly hoax were drumming up 'dan rather' style evidence to fool the US into capturing oil for dick cheney, the N koreans were admitting to the same evidence step for step, no US invasion of Korea.  
  I say, we are in Iraq for the worlds second largest oil reserve, and exclusive rights to that oil for dick cheneys former company, Haliburton.  I am not saying that is good or bad.  We all beneifit from cheap energy here in the states.  But lets call it as it is and quit *****footing around.  *****footing is getting US troops killed.

[CAVY]

Originally posted by Staga
Really? Somehow I expected that you'd prove my points wrong; just answering "Big load of manure" isn't enough.
Sometimes I wonder what is the level of knowledge of world's history in US: it seems like it's usually pretty low; just like in this case.
_____________________________ ___



Same goes to you; you might want to read at least something about world history before throwing those oh so intelligent "oneliners".
If you say "to bad it makes no sense" your opinion is worth of ****; if you would continue that sentence with "because..." someone could actually read your opinion about the issue.

OOOO that hurts...

[CAVY]

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
You mispelled 'sense'.

yeah I saw that but it was to late

[RedTop]

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Hey, redtop.  No fair being the poodle yapping behind the big dog.
  Lets hear your opinion.  Why are we in iraq?  Try to use the official reasons to back up your justification.   E.g.  WMD's, etc.
  I find it curious that while we were building up to invade Iraq, N Korea was standing upon the hill screaming that it had Nukes and it was gonna use them  unless demands were met.  How curious that we choose to go into Iraq?  N Korea knew full well what was going on and had no fear whatsoever of being invaded by the US.  
  As the Perpretators of this great costly hoax were drumming up 'dan rather' style evidence to fool the US into capturing oil for dick cheney, the N koreans were admitting to the same evidence step for step, no US invasion of Korea.  
  I say, we are in Iraq for the worlds second largest oil reserve, and exclusive rights to that oil for dick cheneys former company, Haliburton.  I am not saying that is good or bad.  We all beneifit from cheap energy here in the states.  But lets call it as it is and quit *****footing around.  *****footing is getting US troops killed.

I like poodles...they have curly hair and yap big. They also give ole widow women someone to talk to , who don't look at em funny when they have their teeth out.

I'm more like a Chijuajua (sp?)..I like Taco Bell and I'm a smart a** .