Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on November 30, 2006, 02:58:38 PM
-
Nothing new here, a majority suspected this all along, and a small minority discounted it. Our armed forces have confiscated Iranian arms and ammo made in 2006. So what shall we do? I don't think there is much we can do...perhaps pull out of Iraq, and begin plans for Iran would be a good choice. What do you think?
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501
My question is this: Do you think this impeded the democracy process that the US tried to instill in Iraq after the war? Do you think that these arms, and trained insurgents, created the chaos that is now happing in Iran?
Skuzzy, I have indeed provided a link to a report. I've commented on this report. Is there anything else I need to do in order to keep this thread up, and civil? Let me know before you close it for one of the rules you've posted.
-
If we know where the factory is, bomb it.
And claim that it was an anti-Iranian militia operating w/o US knowledge or support. :rofl :t
-
last I heard, the democratically elected leader of Iraq was meeting with Iran to discuss a future of friendship and cooperation. Highlights of the meeting between Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad include (from the Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0611300261nov30,1,5787820.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed) ):
* Iran would support Iraq's government in setting a timetable for U.S. troops to leave the country.
* Giving the Baghdad government a $1 billion line of credit.
* "Hundreds of millions of dollars" worth of no-bid contracts and trade pacts for Iraqi reconstruction. Under the agreements, Iran will help rebuild schools, hospitals, pipelines and power plants.
* At no time during the three days of talks was there any public mention of the militias blamed for much of the bloodletting in Iraq--notably *****e militias that could be influenced by leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
* Talabani said the two countries "had complete agreement" in three days of talks.
It looks like we may have to reinvade Iraq before we get started on Iran -- they don't seem to be the type of democracy we had in mind when we started this whole thing.
Charon
-
Turn them into a glass parking lot I say. All of thouse countrys are in this together from India to Iran NOOKEM!!!:t :aok
-
Originally posted by Charon
last I heard, the democratically elected leader of Iraq was meeting with Iran to discuss a future of friendship and cooperation. Highlights of the meeting between Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad include (from the Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0611300261nov30,1,5787820.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed) ):
* Iran would support Iraq's government in setting a timetable for U.S. troops to leave the country.
* Giving the Baghdad government a $1 billion line of credit.
* "Hundreds of millions of dollars" worth of no-bid contracts and trade pacts for Iraqi reconstruction. Under the agreements, Iran will help rebuild schools, hospitals, pipelines and power plants.
* At no time during the three days of talks was there any public mention of the militias blamed for much of the bloodletting in Iraq--notably *****e militias that could be influenced by leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
* Talabani said the two countries "had complete agreement" in three days of talks.
It looks like we may have to reinvade Iraq before we get started on Iran -- they don't seem to be the type of democracy we had in mind when we started this whole thing.
Charon
Which has me scratching my head...Iran creates chaos in Iraq, so that Iraq comes to terms with Iran...hmmmm.
-
No surprise at all. Iran has been supplying the Shia for a long time. If for no other reason than as a response to Sunni militants been supplied out of Syria. The Sunnis remember, essentially initiated the terrorism and insurgency. At the moment it is mostly directed at the Shias.
The whole Iraq situation has moved away from the idealistic and now with hindsight, the rather naive idea that by deposing Saddam, Iraqis would embrace democracy and unite, whether Kurd, Shia or Sunni to make a new Iraq free from tyranny.
In fact, with Saddam gone Iraq is revealed as cobbled together relic of imperialism peopled by disparate and squabbling tribes which was only held together because they were all scared of Saddam. Like a lot of the middle east, Iraq is an artificial country. The borders could have been drawn almost anywhere.
In one sense, the coalition prescence is academic now. The real fight is between the Shia and Sunni and the split is a very real possibility. The Mahdi army with Iran's help probably mean to take over the south in due course. Iraq will cease to exist at that point. That's why the Iraqi government has gone to Iran. Probably in a vain attempt to stave off this possibility. I think you will find that Iranian aid to Iraq will be spent mostly in the south.
In effect, whether by means of a coup or simple evolution. The Shia south will go it's own way with a substantial part of the oil reserves.
Some years from now Iraq could be in three parts, Kurdistan backed by the USA, Shiaistan backed by Iran and Sunnistan, Syria.
At that point we can all look back and decide if the sacrifice was worth it.
-
The Turks will unleash a B****storm never before seen if the Kurds get their own country.
Would be kind of interesting, though. I don't see why the Kurds in eastern Turkery, northern Iraq and northwestern Iran can't have their own country.
-
Umm, aren't IED's devices improvised from components found on the feild of battle?
Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq's growing Shia militias from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran.
How in the heck do you manufacture an IED at a munitions plant, wouldn't that then be a conventional device?
Someone seems to be, probably these annonymouse sources, spicing up a study or report to please their boss, naw, that NEVER happens, huh.
Interesting article though, I just wonder what the truth really is.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Which has me scratching my head...Iran creates chaos in Iraq, so that Iraq comes to terms with Iran...hmmmm.
We've known for years that Chalabi was an Iranian stooge, and as such was helpful in getting the Bush Administration to remove Saddam and the Bathists from power, and helping the Iraqi Shia to come to power.
Now the Iranian Shia on the ground are getting aid in the form of weapons from Iran and the Shia politcos are getting in bed with them...what exactly is making you scratch your head?
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
The whole Iraq situation has moved away from the idealistic and now with hindsight, the rather naive idea that by deposing Saddam, Iraqis would embrace democracy and unite, whether Kurd, Shia or Sunni to make a new Iraq free from tyranny.
You know, some people actually had the forsight to predict this eventuality long before the invasion.
Welcome to the world Great Persia, thank the "coalition" for your existence.
-
Apologise to Hussein let him out of prison and reinstall the Baathist regime NOW. Before the fediddleing Iranitards go nukular!
-
Originally posted by red26
Turn them into a glass parking lot I say. All of thouse countrys are in this together from India to Iran NOOKEM!!!:t :aok
how does India threaten the security of the United States? Just because the majority of liquer stores and 7-11s in this country are owned by Hindu's doesn't constitute a threat to this country.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
No surprise at all. Iran has been supplying the Shia for a long time. If for no other reason than as a response to Sunni militants been supplied out of Syria. The Sunnis remember, essentially initiated the terrorism and insurgency. At the moment it is mostly directed at the Shias.
Syria also supports the Shi'ites as well. Even though Assad is a secular muslim his Alawite sect is an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam and in 1973, Sadr who was the Grand Mullah of the Shi'ites before being killed by Hussein declared the Alawite sect as part of Shi'ite Islam.
ack-ack
-
Nothing Iran has done since 1979 surprises me.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
how does India threaten the security of the United States? Just because the majority of liquer stores and 7-11s in this country are owned by Hindu's doesn't constitute a threat to this country.
ack-ack
Hey hey hey!!!!! We MUST protect our stop and robs and our sacred liquor suplies!!! :mad: :noid :noid :noid
-
1. Iraq is an artificial created country. It was cut out of the Osman Empire after WW1 and 3 different ethnical/religious groups were mixed together.
But these groups - the kurds, the sunnites and the shi ites never built something like a national identity.
To keep control over such people you need an opressing regime.
First Iraq was a british colony/protectorate with a puppet regime in form of a monarchy. These kings and their group in power were sunnites - a minority of the iraqis. The majority of the shi ites and the kurds were supressed by this regime.
Also when Iraq became independant and a monarchy. Then it became a societ influenced republic with the Baath party and this went on to Saddam.
In all this time since its existence Iraq was ruled by the sunnites and supressing the shi ites and the kurds.
And this was OK for the other arab countries, because these were also sunnites. The only nation who was opposing the sunnite regimes of Iraq was Iran.
This has historical reasons. Iranians are not the same race like the semite arabs. When Iran was conquered by islamic arabs in the 7th century the arabs tried to assimilate the iranians. They did this succesful with old countries like Syria or Egypt. The people there adopted the religion and the language and became "Arabs".
The iranians started a long fight against this invaders. And they were succesful. So today Iran is not speaking the arab language but the iranian Farsi. The arab writing was expanded by new letters. Even the islamic religion in Iran was modified. The shi ite Islam has many elements of the old iranian religion of the Sassanid Empire integrated. Even the iranian mullahs wear robes and turbans like the old fire-priests of the old Empire.
Since these days there were bitter fightings between the two islamic religions - who consider the others as heretics.
The wars between the sunnite Osman Empire and the Iranian Empire in the 15th century also were fought because of these reasons.
Now to Iraq. There are close relations of the SE-part of Iraq and Iran. Take historical maps and you know why.
These region was once part of the old iranian empire. The holy shi ite sites and the old capital city of the Sassanid Empire are in these regions. The people there are shi ites and no sunnites.
And so its logical that Iran always tried to get control over these people and territory. Not only after 1979. But also before under the Shahs of the Kadshar and Pahlevi dynasty.
But the political system of Iraq was making this very difficult. The iraqi shi ites were under control by the iraqi secret services and supressing systems of the sunnite regime.
This changed after the liberation of Iraq by the USA.
Not only Saddam was deposed but also his complete supressing system. The intelligence services (and Iraq had more than one - controlling and terrorizing the people) were disbanded. Army and police officers were fired and replaced by mostly shi ites.
The democratic elections have brought the majority of the iraqis - the shi ites - to power.
Its also no wonder that Al-Maliki is giving friendly statements about Iran - he has close relationsships to the iranian regime. Just check his life under the Saddam regime and where he lived in that time.
The sunnite Al Kaida terror organization tries to use the loss of power of the sunnites to get more influence in Iraq. All the suicide attacks in Iraq, which killed actually 100 people day by day in the last month were done by the sunnites. There are no shi ite suicide attacks.
And look at the targets: Shi ite mosques, Shi ites market places, Recruiting stations of the army and police in shi ite regions. Even shi ite funerals.
The shi ites strike back with killer troops who hunt down sunnites.
So its no wonder that the shi ite iranians are sending weapons to Iraq to help their friends.
And because an independant kurd country would destabilze the NATO-partner Turkey there cant be allowed that the artificial construction Iraq will be splitted in 3 parts.
So this fighting will go on for a very long time.
The sunnite arab countries will support the Sunnite fighters and Al Kaida.
The iranians will support the shi ite fighters.
And others will support the kurd fighters.
Nothing new in history.
-
Originally posted by babek-
To keep control over such people you need an opressing regime.
So let me get this straight, shredding up people in meat grinders (Saddam) is "okay" by the European community, but a picture of a US Soldier with an iraqi prisoner in a dog collar is "horrendous!" ???
Mmmmmkay...
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So let me get this straight, shredding up people in meat grinders (Saddam) is "okay" by the European community, but a picture of a US Soldier with an iraqi prisoner in a dog collar is "horrendous!" ???
Mmmmmkay...
Interesting interpretation.
But how do you make a link between my sentence "To keep control over such people..." and Saddam, the europeans and the Abu Ghraib crimes by the US-military there ?
I wrote that Iraq was created after WW1, that 3 totally different groups were mixed together. And that their colony-masters (UK) solved this problem by installing an opressing regime which was recruited from the sunnite minority.
There was no judgement in this sentence - like that I consider it "good" or "horrendous".
Just the analysis that if you want to keep people under control who dont have a national identity that you then need an opressing regime.
And these opressing regimes in Irak - from the UK-colony to the kingdom - to the soviet-model-democracy under Saddam - was always an opressing regime of a minority which ruled over the majority in Iraq.
This ended with the US-liberation.
-
how does India threaten the security of the United States? Just because the majority of liquer stores and 7-11s in this country are owned by Hindu's doesn't constitute a threat to this country.
Because like I said there all in this together, Of course you mess with one of them you mess with the whole giant littler box over there. You cant trust any of them there all the same. They all call us Ifendels. And them owning all of our stores dosent matter if there quicky marts or not it's a take over with out ever casting a bullet.
-
This ended with the US-liberation.
====
Yes, and an emboldened and nukular savvy Iran is stepping up to the plate to feast on the mess created by the US-liberation. Talk about a catostrophic blunder. Bush will go down in history for one thing, and one thing only. And the United States finally comes to terms with its unenviable position as the last great frontier.
-
Yes - the politic of Bush has destroyed two of the most important enemies of the shi ite Iran: Iraq - ruled by the sunnite minority of Saddam and Afghanistan - ruled by the sunnite Taliban.
No wonder that the sunnite Al Kaida is attacking like a mad dog shi ite targets in Iraq - hoping to change the fact that now the shi ite majority in Iraq is ruling Iraq.
That the shi ites in iraq - who have been supported by Iran so long - have closer relationship to iranians than to Mr. Bush is logical.
Just check the life of Mr. Al Maliki.
He was hunted by Saddam secret police, fled to Iran in the 80ties and fought on the side of the iranians against the Saddam Regime during Iran-Iraq-War.
No wonder that he has many friends in Iran.
And the recent statements of Mr. Talabani are also very interesting.
Bush has indeed changed the political balance at the Persian Gulf.
And to be honest: I am not sorry about this, because he eliminated two enemies of Iran.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So let me get this straight, shredding up people in meat grinders (Saddam) is "okay" by the European community, but a picture of a US Soldier with an iraqi prisoner in a dog collar is "horrendous!" ???
Mmmmmkay...
The answer is simple: We hold you to a higher standard than Saddam and his sons. However if you prefer to be compared to such people and regimes we can lower our opinions of you accordingly. If you prefer.
-
I think this book The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End (http://www.amazon.com/End-Iraq-American-Incompetence-Created/dp/0743294238/sr=8-1/qid=1164987512/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4966760-8726243?ie=UTF8&s=books) would confirm and expound on what babek- has said.
babek-, if you don't mind my asking, why do your sympathies lie with Iran?
-
So it takes abc international saying that to actually get somebody's attention?
It should be a given that every muslim country is gonna help anybody killing Americans until were out of there.
-
Originally posted by oboe
I think this book The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End (http://www.amazon.com/End-Iraq-American-Incompetence-Created/dp/0743294238/sr=8-1/qid=1164987512/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4966760-8726243?ie=UTF8&s=books) would confirm and expound on what babek- has said.
babek-, if you don't mind my asking, why do your sympathies lie with Iran?
Maybe because I am an iranian ;)
-
OT: Ahhh, Rip is paranoid. I have done my job. NEXT! :)
-
Originally posted by Viking
The answer is simple: We hold you to a higher standard than Saddam and his sons. However if you prefer to be compared to such people and regimes we can lower our opinions of you accordingly. If you prefer.
Count me among the many who would reply "As you wish, your opinion of us doesn't matter to me".
culero
-
ya know viking...
If it would shut up the guys from countries that are and have been doing..... nothing...
I would certainly be willing to have a national vote in Iraq.... one question only..
"Do you want the Americans to leave at this time?"
lazs
-
babek
since you are one of them ... gotta ask ... why are the people in that region so arse backwards that they'd rather kill each other instead of living peacefully with one another? Are that that ignorant as to not be able to stop and see the absurity of it all?
-
Originally posted by babek-
Maybe because I am an iranian ;)
I see. I was mislead by your location in Germany. Obviously you've got guts to admit to being an Iranian on this BB; I hope the community can stay civil toward you.
-
I say we pull out of there, everything all military get out of that entire region, then we sit back and watch them kill each other :)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
babek
since you are one of them ... gotta ask ... why are the people in that region so arse backwards that they'd rather kill each other instead of living peacefully with one another? Are that that ignorant as to not be able to stop and see the absurity of it all?
Arse backwards to kill each other... thats indeed a good question.
Maybe you get the answer by asking members of the so calles modern and civilized nations?
Why they fought bitter wars for centuries - even world wars - butchering millions of innocent people? Why they became so fanatic that 100 thousands young men wanted to join armies to becomepart of wars like in WW 1 and WW2 ?
Were they so ignorant to see the absurdity of it all?
Ok - you can say: "These were small mistakes done before WW2 - but now the modern and civilized nations have made an evolutional step. Now they are peaceful and modern and good peace loving people. But the stupid backwards primitive uncivilized nations in the MiddleEast region are so strange - so tell me why?"
But you will find in every of these civilized western nations examples that they still had a strange behavior after WW2.
In the USA - for example - people were defined officially as something subhuman just because they had black skins. But also here there has been and evolutional step in the minds of the people. It took its time but today black and white people are equal. Officially.
Or N-Ireland, where the so peace loving christians were doing all these strange and arse backward things and so ignorant to see the absurdity.
I remmber seeing pictures in TV where a christian mob was throwing stones on christian children on their way to their school with a police escort, just because the children were katholics and their school in a protestant area (or was it otherwise?). Absurd - indeed.
Maybe the answer of your question is: Because they are humans - like you and me.
Also the media and propagada shows the people what the regimes want to see.
One funny thing for example:
In western media the iranian president is shown as a religious fanatic who thinks that he receives messages from god and is ready to start wars and make crimes because of his stupid fanatism.
And in iranian media exactly the same picture is shown when the propaganda is showing President Bush.
Funny - and interesting.
The problem is, that most US people dont know Iran and the iranians like it really is - and otherwise.
And so - there are walls and stereotypes in the minds of the people and they start to act very strange from the point of view of the other side.
The easy way would be to say:
Look at the primitive and uncivilized Iran/USA. How irrational and absurd they act. Really barbaric these iranians/americans.
The much more difficult part would be to try to understand the developments which led to the situations we have today.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ya know viking...
If it would shut up the guys from countries that are and have been doing..... nothing...
I would certainly be willing to have a national vote in Iraq.... one question only..
"Do you want the Americans to leave at this time?"
lazs
I don't think you need a vote to figure out the answer to that question. They never wanted you there in the first place.
-
Originally posted by culero
Count me among the many who would reply "As you wish, your opinion of us doesn't matter to me".
culero
Noted.
-
Difference between civilized peoples and uncivilized peoples is that the civilized peoples shoot each other in the head for quick and relatively pain free deaths were as uncivilized peoples tie your hands behind your back and slice off your head slow like so you can experience death like an animal being slaughtered.
Thats the difference.
-
thanks babek for the response
but the violence to someone because of skin color in the states on a grand scale has been over for decades. and the IRA studipidy has ceased. But the insanity seems to be growing not decreasing in the ME these days when the majority of the rest of the planet just wants to get along, make it through another day/week/month/year.
Yes I see the head of Iran as a nutjob, what else would you call someone, the leader of a country, calling for the destruction of Israel and stating the holocast did not happen?
Just seems in many ways the ME is fighting to stay in ignorance instead of moving ahead with the rest of us Earthings.
-
I was born a US citizen, in Texas, but grew up in another country. I have often wondered about issues such as what babek has mentioned. It never ceases to amaze me at what my fellow compatriots often say in regard to other countries and the way they do things. They say it's "strange".
Actually it is "different" not necessarily strange. One cannot hope to understand what a percieved problem is unless one can put oneself in another's shoes and see things from thier perspective.
I support the invasion of Iraq. I support our troops. I don't know if what we, as a country, are trying to achieve post invasion is actually the right thing for the region and the people who live in it.
I don't know the answer either.
:D
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Difference between civilized peoples and uncivilized peoples is that the civilized peoples shoot each other in the head for quick and relatively pain free deaths were as uncivilized peoples tie your hands behind your back and slice off your head slow like so you can experience death like an animal being slaughtered.
Thats the difference.
Are you saying that Americans are an uncivilized people just because a few US soldiers cut the heads off Vietnamese POW's?
-
Originally posted by Mark Luper
I was born a US citizen, in Texas, but grew up in another country. I have often wondered about issues such as what babek has mentioned. It never ceases to amaze me at what my fellow compatriots often say in regard to other countries and the way they do things. They say it's "strange".
Actually it is "different" not necessarily strange. One cannot hope to understand what a percieved problem is unless one can put oneself in another's shoes and see things from thier perspective.
I support the invasion of Iraq. I support our troops. I don't know if what we, as a country, are trying to achieve post invasion is actually the right thing for the region and the people who live in it.
I don't know the answer either.
:D
Born here in Va, lived here in Va, I went to Jacksonville Florida once with my ex, but other than that the farthest I've ever traveled is Moyock NC
-
Originally posted by red26
Because like I said there all in this together, Of course you mess with one of them you mess with the whole giant littler box over there. You cant trust any of them there all the same. They all call us Ifendels. And them owning all of our stores dosent matter if there quicky marts or not it's a take over with out ever casting a bullet.
you do know that India is a predominantly Hindu country, correct? You also do realize that India has the the same problem as we do with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, correct? You have heard of the troubles in Kashmir, correct? So again, please explain how India is "part of them" and a threat to the security of our country? I wonder if you think Bangladash is a threat too...lmao!
Time to get that blissful look off your face and do some reading about India and the troubles in that region.
ack-ack
-
Babek is spot on. intelligent life on these boards.Pull your troops out and your Iraqi democracy will collapse like wet card board,but keep them there and the local popluation will become ever more hostile towards the us and her allies.If and when you do leave their won't be a civil war as such but a wholesale massacre of the sunni minority by the shia majority,a bloodbath.This is a bigger disaster for the usa than vietnam since the middle east is of more strategic importance.Like I have said here before The usa can never leave Iraq and save face,your in a lose lose situation. You will have to face the fact that you are in possesion of the worst President the USA has ever had,don't believe me?look this post up in five years time and tell me I'm wrong.
The rammifacations of mr bush's little adventure will endure through the rest of this century,just like after ww1 when the British & other colonial powers Let the Arabs down by carving up the middle east and not giving them the Arab state they desired.
When the job is done?What planet is that man on!!!
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
you do know that India is a predominantly Hindu country, correct? You also do realize that India has the the same problem as we do with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, correct? You have heard of the troubles in Kashmir, correct? So again, please explain how India is "part of them" and a threat to the security of our country? I wonder if you think Bangladash is a threat too...lmao!
Time to get that blissful look off your face and do some reading about India and the troubles in that region.
ack-ack
bangladesh is a threat:furious :furious :furious i heard they are working on a way to weaponize drowning:O
-
babek, why are you in germany and not in iran?
-
viking... nice evasive moves...
first of all who is "they" that didn't want us there in the first place? Was there some kind of secret ballot I missed? If you were under the sadmans rule would you have been waving American and Brit flags and made it known you welcomed an invasion?
They had only one vote that I seen and that was after we (not you) gave them the ability to do so.
Now... I ask you... would it make you happy if there were a vote on us staying or not?
My guess is that the people would overwhelmingly want us to stay for some time yet and want us to leave once they got the government working.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
first of all who is "they" that didn't want us there in the first place? Was there some kind of secret ballot I missed? If you were under the sadmans rule would you have been waving American and Brit flags and made it known you welcomed an invasion?
The fact that the vast majority of Iraqis didn't and still don't wave American or British flags after you had ousted Saddam tells me all I need to know.
Originally posted by lazs2
They had only one vote that I seen and that was after we (not you) gave them the ability to do so.
Iraq held regular national elections, just like every *cough* democracy.
Originally posted by lazs2
Now... I ask you... would it make you happy if there were a vote on us staying or not?
Sure, if it makes you happy? Don't matter to me one way or the other.
Originally posted by lazs2
My guess is that the people would overwhelmingly want us to stay for some time yet and want us to leave once they got the government working.
My guess is that you're wrong. :)
The Shi'ites represent the majority of the "Iraqi people", and they want you gone so that they can take control of the country and either throw out the Sunnis, or oppress them. The New Iraqi prime minister has already been in talks with Iran for their support to expedite your "departure". Iraq will become an Iranian satellite nation, or perhaps even join Iran.
Every moderate Arab state's worst nightmare is coming true, and you made it happen. WTG! :)
-
Originally posted by john9001
babek, why are you in germany and not in iran?
I was wondering the same thing.
-
Originally posted by Viking
The fact that the vast majority of Iraqis didn't and still don't wave American or British flags after you had ousted Saddam tells me all I need to know.
Who said anything about flags? How many Iraqis do you think would vote for the US to leave them?
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
Who said anything about flags? How many Iraqis do you think would vote for the US to leave them?
The majority.
-
Originally posted by Viking
The majority.
So, you think that the majority of Iraqis want the US to leave so the country can fall into absolute choas?
I'd bet you are very wrong. Also, how many do you think would wave a US flag even if they wanted to? It's just not smart, due to the terror killings.
I'd bet that the majority of Iraqis would rather have the killings from other Iraqis stop before the US left.
-
If the US left Iraq, do you think more Iraqis would be murdered, or less?
-
More. A lot more.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
How many Iraqis do you think would vote for the US to leave them?
Easy...pretty much all of them.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
If the US left Iraq, do you think more Iraqis would be murdered, or less?
That has nothing to do with whether or not the majority of the Iraqis would like the US to leave.
The fact is the US is seen as an occupation force by the majority of the Iraqis. Only the Kurds look at us as liberators and they are probably the only group in Iraq that would like us to remain in some sort of fashion but for the rest of th country, you'd probably be hard pressed to find one that wants the US to keep their troops in there.
And to answer your straw man...probably as much as are being killed now.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Viking
More. A lot more.
So, when the US was not there, the hundreds of thousands that died didn't matter? If the US left, it would just revert to what it was....which was worse than what they have now.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
So, you think that the majority of Iraqis want the US to leave so the country can fall into absolute choas?
Civil war is all but inevitable at this point; many would say it has already begun.
Originally posted by ByeBye
I'd bet you are very wrong. Also, how many do you think would wave a US flag even if they wanted to? It's just not smart, due to the terror killings.
The terror killings hadn't started yet when the coalition brought down the Baath regime. Still there were only hundreds of people celebrating in the streets, not thousands.
Originally posted by ByeBye
I'd bet that the majority of Iraqis would rather have the killings from other Iraqis stop before the US left.
The killings won't stop until one of the factions wins, or Iraq is split in two or three countries. The Iraqis knows this, and the only thing stopping them from duking it out is your presence. Iran is poised to support the Shi'ite government in subduing the Sunnis and Kurds. Syria and other Arab nations are funding and helping the Iraqi Sunnis, and the Kurds are just sitting on the fence hoping to carve out a nation for them selves in the north.
I bet you're wrong. :)
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
So, when the US was not there, the hundreds of thousands that died didn't matter?
Nope. Not one bit.
Originally posted by ByeBye
If the US left, it would just revert to what it was....which was worse than what they have now.
Nope. It would turn into something much worse than what was before you invaded. Not only for the Iraqis, but for the region and the whole world. An Iranian dominated Iraq and Iraqi oil.
-
Since the killings wont stop until one of the factions win, I propose that the US side with the majority faction, then kill off the other two. Would that be the proper approach?
Seems like it would save a lot of time.
-
You think the US will side with Iran?
-
Originally posted by Viking
You think the US will side with Iran?
Im asking you what you would prefer. Would you prefer that the US leave, side with the majority and kill the others, or stay and try to work it out?
-
I would prefer whatever makes Iraq not become a satellite of Iran, or even part of Iran. Unfortunately I don't think there is anything you can do at this point to prevent that, unless of course you're willing to give the reigns back to the Sunnis and let them oppress the Shi'ites like Saddam did. I don't see that happening.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I would prefer whatever makes Iraq not become a satellite of Iran, or even part of Iran. Unfortunately I don't think there is anything you can do at this point to prevent that, unless of course you're willing to give the reigns back to the Sunnis and let them oppress the Shi'ites like Saddam did. I don't see that happening.
Well, thank you for the honest answer. Iraq is a mess, and that's for sure.
The only option I think we have is to stay there and try to get it worked out.
-
You're welcome, and thank you for your thoughts. I agree that you're in a mess down there, and I'm glad it's not up to me to figure out a solution that doesn't end in a catastrophe. Seems like a hopeless job.
-
Originally posted by Viking
You think the US will side with Iran?
I for one think that a cordial relationship with various coordinations of effort would be a great thing.
I would, for instance, support Iran taking over the occupation of Iraq from us, allowing us observer units with unrestricted access. We would keep air power and rapidly deployable shock troops closeby the region (Italy? Germany?), but outside Iraq.
We'd tell 'em, essentially, "Want us out? Do it yourself...but we're gonna watch and we're bad."
culero
-
Originally posted by culero
I for one think that a cordial relationship with various coordinations of effort would be a great thing.
I would, for instance, support Iran taking over the occupation of Iraq from us, allowing us observer units with unrestricted access. We would keep air power and rapidly deployable shock troops closeby the region (Italy? Germany?), but outside Iraq.
We'd tell 'em, essentially, "Want us out? Do it yourself...but we're gonna watch and we're bad."
culero
Dissagree. We wouldn't be telling anyone that "we're bad" by running away.
Also, we are not occupying Iraq.
-
ByeBye, known formerly here as NUKE, was a cheerleader of the US invasion of Iraq, and predicted a bright future for Iraq as a stable democracy.
-
Originally posted by culero
I for one think that a cordial relationship with various coordinations of effort would be a great thing.
I would, for instance, support Iran taking over the occupation of Iraq from us, allowing us observer units with unrestricted access. We would keep air power and rapidly deployable shock troops closeby the region (Italy? Germany?), but outside Iraq.
This Iran you're talking about, is it the same Iran that is vying for nuclear weapons, calling for the destruction of Israel and calling America "The Great Satan"?
You would have Iran control Iraq and gain control of even more of the regions oil deposits?
-
Originally posted by oboe
ByeBye, known formerly here as NUKE, was a cheerleader of the US invasion of Iraq, and predicted a bright future for Iraq as a stable democracy.
I have to admit I had fun reading old posts from Nuke:
Post 1 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82637).
Oh this (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81819) is a gem:
The war is going to be a savior for the people of Iraq and possibly other countries in the area.
I will come back to this forum after the war and ask you to re-state your opinion.
:rofl
-
Heheh... (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=132165)
The war is a watershed event in the Middle East. The war will be won, peace will be achieved and other nations in the region will begin to consider their stances on supporting dictators and terrorists.
I just want to go on record for the ages and state that I stand behind this war and believe it was the right thing to do. We will see it through until the end.
Another example of the sacrifices Americans are willing to endure in order to do the right thing. Bush is a great leader and I thank God that he has the guts and honesty to make the difficult, unpopular decisions necessary for someone in his position.
Way to go America, Britain, Australia, Poland, Spain, and ALL of our other allies. We did the right thing.
:D
-
Bush is going to win this next election big, then will go down in history as one of our best Presidents. (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=132786)
:rofl :rofl
-
Last night I ran across a quote that reminded me of NUKE/ByeBye:
"Conceit is an unusual disease; it makes everyone sick but the one who has it."
No wonder he changed his BB handle. To be fair, he had plenty of company here - it's just that his posts always struck me as among the most deluded. It's that attitude of hubris and certainty that he has - and then to be completely wrong after all. Just like GW. To my mind, the enduring tragedy of Iraq is that almost everything that has happened was predictable. Bush Sr even knew it back in '91.
If anyone actually realizes what deep sheeit the U.S. is in regarding Iraq and its own financial future, they aren't saying much, or aren't given much attention. Of course sometimes people's actions give away what they are thinking:
Cheney: Investments indicate no faith in U.S. Economy (http://bwells.newsvine.com/_news/2006/08/25/339825-cheney-investments-indicate-no-faith-in-us-economy)
What a patriot.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Last night I ran across a quote that reminded me of NUKE/ByeBye:
"Conceit is an unusual disease; it makes everyone sick but the one who has it."
No wonder he changed his BB handle. To be fair, he had plenty of company here - it's just that his posts always struck me as among the most deluded. It's that attitude of hubris and certainty that he has - and then to be completely wrong after all. Just like GW. To my mind, the enduring tragedy of Iraq is that almost everything that has happened was predictable. Bush Sr even knew it back in '91.
If anyone actually realizes what deep sheeit the U.S. is in regarding Iraq and its own financial future, they aren't saying much, or aren't given much attention. Of course sometimes people's actions give away what they are thinking:
Cheney: Investments indicate no faith in U.S. Economy (http://bwells.newsvine.com/_news/2006/08/25/339825-cheney-investments-indicate-no-faith-in-us-economy)
What a patriot.
Going to war in Iraq was the correct decision.
-
The only mistake we are making at the moment, is that we are not bombing the crap out of Iran and Syria.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
Going to war in Iraq was the correct decision.
Of course it was, NUKE. No doubt about it. It was a tough call and took tremendous courage and sacrifice on your part, but I'm sure History will vindicate you.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Of course it was, NUKE. No doubt about it. It was a tough call and took tremendous courage and sacrifice on your part, but I'm sure History will vindicate you.
You aren't Iranian, by any chance, are you?
It was a tough call for our President to make and Im glad he made the correct decision.
-
Oh my.
-
How were we able to know weather or not Iraq had WMD?
-
Simple -- we could've just asked you. You know everything, and are never wrong.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Simple -- we could've just asked you. You know everything, and are never wrong.
The correct answer is that we went over there and found out for ourselves rather than trust the UN ispectors.
By the way, can you tell us the reason Iraq allowed UN inspecters in the first place? Could it have been the fact that the US forced them to? Nah, that couldn't be.......the use of military force never works for anything......it's always diplomacy that has decided the fate or the world we live in.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
How were we able to know weather or not Iraq had WMD?
Oh they knew.
The intelligence people knew (http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pnacsellwar.wma) and the administration knew how to "catapult the propaganda" (http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/georgebushpropaganda.wma).
Collin and Condy sure knew.' (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv)
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
The correct answer is that we went over there and found out for ourselves rather than trust the UN ispectors.
The UN inspectors were right. Iraq had no WMD.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
The correct answer is that we went over there and found out for ourselves rather than trust the UN ispectors.
By the way, can you tell us the reason Iraq allowed UN inspecters in the first place? Could it have been the fact that the US forced them to? Nah, that couldn't be.......the use of military force never works for anything......it's always diplomacy that has decided the fate or the world we live in.
NUKE, your credibility with me is zero. It's not likely that I'll believe you have the correct answer to anything.
I have not argued broadly against the use of military force, or that it never works, or that diplomacy always rules the day. I have never been convinced of the justification of the Iraq invasion, and subsequent events have confirmed (and in some cases exceeded) my worst fears about the whole fiasco.
I have been astounded by people who publicly painted such rosy pictures of the invasion have turned out to be so wrong, with so little consequence, and that they continue to bloviate on the subject.
Mark Twain once said, "All you need in this life is Ignorance and Confidence; then Success is sure". Perhaps there is some hope yet.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
How were we able to know weather or not Iraq had WMD?
Maybe by listen UN weapons inspectors? Oh no; it would had been too easy :)
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
Going to war in Iraq was the correct decision.
Let's dig this one up after 2-3 years :)
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
How were we able to know weather or not Iraq had WMD?
Easily...we could have payed attention to those that cautioned that Iraq didn't have any.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Easily...we could have payed attention to those that cautioned that Iraq didn't have any.
ack-ack
There were very few people who thought they didn't have them, let alone "knew" they didn't have them.
I paid very close attention through the years leading up to this and I never saw anything but games being played by Iraq.... blocking inspections, not giving all the evidence that they had destroyed their wmd, kicking the inspecters out.... and on and on.
Nearly every country with intelligence thought that Iraq still had wmd and still was capable of producing them again as soon as inspections ended.
By all the actions and evidence at that time, I feel we made the only decision we could make to ensure that Iraq was not going to be a threat.
It's not over in Iraq either, as you know. I stand by my support for going into Iraq. If we had not gone into Iraq, we STILL would not know were all the wmd went and we STILL would have to just trust Saddam that he was not producing them or hiding them.
Of course, hindsight is 20/20, right?
-
i wonder what all the iraq trucks that went to syria right before the invasion had in them?
i know, watermelons, thats right, saddam shipped truck loads of watermelons to syria right before the invasion so they would not be damaged, yeah, thats the ticket.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
My question is this: Do you think this impeded the democracy process that the US tried to instill in Iraq after the war? Do you think that these arms, and trained insurgents, created the chaos that is now happing in Iran?
No. Democratization by force was a bad idea from the beginning.
It's no surprise that Iran supplies weapons and training. They have far more at stake in Iraq than the U.S.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i wonder what all the iraq trucks that went to syria right before the invasion had in them?
i know, watermelons, thats right, saddam shipped truck loads of watermelons to syria right before the invasion so they would not be damaged, yeah, thats the ticket.
the invasion was in early spring, iirc, so i dont think watermellons were in season yet:furious :furious :furious
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
Nearly every country with intelligence thought that Iraq still had wmd and still was capable of producing them again as soon as inspections ended.
Could you please name one such country? British intelligence did not think Iraq still had WMD, nor did the French, Germans, Russians or indeed the American intelligence services.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=67020
But I don't think this is news to you Nuke. I think you're being deliberately misleading.
Originally posted by ByeBye
Of course, hindsight is 20/20, right?
Your hindsight perhaps. My foresight was 20/20, and so was most of Europe's.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i wonder what all the iraq trucks that went to syria right before the invasion had in them?
Perhaps the same as all those "chemical warfare" trucks Collin Powell showed pictures of at the UN?
Nothing.
-
well... I guess the vikings have the solution to world problems... just ignore them.
Not a bad solution really... especialy if you are a powerful country...you can isolate.. it does work. If you are a weak and impotent country like the viking ones... you really have no choice soooo.. that may taint how you look at the actions of the powerful ones.
I would still say that a nationwide vote would be about 90% that the people wanted the U.S. to stay for some time yet.
I see no problem with splitting up the country into 2 or 3 chunks.
and why not? according to most here... they are all barbarians that are better off even under a genocidal maniac like the sadman! the muslims are barbaric savages who can't help themselves right?
Maybe that is the only way to do it... they haven't progressed in their religion or society past the 9th century so why not just put em back into it all the way... first split up iraq and then chop iran into pieces?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well... I guess the vikings have the solution to world problems... just ignore them.
World problem that only exist in the minds of your delusional leaders we happily ignore.
Originally posted by lazs2
Not a bad solution really... especialy if you are a powerful country...you can isolate.. it does work. If you are a weak and impotent country like the viking ones... you really have no choice soooo.. that may taint how you look at the actions of the powerful ones.
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown the world just how powerful America is. Like a fat, impotent elephant in a glass store. The irony of your post is even more delicious now that the US recently requested even more troops from Norway and other NATO countries to help you out in Afghanistan.
The last superpower indeed; can't even handle one third world nation let alone two without begging for help from us "weak and impotent" countries. :lol
(http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/iraq_burning_tank_cp_8477479.jpg) (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41424000/jpg/_41424406_tankap.jpg)
Look at the great superpower. Does it smell like … victory?
Originally posted by lazs2
I would still say that a nationwide vote would be about 90% that the people wanted the U.S. to stay for some time yet.
Just like with the world problems mentioned above; I also happily ignore other fantasies from delusional people.
Originally posted by lazs2
I see no problem with splitting up the country into 2 or 3 chunks.
Of course you don't. See above.
Originally posted by lazs2
and why not? according to most here... they are all barbarians that are better off even under a genocidal maniac like the sadman! the muslims are barbaric savages who can't help themselves right?
More or less.
Originally posted by lazs2
Maybe that is the only way to do it... they haven't progressed in their religion or society past the 9th century so why not just put em back into it all the way... first split up iraq and then chop iran into pieces?
LOL! Good luck. :)
-
Originally posted by john9001
i wonder what all the iraq trucks that went to syria right before the invasion had in them?
i know, watermelons, thats right, saddam shipped truck loads of watermelons to syria right before the invasion so they would not be damaged, yeah, thats the ticket.
Do you know something the Iraq Survey Group doesn't? They concluded that it was unlikely that Iraq shipped WMD to Syria and that Iraqs WMD supply was destroyed years before the invasion of Iraq.
-
Not to mention that it makes absolutely no sense to get rid of your most powerful weapons on the eve of a hostile invasion into your country.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Not to mention that it makes absolutely no sense to get rid of your most powerful weapons on the eve of a hostile invasion into your country.
in gulf war 1 saddam sent his fighter aircraft to Iran to keep them safe. Who said saddam made any sense?
-
Originally posted by john9001
in gulf war 1 saddam sent his fighter aircraft to Iran to keep them safe. Who said saddam made any sense?
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
-
Viking, there's no need to insult all of us just to try to yank one guy's chain. You aren't going to change his mind, anyway.
-
this does not surpriseme at all as i from that region and during our little war with lebanon we found many iranian and syrian made weapons that were provided to the hesbolah, i believe that the same thing is occuring with iraq, iran is supplying one side with weapons and the other is struggling to battle the off.
-evenhaim
(aka freezman)
-
"The war in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown the world just how powerful America is. Like a fat, impotent elephant in a glass store. The irony of your post is even more delicious now that the US recently requested even more troops from Norway and other NATO countries to help you out in Afghanistan.
The last superpower indeed; can't even handle one third world nation let alone two without begging for help from us "weak and impotent" countries. "
now it is my turn to laugh out loud.... like the help we get from norway is gonna make one bit of difference.... we just want yu to feel useful... we aren't haveing any problem carrying the load.. we just would like you to be included... we realize that you will be pretty useless but it looks god ya know?
lazs
-
Originally posted by john9001
Who said saddam made any sense?
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
-
Ok I'm no military expert here but it seems to me that Iraq had the time it took us to get everybody and everything ready to go over there this time that they could have easily moved it, I'm not saying they did, but if you tell me your coming to my house 6 months from now to look for something, I'll bet ya $50 that when you get here you won't find it.
-
It would have been problematic at best for Iraq to move WMD that they didn't have. Once again, at least according the Iraq Survey Group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
It would have been problematic at best for Iraq to move WMD that they didn't have. Once again, at least according the Iraq Survey Group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group
The very first conclusion of the report states:
"Iraq's main goal was to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute WMD production"
The UN and all the treaties in the world would not have stopped Saddam from getting wmd again.
Other interesting quotes:
No senior Iraqi official interviewed by the ISG believed that Saddam had forsaken WMD forever
Iraq had intended to restart all banned weapons programs as soon as multilateral sanctions against it had been dropped, a prospect that the Iraqi government saw coming soon.
Smuggling was used by Iraq to rebuild as much of its WMD program as could be hidden from U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq had an effective system for the procurement of items banned by sanctions
Until March 2003, Saddam Hussein convinced his top military commanders that Iraq did indeed possess WMD that could be used against any U.S. invasion force, in order to prevent a coup over the prospects of fighting the U.S.-led Coalition without these weapons.
Iraq used procurement contracts allowed under the Oil for Food program to buy influence among U.N. Security Council member states including France, China, and Russia, as well as dozens of prominent journalists and anti-sanctions activists.
So, I guess the only way we were gonna be sure to stop Saddam from having wmd was by going in there by force.
Kind of justifies the whole invasion, just as I had stated before. Never trust the UN, France or Russia on the matter.
-
Yeah, sure thing Nuke. Of course Bush could say, "I lied, the invasion was unjustified.", and you would say "See this proves the invasion was justified.".
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Yeah, sure thing Nuke. Of course Bush could say, "I lied, the invasion was unjustified.", and you would say "See this proves the invasion was justified.".
The invasion was justified, for several reasons. The Iraq Survey Group report is just the final point in the wars justification.
Maybe you would have prefered Saddam to still be in power, the inspections ended, and Iraq producing wmd again as if nothing ever happened. Is that what you would like?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Yeah, sure thing Nuke. Of course Bush could say, "I lied, the invasion was unjustified.", and you would say "See this proves the invasion was justified.".
Do you agree with the whole report, or only the parts you want to believe?
-
See Rule #5
-
given the sadmans past record I think it is safe to say that if he wasn't allready.... he would pursue new weapons the minute he could... I think that anyone who says this is not true is a liar or a fool or both.
I would also say that it is pretty much a given that iran would have pursued em as would syria and a few others.
lazs
-
Wow! Look at those quote attributions:
U.S. officials say... According to a senior defense official ... This suggests, say the sources ... says a senior official. ... U.S. intelligence believes ... Two senior U.S. defense officials confirmed ... While the New York Times reported ... one of the senior officials said he believed ... Officials say ... U.S. intelligence officials believe ...
Does anyone see a problem with that? The only named source is the New York Times. And I'll bet their report is a whole load more "officials say" as well. Everything else is completely deniable and unattributed. If it's so concrete and such a smoking gun why isn't "General X said"? Why does no one in the US government want to put their name to it?
As it's also off the internet, the only specious nonsense marker we're missing is "a bloke down the bar told us".
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
The invasion was justified, for several reasons. The Iraq Survey Group report is just the final point in the wars justification.
Maybe you would have prefered Saddam to still be in power, the inspections ended, and Iraq producing wmd again as if nothing ever happened. Is that what you would like?
I have to agree, but I'd like to know where Iraq sent them to.
-
Go long?,In Britain we went long in N Ireland 37 years later we are still there!Are the American people prepared for that.I've lived with terrorism for all of those 37 years,but my freedoms were never taken away I didn't have to have an identity card,and they didn't talk about abolishing habeas corpus.I'm more frightened of my own Leader than any terrorist!!When are leaders take us to war we should question why,not wave flags and blindly follow.A lot of people on these boards are like sponges soaking up Bush's ,making them bigger fools the the man himself.Young americans are being sent to die for a lie!rather than trying to justify it you should start asking some serious Questions of your leaders.The motivating force of politics is power.your just a vote!Go long,it saddens me that you can even think it.:(
Oh,and the war IS illegal.wether the ends justify the means only time will tell, but it is not looking good.
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
Oh,and the war IS illegal.wether the ends justify the means only time will tell, but it is not looking good.
Your Lord Goldsmith's (UK's Atty General) published memo of March 17 2003 declares, "Authority to use force against Iraq exists" from previous UN resolutions. -- your countryman.
Young americans are being sent to die for a lie!
What about young Brits? You care about them? What are you doing about the UK's involvement?
Rather than trying to justify it you should start asking some serious Questions of your leaders.
I guess you missed the news on the recent US election results...
-
Originally posted by dmf
I have to agree, but I'd like to know where Iraq sent them to.
That is a totally irrational conclusion based on wishful thinking.
Gather all the primary source evidence that you have collected that supports the conclusion that Iraq sent their WMD to Syria. Okay, so now you have a big pile of nothing.
Now compare this to the hundreds of thousands of manhours and hundreds of millions of dollars in resources the ISG decidated to investing the Iraq WMD question, surveying weapson cashes, pooring over docuements conducting countless interviews with military/polictical/scientific personal etc.
I mean what can you possibly be bring to the table that supercedes thier evidence and the conclusion they reached based on it?
-
Red herring.
-
ALL OF YOU
must take into consideration that people like me who live in israel we are sorrounded by people who hate us for our mere religion and the fact that we live there, thankfully we have jordan and eygpt as our allies but the thing is that if saddam would have been allowed to rebuild his aramada of wmd i would probably be fighting in a war again, the thing is duringt he first gulf war i kinda felt unsafe when everyday we heard sirens and we had scud missles flying over our building. i still have my gas mask and injection of this anti biochem syrum, my grandmothers house was hit by a scud and we never knew if one of these would be "the one" that happend to have that nuclear/ biochem warhead. even with warning systems and patriot and other m v m missles there is no impenterable shield for us and well i hate to say it but if ever one hits it will not only start ww3 but it would probably kill hundreds of thousand - millions of israel citizens. Sadly in these time nothing is sure but thanks to premetive actions by bush we will not have to worry about iraq for quite some time, well thats 1 less country to worryabout.
-evenhaim (aka freezeman)
-
There you have it folks. The only clear winner in our little fiasco is Israel.
Woot!
-
I like Israel and it's people. I think if every country in the middle east were like Israel then the whole world would be better off..
If Israel goes away then the whole world is worse off. I would say that Israel, it's government and it's people are very much worth preserving.
lazs
-
ty for your support :):aok
now if we could convey this message to damascus and teheran:noid
-
I did do somthing about it I went on the anti war march to London in 2003 ,a million people attended some of them war vetrans,Blair still went ahead.
Goldsmith is a liar as is Blair and I despise both of them.I voted for Blair in '97,I can not believe what I have witnessed in the last five years by a labour Government.From now on my vote will be negative.I shallvote out whoever is in power ,till some one comes a long who gives a damn.
Yes British soldiers are dying too,a pointless waste of life,and the Iraqi people,for whom the worst is yet to come.
Bush is paying the Price for trying to redraw the map of the middle east,he should have studied what happened when the british redrew after ww1.In fact the problems there now stem directly from the british carve up of mesopotamia after the Great war.Historys echoes go unheard in the Whitehouse and number 10 downing street.:(
-
I beg to differ hazzer
this war has done something, it has removed a dictator from power and has removed iraq as a threat to any democrating nations int he region israel for example lol read above post, i do think we should end this war now because there is a lot of unneccesary bloodshed but to tell you the truth this will be the beggining of a war with another middle east nation guess who... iran...and maybe israel will kill syria lol but the thing is i give bush a few months to sweep up iraq before he enters iran..
-
hazzer, you want peace? go to iraq and tell the terrorists to stop killing innocent iraqs, i dare you.
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
I did do somthing about it I went on the anti war march to London in 2003 ,a million people attended some of them war vetrans,Blair still went ahead.
Did you all join hands and sing kum bye ya?
You can't have an effective peace march unless you sing kum bye ya.
-
marching itself is pretty militant seeming.
for peace, i think you should have a mosey or maybe a prance, but if u r real serious u need to have a perambulation
-
Originally posted by Sandman
There you have it folks. The only clear winner in our little fiasco is Israel.
Woot!
Instead of an Iraqi secular dictator with gas filled scuds, we are about to get a nuclear fundamentalist Iran. I would have prefered the 1st option for Israel.
American actions in Iraq prevented it from dealing with N.Korea and Iran. While potentially good, the implementation of the Iraqi campaign made things worse. Never trust another nation with your vital interests.
-
I think a large portion of Arab disdain and hate for Israel is not only due to the religious element but that the land Israel is founded on was taken from Palestinians in the late 40's, and because it has secular ramifications due to both Judaism and Islam being historically and biblically(?) tied to the area it is unacceptable to many arab peoples.
But something that greatly concerns me about Iran though is Ahmenijad's denial of the Holocaust ever occuring. For an act such as the Holocaust (that was based upon actions of such evil, sinister, and anathema to humanity and life istself) to be discounted and denied is terribly unhuman, divinely disrepectful, and evil towards all human life.
-
Originally posted by Debonair
marching itself is pretty militant seeming.
for peace, i think you should have a mosey or maybe a prance, but if u r real serious u need to have a perambulation
:rofl :rofl :aok
-
Originally posted by bozon
Instead of an Iraqi secular dictator with gas filled scuds, we are about to get a nuclear fundamentalist Iran. I would have prefered the 1st option for Israel.
American actions in Iraq prevented it from dealing with N.Korea and Iran. While potentially good, the implementation of the Iraqi campaign made things worse. Never trust another nation with your vital interests.
I'm not so sure that US iraq operations had a damn thing to do with allowing iran to go nuclear and the same for nk.
-
Iran was very conciliatory before the invasion of Iraq. Since the US (and allied) forces have become bogged down in Iraq, they have begun to push forward with their nuclear plans.
Basically, they were frightened of a US attack. They aren't anymore, because they know there's no way the US can invade now with the way things have gone in Iraq.
-
That's nice conjecture but do you have anything other than your opinion (or others opinion) to back it up? I don't doubt that iran would have decided to go nuclear no matter what went on in iraq with the US. I think they'd be more worried about Isreal's reaction rather than the US.
-
wow nashwan.. did you think that up yourself or do you have some special inside connection to how the iranians think.
The U.S. could take on Iran and the insurgents in iraq with not much more effort that iran itself.
couse... you could just complain and second guess or... you could help.. the UN could whine or they could get behind taking out another nut job country with nukes.
lazs
-
Nashwan your reasoning is faulty. The US went into Iraq and destroyed it's once formidable army with little effort. We then went back and overthrew their government with little effort. What we can't do and probably never will be able to do is establish a democracy there if the people don't want it. Overthrowing governments though, no problem.
-
Nashwan your reasoning is faulty. The US went into Iraq and destroyed it's once formidable army with little effort. We then went back and overthrew their government with little effort. What we can't do and probably never will be able to do is establish a democracy there if the people don't want it. Overthrowing governments though, no problem.
If the US attacked Iran, you could do a lot of damage to them. But when you finish attacking them, the end result is their government gets back in power. In fact, it's likely to be a more hardline government.
It's like Gulf War I. The Iraqi army was smashed, but Saddam remained in power. You can smash the Iranian army, but the only way to change their government is to invade in large numbers, and you have to stick around long enough to establish a different government. Otherwise, all you achieve is damage to Iran, at the cost of damage to the west with substantially higher oil prices.
Do you think an invasion and occupation of Iran is on the cards now?
The Iranian government is no longer worried because they know the west can't hurt them badly. We can bomb some of their installations, but anything beyond that is out of the question at the moment, and for the next few years.
We shot our bolt in Iraq.
-
skuds where not "gas filled" they had major war heads but luckly during the war manyy where duds and did not detonate one of these destroyed my grandmas house and half the block...
id rather be sure iraq is dunfore then take on iran gives a feeling of reaussernece
-
well nashwan.. we may not be able to give them freedom but we certainly can take their military back to the stone age with little effort.
The sadman had the worlds fourth largest army I believe. He was more than a match for iran... how long did it take us to wipe out his army?
perhaps that is the solution... they seem to want to live in the stoneage with a 21's century army... perhaps we should just make sure their army matches their society and religious beliefs.... bomb em back to the stone age.
lazs
-
Originally posted by bozon
Instead of an Iraqi secular dictator with gas filled scuds, we are about to get a nuclear fundamentalist Iran. I would have prefered the 1st option for Israel.
American actions in Iraq prevented it from dealing with N.Korea and Iran. While potentially good, the implementation of the Iraqi campaign made things worse. Never trust another nation with your vital interests.
Let's say we were not in Iraq. How would you propose that we"deal" with Iran?
-
Originally posted by VermGhost
... the land Israel is founded on was taken from Palestinians in the late 40's...
Source?
-
Oy vey!
-
"news" from Iraq is the "news" the media wants you to hear.
-
well nashwan.. we may not be able to give them freedom but we certainly can take their military back to the stone age with little effort.
Which accomplishes what?
What's the point of destroying the Iranian army? It hasn't been used against us, or against Iran's neighbours. It's no threat to us.
The potential threat from Iran is terrorism and nuclear weapons. You can't force them to stop supporting terrorism without an occupation, and you can't stop them developing nuclear weapons without an occupation.
And an occupation of Iran is out of the question for the foreseeable future.
-
Originally posted by john9001
"news" from Iraq is the "news" the media wants you to hear.
Spot on.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Which accomplishes what?
What's the point of destroying the Iranian army? It hasn't been used against us, or against Iran's neighbours. It's no threat to us.
The potential threat from Iran is terrorism and nuclear weapons. You can't force them to stop supporting terrorism without an occupation, and you can't stop them developing nuclear weapons without an occupation.
And an occupation of Iran is out of the question for the foreseeable future.
The point is that it threatens those in power. Throwing rocks at a bear might get ya eaten.
-
evenhaim,
Tell me that you grandma was not home... How many died in that hit?
-
Originally posted by VOR
Viking, there's no need to insult all of us just to try to yank one guy's chain. You aren't going to change his mind, anyway.
I've been away on business this week, so I'm sorry for this late reply. You're right of course and I apologize if I've offended you. I should have just dodged Lazs' bait and switch, but I guess I was a bit more drunk that evening than I realized.
My argument stands however; like with the Soviets in Afghanistan, your war is showing just how impotent your mighty army in this situation. A situation it was never intended to face, and is struggling to adapt to.
I am sorry for the way I presented my argument though.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The U.S. could take on Iran and the insurgents in iraq with not much more effort that iran itself.
The US could - but it will not.
There's no way that any US president open a new military campaign against Iran now. Therefore american threats are empty and Iran is safer than ever. With the US out of the picture as a real threat, who will oppose Iran by force? Europe? HAHA.
The UN and international comunity are a bunch of bananas and interesants. By the time the decide to act if at all, Iran (just like N. Korea) will already have nuclear weapons. When they do, they are insured against military campaign on their ground.
I find the hopes, expressed by many, that Israel will do you a favour and attack Iran pathetic. On the other hand I will not be suprised if it comes to this by the inability to act. This would be a perfect solution - Israel will do the dirty work and euros can still be saints and condon the violence.
-
nashwan... you said...
"Basically, they were frightened of a US attack. They aren't anymore, because they know there's no way the US can invade now with the way things have gone in Iraq."
That is why I said we could bomb em back to the stone age militarily... you were simply wrong. you know nothing about what they think.. you are the one who thinks there is no way the US can invade.
viking.. no need to plea drunk... all being drunk does is take let the mean streak show itself for what it is... I like that better than you current dancing around and pretending.. face it... you are angry that your country is so impotent and so you lash out at any country that has any real power and does the things you should do.
I understand that so, in that light.... your feeble attacks on the U.S. are pretty meaningless and amusing to me.
lazs
-
bozon... you sound bitter. When has the U.S let you down? You seem to have a pretty good handle on the your-0-peeeans and the corrupt UN but I think you underestimate us. No problem... most people seem to do that...some of em are even US citizens.
We haven't turned into your-0-peean socialists just yet bozon... I have faith still that the American citizen is very interested in justice and freedom. Heck.. even the democrat women are willing to go into a just war... so long as it is their idea.
lazs
-
i stopped fearing vikings after a bunch of English farmers defeated them at stamford bridge in 1099.
-
Stamford Bridge - 1066 just two weeks before Harold (the victor over the vikings at Stamford) was defeated by the Norman William the Conquerer.
Norman... Normandy was a fifdom created by Rollo the Viking, who's grandson was William... The Viking who at Hastings defeated the Engish king who defeated the vikings at Stamford.
-
That is why I said we could bomb em back to the stone age militarily... you were simply wrong.
No, lazs. I said america can defeat their military. I said it won't gain you anything, and it won't. It will strengthen the hardliners grip on power, cause a huge recession in the west, and the Iranians will develop nuclear weapons anyway.
In short, you gain nothing, and lose a lot.
Of course, if all you want is bragging rights, then a war makes sense. If you want to improve america's position, it's a stupid idea.
you know nothing about what they think.
Has Iran been trying to placate america? No. Their president has been threatening to "wipe Israel off the map". Does this sound like a country frightened of america?
you are the one who thinks there is no way the US can invade.
You seriously believe the US is capable of invading Iran now? Iran has three times the population of Iraq, and 4 times the area. And they are likely to put up more of a fight.
The argument in the US has progressed to how to pull out and save face, even president Bush has backed off from talking of an attack on Iran.
Read what bozon said:
"There's no way that any US president open a new military campaign against Iran now. Therefore american threats are empty and Iran is safer than ever."
It's true.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Norman... Normandy was a fifdom created by Rollo the Viking, who's grandson was William... The Viking who at Hastings defeated the Engish king who defeated the vikings at Stamford.
you missed some generations and some french blood mixed in there.
rollo--->william longsword-->richard I-->richard II--->robert--->william
-
Sorry about that... But it then begs the question of why you do not fear Vikings, but Vikings diluted with a little French you might possibly...
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Sorry about that... But it then begs the question of why you do not fear Vikings, but Vikings diluted with a little French you might possibly...
ok, you got me. :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
viking.. no need to plea drunk... all being drunk does is take let the mean streak show itself for what it is... I like that better than you current dancing around and pretending.. face it... you are angry that your country is so impotent and so you lash out at any country that has any real power and does the things you should do.
I understand that so, in that light.... your feeble attacks on the U.S. are pretty meaningless and amusing to me.
lazs
Naw, being a bit drunk I failed to dodge your bait and switch ad hominem attack on me, and I retorted in kind. Shouldn't have done that. Shouldn't have sunk to your level. I'll dodge this one though.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Has Iran been trying to placate america? No. Their president has been threatening to "wipe Israel off the map". Does this sound like a country frightened of america?
And yet what has Iran done since 1979 to really provoke the US into swatting them back into the stone age? Sending murdering jihadists into Iraq has gotten our attention but only just. Developing a nuke? Well, many countries have nukes but we have many more and everyone knows we are capable of using them. Amadmanjihad would do well to learn from Saddam about pushing the US too far.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
bozon... you sound bitter. When has the U.S let you down?
US didn't let me down. I don't expect or demand anything from it and I have no right to. However I am disappointed with the actions and progress in Iraq / Iran / N. Korea. I am disappointed with the europian powers which leaves the US the only real power willing to act, but it is ineffective alone, even if we ignore some mistakes it made.
My fear is that when it is too late to change things, appeasement will come and Israel will be the price US and Europe will be willing to pay.
-
well... nashwan is certainly gloating over your pessimism. He is citing you as the iranian authority (along with himself of course).
Who says we wouldn't just destroy a nut jobs military capacity and pull out? everyone, including nashwan seemed thrilled when we smashed the sadman the first time and then the whole coalition pulled out...
short memories...
We could do the same.. we would be very likely to do so even under a democrat congress and president... look at klinton... he was a real sabre rattler and he was a schooozer to the your-0-peeans... he had no problem with sending missles and bombs to do wipe out a military force of a country and made the socialists UN impotent countries love him for it.
lazs