Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on January 30, 2007, 06:00:48 PM
-
on msnbc now.
-
you mean israel ...right?
-
5 men gunned down. "secret" report blames Iran.
-
Just like we said it would happen... Now the attack with Iran is on and we'll be officially in a full scale world war... Fuck it...
-
Eh, we must have had 3 or 4 military men on here this week talking about how pisspants excited they were about warring into iran. Well, maybe they got their wish.
Will this go down in history as Gulf of Tonken 2?
-
Why the fcuk would Iran attack US forces?
Seriously?
-Hedge
-
Why the fcuk would Iran attack US forces?
Seriously?
-Hedge
Depends who you ask.
Bush Admin: "They hate our freedoms and want to kill us."
Iran: "We've been begging for negotiations for the last year and you've ignored us. We've started nuclear development - and never denied it - because you have invaded both of our neighbors and called us Axis of Evil. You have 2 carriers off our coast. Donald Rumsfeld admitted the US is already doing covert operations INSIDE Iran."
Of course, if you don't blindly swallow the Bush story, you're a traitor and should be shot, according to the 25% neocon element in govt and media.
-
MAY be behind attacks???
::)
-
MAY be behind attacks???
::)
It's a "secret document".
The only verification/evidence is Bush's word.
And while it used to be 90% of AMericans believed him, it's not about 25%. This is not an accident. He's abused the trust. Did you watch the state of the union address? Those 4 terror attacks he claimed he stopped, well, it turns out 3 of those events never happened. THe only *terror* that came from these things was Bush throwing them in peoples' faces.
Mighty, you're in the minority if you still believe Bush's word. He's lied, he's stated he does not care what Americans want, and while many of us respect the office, we lend no credibility to the man.
Bottom line: Should we declare war on Bush's word alone? Yes or no?
-
It's a "secret document".
The only verification/evidence is Bush's word.
And while it used to be 90% of AMericans believed him, it's not about 25%. This is not an accident. He's abused the trust. Did you watch the state of the union address? Those 4 terror attacks he claimed he stopped, well, it turns out 3 of those events never happened. THe only *terror* that came from these things was Bush throwing them in peoples' faces.
Mighty, you're in the minority if you still believe Bush's word. He's lied, he's stated he does not care what Americans want, and while many of us respect the office, we lend no credibility to the man.
Bottom line: Should we declare war on Bush's word alone? Yes or no?
now your spouting off about bush.
the topic was iran may be behind attacks on US.
have you been under a rock?? i've seen report after report about iran shipping fighters over to iraq. and i don't watch that much news.
-
now your spouting off about bush.
the topic was iran may be behind attacks on US.
have you been under a rock?? i've seen report after report about iran shipping fighters over to iraq. and i don't watch that much news.
Are you saying that Bush isn't related to the Iran info we've been told? I would contend he's VERY MUCH related, as it's TOny Snow telling us everything we know.
Dude, the problem is that when all the info about Iran comes from the guy who is dying to invade iran, it's going to be be slanted to serve his agenda. Remember the WMD? 90% of the intel said no WMD. Bush chose to follow that 10% which said yes WMD.
IMO it's a foregone conclusion. We're going to invade Iran. I know you've been drooling over the prospect, MM. let us know how it goes.
-
240..ur wrong on this. Its been widely reported that Iran has had Revolutionary Guard in the south of Iraq, The Brits had a fire fight with them in Basra. They meddle here all the time and our SOF units encounter them near their border with Afghanistan. Not to mention the stuff (reports) I get to see. Yeah we may use this as an excuse to bomb the hell out of them, but I don't think we will. We won't go ground because our forces are engaged already in Iraq. I find it funny that any of u guys think these rags would stand a chance in a conventional fight. Like shit through a gooose, but then they will melt into the hills and we'll have Iraq all over again. The Mullaha's are getting sick of his shit anyway. We may go air but i doubt it.
-
Since ur into facts..I want to know how we're going to do it. With what units. Who....what heavy armor is postioned to invade. The entire 82nd is either in Iraq or here. So their out. Most heavy armor is still in Germany 1ID or 1AD..those that aren't in Iraq. Or transing to iraq..FT Hood with the 4th ID etc. That leaves the 3rd ACR at Carson. I think they may be the only full unit not currently deployed but they are spinning up to go soon as well. WHO is going...u can't launch a huge invasion like this without telegraphing what ur doing.
-
240..ur wrong on this. Its been widely reported that Iran has had Revolutionary Guard in the south of Iraq, The Brits had a fire fight with them in Basra. They meddle here all the time and our SOF units encounter them near their border with Afghanistan. Not to mention the stuff (reports) I get to see. Yeah we may use this as an excuse to bomb the hell out of them, but I don't think we will. We won't go ground because our forces are engaged already in Iraq. I find it funny that any of u guys think these rags would stand a chance in a conventional fight. Like shit through a gooose, but then they will melt into the hills and we'll have Iraq all over again. The Mullaha's are getting sick of his shit anyway. We may go air but i doubt it.
i'm referring specifically to the secret report that 5 US troops were killed by Iran. We won't declare war over materials assistance. We will declare war over dead soldiers. And congress would be in a hard spot to deny war with US blood right there. If the only source of this particular 5 deaths is white house, i'd be very wary of it until independent verification.
Also - can we just go air and not ground in Iran? after we blow some things up, they're going to release the hounds and you can't stop that with only air power. Imagine trying to defend Iraq from the border while at the same time trying to contain the usual city civil war. Perhaps this is the FUBAR mess Bush wanted all along, to justify a complete US takeover of the region
-
Yeah...it was most likelya SOF team/A team SEAs etc. Yeah sure. They would pound them with air....disable power..water, Command and Control. Most airfields..Tank depots, troop concentrations.....those nuke sites. We would scare the crap outa them. But yes then they would hit us with terror attacks, unless they think the mullahs will remove him. Stopping a conventional attack compared to what we face in Iraq would be the easy part.
-
Yeah...it was most likelya SOF team/A team SEAs etc. Yeah sure. They would pound them with air....disable power..water, Command and Control. Most airfields..Tank depots, troop concentrations.....those nuke sites. We would scare the crap outa them. But yes then they would hit us with terror attacks, unless they think the mullahs will remove him. Stopping a conventional attack compared to what we face in Iraq would be the easy part.
Air strikes haven't worked anywhere else. I don't see how they'll do anything to stop Iran, a rich nation with good army and weapons. What would stop them from sending 200 suicide bombers to Israel and 2000 to Iraq? What would stop them from taking oil away from america? You know once they do that, Snow/Bush say it's US' right to invade them. It's like we're going to create the very set of circumstances we use to justify a full scale invasion.
Logistically, it doesn't matter if we can do it or not. Bush knew he didnt have the resources to win over insurgency and has been bombing away anyway. Do you really think he'll suddenly have great judgment in Iran?
-
Dude ur not getting it. The very fact that Iran has an army and infastructure to bomb makes them an easy conventional target. Yes any attack will result in suicide and terror attacks. We crippled Iraq with in 72 hours in gulf war 1. 72 hours.then we picked what was left off at our leisure. WE know where everything is....They know we know. Its who will blink first. The mullahs do not want to live in caves....
-
Dude ur not getting it. The very fact that Iran has an army and infastructure to bomb makes them an easy conventional target. Yes any attack will result in suicide and terror attacks. We crippled Iraq with in 72 hours in gulf war 1. 72 hours.then we picked what was left off at our leisure. WE know where everything is....They know we know. Its who will blink first. The mullahs do not want to live in caves....
What would be the goal in Iran?
COuldn't just be "remove the nuke facililities" because doing that would create a second goal, "stop attacks from iran".
IMO you're in the mindset of "we could destroy X targets in 72 hours and stop their capabilities". But what about the next 72 months, when an already thin military has to go in to stop the instability which will result?
You destroy their infrastructure and they will leave and enter Iraq. Period.
-
now your spouting off about bush.
the topic was iran may be behind attacks on US.
have you been under a rock?? i've seen report after report about iran shipping fighters over to iraq. and i don't watch that much news.
Because 240 and I have been talking about/predicting how the Unitied States would go into Iran. We had both estimated at one time or another over the last year that the only way it would happen is after an Iranian attack on our guys in Iraq or here in America, possibly false flag attacks. That's why we're talking about it.
-
What a bunch of horseshit.. Sad thing is that most people buy into this garbage and it'll bombs away on Iran.
-
Dude ur not getting it. The very fact that Iran has an army and infastructure to bomb makes them an easy conventional target. Yes any attack will result in suicide and terror attacks. We crippled Iraq with in 72 hours in gulf war 1. 72 hours.then we picked what was left off at our leisure. WE know where everything is....They know we know. Its who will blink first. The mullahs do not want to live in caves....
What you're not telling people is the missery that will go down immediately with an attack on Iran. You know full well that the chance of serious attacks in America would be immediate. They've had a long long time to prepare for this and a full wide open boarder to roam into America at their leasure... They say they have, they say they're ready, they have the funds, it's the only real way they have at stricking back, if we strike them they will have no remose or worry about using whatever defense is at their disposal. If they do that, you know we will obliderate Iran like we've never obliterated a country before... Shock and Awe will look like nothing compared... When that happens, it's on... Globally and there is little chance the world will emerge for the better... Little... But this is all in the playbook... all in the plans.... It has been written... and it will probably be done...
-
Problem is, Iran isn't even fighting in Iraq.
No Iranian troops are deployed there.
There are no evidence of any Iranian military presence in Iraq.
Read that again.
Once there is, I think Bush may have a case, although he's not exactly following the international principles of states, sovereignity among others.
But until there is hard evidence of Iranian intervention, Bush has got jack shit.
So right now, he's got to sit tight in his boat, whether he wants to or not.
He won't be able to fcuk up US foreign relations much more, the Republicans and the Democrats will probably get together in the House and the Senate to cut down the worst of his antics.
I have great hopes for the next president, whether it will be Giuliani, McCain or Clinton.
-Hedge
-
Problem is, Iran isn't even fighting in Iraq.
No Iranian troops are deployed there.
There are no evidence of any Iranian military presence in Iraq.
Read that again.
Yet people like headhunder and mightymouse are still calling for a strike because they believe iran to be meddling in iraq. ::) And they do so just because Bush said so..
-
Yet people like headhunder and mightymouse are still calling for a strike because they believe iran to be meddling in iraq. ::) And they do so just because Bush said so..
Imagine how shitty it must be when debating politics with other military men. They must argue about who is more right: Bush or Cheney.
-
Why the fcuk would Iran attack US forces?
Seriously?
-Hedge
Israel and the United States will soon be destroyed, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday during a meeting with Syria's foreign minister, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) website said in a report.
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.
-
Israel and the United States will soon be destroyed, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday during a meeting with Syria's foreign minister, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) website said in a report.
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.
1. Israel is Israel's fucking problem. How many troops has Israel sent to help out the US in Afghanistan and Iraq? Yet you're bending over to help them? WTF?
-
Israel and the United States will soon be destroyed, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday during a meeting with Syria's foreign minister, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) website said in a report.
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.
Should the US declare war on Iraq because their president made a verbal threat? Yes or no?
-
now your spouting off about bush.
the topic was iran may be behind attacks on US.
have you been under a rock?? i've seen report after report about iran shipping fighters over to iraq. and i don't watch that much news.
Yeah. Not exactly a news flash. They are probably one of the countries supplying the insurgents with weapons.
-
1. Israel is Israel's fucking problem. How many troops has Israel sent to help out the US in Afghanistan and Iraq? Yet you're bending over to help them? WTF?
??? I'm simply quoting the Iranian president.
-
Should the US declare war on Iraq because their president made a verbal threat? Yes or no?
She the U.S. declare war on Iraq? Um . . . hmmm. . . . uh . . . no? :)
-
??? I'm simply quoting the Iranian president.
Sorry, I don't know your position on ISR.
Some people on the board believe the US should enter a 3rd war to protect Israel. I believe that we should let Israel fight their own wars, as they have had no problem sitting out Iraq and letting 3100 AMericans die.
-
She the U.S. declare war on Iraq? Um . . . hmmm. . . . uh . . . no? :)
Sorry, Iran.
Should the US declare war on Iran because their president made a verbal threat? Yes or no?
-
Sorry, Iran.
Should the US declare war on Iran because their president made a verbal threat? Yes or no?
I didn't say any such thing and I have no opinion whatsoever on a war with Iran. I was simply quoting the Iranian president who wants to kill Americans. This is the same man we're supposed to "negotiate" with. :-\
-
I didn't say any such thing and I have no opinion whatsoever on a war with Iran. I was simply quoting the Iranian president who wants to kill Americans. This is the same man we're supposed to "negotiate" with. :-\
Dude.
Is there any doubt at ALL that Bush/Cheney would love nothing more than to kill Adhmedijad? LOL... They're just better and not saying it on the mic.
Look, most world leaders would love to kill others and take their resources. I could care less what he thinks or what he says. We *did* label him the axis of evil before he said what he did.
Also, we've refused to negotiate with Iran for 22 years, I believe. It's not about Adhmedijahad.
-
Israel and the United States will soon be destroyed, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday during a meeting with Syria's foreign minister, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) website said in a report.
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.
Here's the letter Ahmadinejad wrote "to the American people".
http://english.irib.ir/IRAN/Ahmadi-letter%20to%20Americans.htm
BTW, I scanned the website for that report, couldn't find it, look yourself:
http://english.irib.ir/
-Hedge
-
Disclaimer: The Ahmadinejad Letter, of course I believe it to be demagogic and also to be propaganda.
But it doesn't make any sense that he would call for destruction of USA if he's trying to build some kind of relation with the US common man in the meantime.
-Hedge
-
Dude.
Is there any doubt at ALL that Bush/Cheney would love nothing more than to kill Adhmedijad? LOL... They're just better and not saying it on the mic.
Look, most world leaders would love to kill others and take their resources. I could care less what he thinks or what he says. We *did* label him the axis of evil before he said what he did.
Also, we've refused to negotiate with Iran for 22 years, I believe. It's not about Adhmedijahad.
And for good reason. I wouldn't sit down at the table with them either.
And you cannot reasonably compare our government leaders with Iran. They have been indoctrinating their people to hate and kill Americans for decades. They hate us.
-
To sum up:
It is possible to govern based on an approach that is distinctly different from one of coercion, force and injustice.
It is possible to sincerely serve and promote common human values, and honesty and compassion.
It is possible to provide welfare and prosperity without tension, threats, imposition or war.
It is possible to lead the world towards the aspired perfection by adhering to unity, monotheism, morality and spirituality and drawing upon the teachings of the Divine Prophets.
Then, the American people, who are God-fearing and followers of Divine religions, will overcome every difficulty.
Yeah, something must have gotten lost in translation. I missed the part where he says we should burn. BB, can you show us the quote please?
-
And for good reason. I wouldn't sit down at the table with them either.
You're an undiplomatic man who would prefer war over an amicable solution.
I tell you what - if you had 5 kids and they were all stationed on the frontlines at the Iranian border (and certain to perish in early battling), would you still be so against negotiations? Or is it strictly when other american kids will die that you prefer war first, everything else second?
And you cannot reasonably compare our government leaders with Iran. They have been indoctrinating their people to hate and kill Americans for decades. They hate us.
Yawn. Good thing there's no fearmongering going on over here to teach us to hate that group.
-
Disclaimer: The Ahmadinejad Letter, of course I believe it to be demagogic and also to be propaganda.
But it doesn't make any sense that he would call for destruction of USA if he's trying to build some kind of relation with the US common man in the meantime.
-Hedge
You tell me. Why call for death to Americans if you truly want a diplomatic relationship? He is talking out of both sides of his mouth.
-
Yeah, something must have gotten lost in translation. I missed the part where he says we should burn. BB, can you show us the quote please?
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.
-
You're an undiplomatic man who would prefer war over an amicable solution.
I tell you what - if you had 5 kids and they were all stationed on the frontlines at the Iranian border (and certain to perish in early battling), would you still be so against negotiations? Or is it strictly when other american kids will die that you prefer war first, everything else second?
Yawn. Good thing there's no fearmongering going on over here to teach us to hate that group.
LOL. So I've called for war with Iran? Where exactly did I say that? Quit making stuff up. ::)
I don't have 5 kids stationed on the Iranian border. ::)
You're comparing Iran with the U.S.? I am shocked. . . . Not.
-
Yet people like headhunder and mightymouse are still calling for a strike because they believe iran to be meddling in iraq. ::) And they do so just because Bush said so..
Hey camelass did I say i want an air strike..not only do I not want one I don't think there will be one. We don't need another front. One is enough.
-
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.
Here's an article which believes otherwise:
The "Wipe Israel Off The Map" Hoax
What Ahmadinejad really said and why this broken record is just another ad slogan for war
Barely a day goes by that one can avoid reading or hearing yet another Israeli, American or British warhawk regurgitate the broken record that Iran's President Ahmadinejad threatened to "wipe Israel off the map," framed in the ridiculous context that Israelis are being targeted for a second holocaust. This baseless rallying call for conflict holds about as much credibility as Dick Cheney's assertion that Saddam Hussein was planning to light up American skies with mushroom clouds.
Today it's the turn of would-be future British Prime Minister David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, who repeated the "wipe Israel off he map" fraud in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, using it to qualify his refusal to rule out a military strike on Iran under a Tory government.
Did Ahmadinejad really threaten to "wipe Israel off the map" or is this phrase just another jingoistic brand slogan for selling the next war in the Middle East?
The devil is in the detail, wiping Israel off the map suggests a physical genocidal assault, a literal population relocation or elimination akin to what the Nazis did. According to numerous different translations, Ahmadinejad never used the word "map," instead his statement was in the context of time and applied to the Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem. Ahmadinejad was expressing his future hope that the Zionist regime in Israel would fall, not that Iran was going to physically annex the country and its population.
To claim Ahmadinejad has issued a rallying cry to ethnically cleanse Israel is akin to saying that Churchill wanted to murder all Germans when he stated his desire to crush the Nazis. This is about the demise of a corrupt occupying power, not the deaths of millions of innocent people.
The Guardian's Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word "map" used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word "map" used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at.
The acceptance of the word "map" seemingly originated with the New York Times, who later had to back away from this false translation. The BBC also wrongly used the word and, in comments to Steele, later accepted their mistake but refused to issue a retraction.
"The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970's he surely did not favor Iran's removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out," writes Steele.
"It's important to note that the "quote" in question was itself a quote, writes Arash Norouzi, "they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office."
Professor Juan Cole concurs, arguing, "Now, some might say, "So he didn't say, 'wipe off the map,' he said 'erase from the page.' What's the difference? Anyway he's saying he wants to get rid of Israel. Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope -- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that 'Israel must be wiped off the map' with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time."
-
This guy won't last..it comes down to the almighty dollar or euro or whatever..this guy is a threat to the oil and cash flowing into the coffers of the mullahs. Komeini (SP) didn't even spout as much shit as this guy. They will take care of the problem, We'll offer consessions if he gets offed. He's a problem for them as well.
-
LOL. So I've called for war with Iran? Where exactly did I say that? Quit making stuff up. ::)
I don't have 5 kids stationed on the Iranian border. ::)
You're comparing Iran with the U.S.? I am shocked. . . . Not.
Interesting you're willing to say you wouldn't negotiate under one set of hypothetical circumstances, but not under the set of circumstances I present which puts a personal stake in there.
It's okay, I understand your view. If you supported invading then, you'd say so. your refusal means you wouldn't support it, but don't want to open your self up to criticism for inconsistency.
ANyway, that doesn't matter. You're against negotiation. Negotiation is the only thing which will prevent war. To go right to war because you don't like their words, well, it's immature and short-sighted. When lives and a trillion dollars is at stake, you swallow your fooking ego and go to talks.
-
This guy won't last..it comes down to the almighty dollar or euro or whatever..this guy is a threat to the oil and cash flowing into the coffers of the mullahs. Komeini (SP) didn't even spout as much shit as this guy. They will take care of the problem, We'll offer consessions if he gets offed. He's a problem for them as well.
the position of iranian president is not a very powerful one to begin with. He couldn't unilaterally declare war if he wanted to, without his legislature backing him. People dont see that. I wouldn't mind if they removed him, it would settle Bush down and maybe wouldn't jump to war without having a conversation.
-
here's a Q for everyone.
There's a guy on the street who's been talking shit all day. Silly shit, but threatening nonetheless. He has a gun. you have a gun.
Now you walk out into the road. You have two options. you can open fire, in which case he'll open fire too, and one or both of you will be hit, along with bystanders. Or, you can hold your gun ready and ask him to settle down. You can still draw if he does. But you might be able to learn the guy is just a prick who wants attention.
The hothead goes out firing, and a lot of people get shot. The smart man tries to talk it down, but remains ready for a gunfight. Myself and Reagan would try to talk it through. Beacn Bum and Bush would prefer to start shootin' and pray it all works out. Just different, that's all.
-
here's a Q for everyone.
There's a guy on the street who's been talking shit all day. Silly shit, but threatening nonetheless. He has a gun. you have a gun.
Now you walk out into the road. You have two options. you can open fire, in which case he'll open fire too, and one or both of you will be hit, along with bystanders. Or, you can hold your gun ready and ask him to settle down. You can still draw if he does. But you might be able to learn the guy is just a prick who wants attention.
The hothead goes out firing, and a lot of people get shot. The smart man tries to talk it down, but remains ready for a gunfight. .
if he is talking shit about Israel i forgo my own safety and shoot him right in the fucking head.
then when people hear the gun shots and start running here n there i blame it on the muslims! ;D
-
ok, who actually believes iran is not meddling in iraq??
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/12/politics/main2355951.shtml
http://thomasjoscelyn.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-are-we-fighting-in-iraq.html
-
ok, who actually believes iran is not meddling in iraq??
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/12/politics/main2355951.shtml
http://thomasjoscelyn.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-are-we-fighting-in-iraq.html
I'd like to see some other sources than US Military officials, no offence.
Still, I like to know more about this. Very interesting.
I'm not going to claim that it's either a media ploy from the Bush Administration or that Iran is doing all of this until I get som further evidence.
Ever since the WMD claims turned out to be complete lies, I've been very sceptical about the information coming from the Bush Administration.
-Hedge
-
the position of iranian president is not a very powerful one to begin with. He couldn't unilaterally declare war if he wanted to, without his legislature backing him. People dont see that. I wouldn't mind if they removed him, it would settle Bush down and maybe wouldn't jump to war without having a conversation.
prove to me he can't declare war. just because you say he can't, why should i believe it.
you honestly think these islamic fanatics fight war "legally".
-
prove to me he can't declare war. just because you say he can't, why should i believe it.
you honestly think these islamic fanatics fight war "legally".
240 or Bust is actually right.
The most powerful man in Iran is without a doubt the Ayatollah, Khamenei, also known as the "Supreme Leader" ::)
He is the religious leader, but also has the ultimate political power, since he can overrule anything the president dictates, as well as the power over the military.
-Hedge
-
Interesting you're willing to say you wouldn't negotiate under one set of hypothetical circumstances, but not under the set of circumstances I present which puts a personal stake in there.
It's okay, I understand your view. If you supported invading then, you'd say so. your refusal means you wouldn't support it, but don't want to open your self up to criticism for inconsistency.
ANyway, that doesn't matter. You're against negotiation. Negotiation is the only thing which will prevent war. To go right to war because you don't like their words, well, it's immature and short-sighted. When lives and a trillion dollars is at stake, you swallow your fooking ego and go to talks.
Your M.O., when faced with facts you don't like, or that make you uncomfortable, is to (1) ignore them, (2) change them, by making some weird hypothetical, and/or (3) make them up. This thread is a prime example.
-
ok, who actually believes iran is not meddling in iraq??
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/12/politics/main2355951.shtml
http://thomasjoscelyn.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-are-we-fighting-in-iraq.html
Oh! Oh! [hand waving] I know the answer to this one. :D
-
of course iran is meddling with iraq...thats a NO brainer..
but so is israel...
-
Your M.O., when faced with facts you don't like, or that make you uncomfortable, is to (1) ignore them, (2) change them, by making some weird hypothetical, and/or (3) make them up. This thread is a prime example.
you nailed it. you stated what i've been thinking.
Oh! Oh! [hand waving] I know the answer to this one. :D
;)
-
Your M.O., when faced with facts you don't like, or that make you uncomfortable, is to (1) ignore them, (2) change them, by making some weird hypothetical, and/or (3) make them up. This thread is a prime example.
I haven't followed what his arguements have been with this topic, but that's close to what happens with the 9/11 CT stuff.
-
Hey camelass did I say i want an air strike..not only do I not want one I don't think there will be one. We don't need another front. One is enough.
Good. ;D