Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 139

• 0%

  Dicax_Maximus4 months, 2 weeks ago

  This will only be a surprise to those who seem to think Iran incapable of any wrongdoing whatsoever....

  Reply

  50 Replies

  • 0%

    Dicax_Maximus4 months, 2 weeks ago

    df - I'm not going to get into the tired old arguement over right & wrong in the invasion of Iraq. It's past, what Iran is (reportedly) doing, is present.

    It is wrong !!!

    Period.

    Reply

    13 Replies

    • 0%

      Beau78904 months, 2 weeks ago

      Okay, what Iran is doing is wrong. Now--what's the best way of fixing it? It seems invasion, which is all the Bush administration seems to have in mind, would lead us down the same path to where we are now in Iraq.

      Reply

      5 Replies

      • 0%

        Natureboy4 months, 2 weeks ago

        How wrong is Iran?

        Who are we paying Iraqis to kill?

        If I were an Iraqi, I would do the job for free - nobody loves foreign occupiers!

        Reply

        4 Replies

        • 0%

          CaptainLucid4 months, 2 weeks ago

          "If I were an Iraqi, I would do the job for free - nobody loves foreign occupiers!"

          Too many already are and too many will keep doing it. Time jo leave this mess.

          Reply
        • 0%

          rimbaud4 months, 2 weeks ago

          You can bet that Iran is involved in Iraq! They have a huge stake in the outcome of their neighbor. They sufferred a long war against them, by Iraq, then our proxy and the beneficiary of our WMDs. Russia, too, was then still allied with Iraq, so Iran stood alone and sufferred the deaths of many "martyrs". Do we really expect them to stand back while we groom Iraq to stand against them, AGAIN?

          http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            earthlingerer4 months, 2 weeks ago

            Considering how much of Iraq is actually shiite, Iran has always exerted a large degree of influence..

            But this is another excellent example of impeccable anglo-american intelligence that cannot be simply ignored!

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              rimbaud4 months, 2 weeks ago

              The Shia/Sunni conflict is a creation of the West, and their puppet, Saddam Hussein. In most of the Moslem world, even in Iran (especially the port cities), families might have Sunni and Shia members. Whether you are Sunni or Shia is an accident of birth (what your father was). Sunnis and Shias have lived as peaceful neighbors, for years, and often are not aware which of their family members are Sunni and which Shia. The Balkanization of the Moslem world, and the rise of hyper-violent Islamic fundamentalists, serves no one's interests, but the West's. Someone should tell bin-Laden and al-Zawahiri that Allah is not pleased with their policy of Moslem-on-Moslem killing, and that, where they are going, there are no virgins waiting.

              Reply
    • 0%

      raza94 months, 2 weeks ago

      Um, I do believe we are still 'presently' in Iraq......

      Reply
    • 0%

      hyperbola4 months, 2 weeks ago

      The US regularly gives "military help" to nations it claims are threatened or in need of help.

      The US invasion of Iraq is a war crime that any nation in the world would be justified in helping Iraqis resist.

      Why doesn't Britain simply retire its troops from iraq instead of continuing their war crimes?

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        ADAGUY4 months, 2 weeks ago

        that would mean admitting the invasion was WRONG!

        ain't gonna happen.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          memestryker4 months, 2 weeks ago

          We call those "successful opportunities for learning," in case you didn't get the memo, ADAGUY!

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            Teech4 months, 2 weeks ago

            9 of the 11 hijackers held Saudi passports.

            We invaded Iraq.

            Iran paid Iraq to kill U.K. soldiers.

            We'll invade Syria.

            Reply
    • 0%

      augustine9744 months, 2 weeks ago

      As wrong as our side funding opposition groups in Iran?

      Reply
    • 0%

      mesodude4 months, 2 weeks ago

      What are UK troops still doing there anyway? They must know by now the extent to which Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld lied through their teeth and dragged them along with us into Chimpstock. How many Brits have been killed because of our illegal oil grab? Hundreds? The UK should do what the rest of Europe is doing--pulling their troops out and refusing to help us in Iraq or Afghanistan. Bush and war cheerleaders need to learn that lying and criminal behavior which results in the deaths of several hundred thousand people should be punished severely--not rewarded with a second term in office.

      Reply
  • 0%

    libsRfunny4 months, 2 weeks ago

    "If the US hadn't invaded Iraq on false pretenses then UK troops wouldn't be getting killed - pretty simple."

    Your first premise is pure horse crap, but I'll not even bother with that bit of goofiness and go into your second, even dumber premise. Iran is not Iraq. If you say we had no business being in Iraq -- even after the UN sanctioned it and dozens of nations agreed it was necessary (you aren't dumb enough to think they didn't have their own intelligence reports citing Saddam's illegal WMD threat, are you?). You must conclude Iran has no business interfering in Iraq.

    But, so many fools are too willing to spew the "Bush lied; People died" BS for so long. Even when an overwhelming international consensus was had determined Saddam had WMDs. At worst, Bush and the international community is guilty of group-think, not lying.

    Reply

    29 Replies

    • 0%

      hyperbola4 months, 2 weeks ago

      Well, we have British government documents that show Bush Lied (to Congress, the american people and the world), so your slogans are nothing more than pentagon war crimes propaganda (see the article below from the CIA agent that gave Reagan his daily national securioty briefing). Why are you so keen to kill americans and britains in the mideast for zionist crimes against humanity?

      Proof Bush Deceived America

      James Risen's State of War: the Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, may hold bigger secrets than the disclosure that President George W. Bush authorized warrantless eavesdropping on Americans.

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 0%

        hyperbola4 months, 2 weeks ago

        Risen's book also confirms the most damning element of the British Cabinet Office memos popularly called the "Downing Street memos;" namely, that "the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy." The result is that it is no longer credible to maintain that the failures in the Iraqi intelligence were the product of a broken intelligence community. The Bush administration deliberately fabricated the case against Iraq, lying to Congress and the American people along the way....

        http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/01/13/pro...

        It really is time for you to stop lying here libs.

        Reply
      • 0%

        libsRfunny4 months, 2 weeks ago

        "Well, we have British government documents that show Bush Lied ..."

        Sorry, Jew-hater, but British documents show no such thing. The infamous "downing Street memo" was nothing more than hear-say, and quite a poorly interpreted one at that. But, so many fools on Propeller LOVE to fall for fake crap -- like Fox 5 "subliminals" and other BS. So you'll find a fairly receptive audience for your horse dung here.

        Reply
      • 0%

        cloud154 months, 2 weeks ago

        I don't understand why people think that other nations got involved in Iraq based on the word of Bush. Do you guys honestly think that they heard Bush say Iraq had WMDs and though to themselves, "Bush said it so it must be true!" You can bet your ass that they had much more than the word of Bush that Iraq had WMDs.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          CaptainLucid4 months, 2 weeks ago

          A lot of the other nations involved in so so called coalition of the willing did it because W and Co threatened to put the screws to them or to set them up with a fat package of aid. And many of those involved nations were only there as cheerleaders. W could read off a long list of names when it was pretty much US and a small amount from the UK and AU.

          Reply
    • 0%

      DeadXXXManXXXTalkin4 months, 2 weeks ago

      ''But, so many fools are too willing to spew the "Bush lied; People died" BS for so long.''

      Your right

      George Bush and George Washington

      cept they didn't want W using an edged tool and he hired a gardener to do the chopping

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P2XhltU394&feat...

      the part about Bush Inc passing a UK college kids thesis to Powell to read in his 'The Case against Iraq' pre-war speech, complete with matching typos, begins at about the 7 minute mark

      of course that's not lying

      only plagiarism

      I'm sure they thought intel cribbed off the net was 'truthful'

      Reply

      11 Replies

      • 0%

        libsRfunny4 months, 2 weeks ago

        "I'm sure they thought intel cribbed off the net was 'truthful'"

        Ohhh ... it's time for some liberals to be "enlightened."

        "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."â;; From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998.

        Reply

        10 Replies

        • 0%

          libsRfunny4 months, 2 weeks ago

          "This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."â;; From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others.

          Reply

          9 Replies

          • 0%

            libsRfunny4 months, 2 weeks ago

            "Saddam's goal â;¦ is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."â;; Madeline Albright, 1998.

            "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"â;; National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998.

            "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement."â;; Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002 .

            Reply

            8 Replies

            • 0%

              libsRfunny4 months, 2 weeks ago

              "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."â;; Robert Byrd, October 2002.

              "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threatâ;¦ Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long timeâ;¦ He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."â;; Wesley Clark on Sept.26, 2002

              Reply

              7 Replies

              • 0%

                libsRfunny4 months, 2 weeks ago

                "What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs."â;; Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002.

                "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."â;; Bill Clinton in 1998 .

                Reply

                6 Replies

                • 0%

                  libsRfunny4 months, 2 weeks ago

                  "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."â;; Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003.

                  "Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people."â;; Tom Daschle in 1998.

                  Reply

                  5 Replies

                  • 0%

                    libsRfunny4 months, 2 weeks ago

                    "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."â;; John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002.

                    "The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."â;; John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002.

                    Reply

                    4 Replies

                    • 0%

                      DeadXXXManXXXTalkin4 months, 2 weeks ago

                      did you write all that just for me?

                      impressive

                      Reply

                      3 Replies

                      • 0%

                        libsRfunny4 months, 2 weeks ago

                        No, I keep them on hand when idiots start up with the old "Bush lied; people died" crap.

                        You'd have to be an idiot to think that he lied. Some idiots even think he planned 9/11 and used that and WMDs as an excuse to invade Iraq but somehow didn't have the sense to plant WMDs to pull off the "big lie."

                        that's because he was following the intelligence supplied him by Clinton holdover George Tenet - who said they had reliable sources claiming Saddam had WMDs -- and others. Notice the Pelosi comment from 1998 when she was on the House Intel Committee.

                        Reply

                        2 Replies

                        • 0%

                          CaptainLucid4 months, 2 weeks ago

                          Libs, your crap isn't anymore true than the last 20 times you posted it. You remind me of the republican idiot who kept repeating the "appeasement" talking point for 5 minutes on TV before he finally admitted that he had no idea what he was talking about. So let me try to put it in terms your dumb ass can understand. NAME THE ONE WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION WE FOUND IN IRAQ! Just need one sentence, JUST ONE! I expect you will reply by posting 3 or 4 cut and pasted irrelevent crap that has nothing to do with the question. And please don't cite the ones that Reagan sold them because that is ancient history and were not there when we invaded and we knew it when we invaded.

                          Reply
                        • 0%

                          DeadXXXManXXXTalkin4 months, 2 weeks ago

                          that was sarcasm, senor cut-n-paste

                          Reply
    • 0%

      ADAGUY4 months, 2 weeks ago

      Libs, I gotta admit, when it comes to covering the facts with bull$hit, you and slate are two of the finest.

      There is so much evidence that this entire mess was planned that it's impossible to over look!

      How many CIA agents have came forward and made the claim that this was all done on "doctored" and "pick and choose" info? Only a fool would defend these bastards now!

      Reply

      11 Replies

      • 0%

        rightfromwrong4 months, 2 weeks ago

        9/11 was an inside job. Physics say so and there were too many coincedences not to have been so. Nothing worse than neo-cons who have sold their souls!!!!!

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          libsRfunny4 months, 2 weeks ago

          More moronic rantings.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            CaptainLucid4 months, 2 weeks ago

            Sorry Libs, if it is moronic I am sure it is just to keep it at a low enough level for you to understand.

            Reply
      • 0%

        libsRfunny4 months, 2 weeks ago

        "I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction."â;; Dick Gephardt in September of 2002.

        "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."â;; Al Gore, 2002.

        "Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction."â;; Jim Jeffords, Oct. 8, 2002.

        Reply

        5 Replies

        • 0%

          libsRfunny4 months, 2 weeks ago

          "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."â;; Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002.

          "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."â;; Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002.

          "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."â;; John F. Kerry, Oct 2002.

          Reply

          4 Replies

          • 0%

            libsRfunny4 months, 2 weeks ago

            "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."â;; John Kerry, October 9, 2002.

            Reply

            3 Replies

            • 0%

              libsRfunny4 months, 2 weeks ago

              "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."â;; Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998.

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                libsRfunny4 months, 2 weeks ago

                "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production."â;; Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998.

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  ADAGUY4 months, 2 weeks ago

                  Hey dip$hit! Do you think the fact that the dems joined in makes it right? Hell no! It just makes it obvious that you can fool some of the people (you) all of the time!

                  Reply
      • 0%

        cloud154 months, 2 weeks ago

        Lets see the evidence...

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          Dicax_Maximus4 months, 2 weeks ago

          cloud - Do try and keep up old chap..... OK, not WMD's that would be capable of leveling New York, but if you personally volunteer to be within 100 yards of some of the "pesticides" found in military ammo dumps, when the little (55 gallon ) barrells are opened, I feel certain you may change your mind..... For the last few minutes of your life.....

          Oh, sorry, I forgot, they REALLY are pesticides. The Iraqi army obviously had one HELL OF A BUG PROBLEM !!!

          Reply
  • 0%

    Wolfie20074 months, 2 weeks ago

    digital

    That was a disgusting and insensitive remark.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      ADAGUY4 months, 2 weeks ago

      It was a fact!

      Reply
  • 0%

    rightfromwrong4 months, 2 weeks ago

    Actually,the USA is paying 150,000 mercenaries which they call contrators billions of dollars to fight as well as having 160,000 soldiers there. Now there is talk of re-instating the draft. Every day the US deficit grows by more than a billion...all commodities continue to escalate and more jobs will continue to leave America.

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      tehranchik4 months, 2 weeks ago

      We are the good guy---it doesn't count.

      Reply
  • 0%

    mesodude4 months, 2 weeks ago

    Bottom line: If Bush invades Iran, he will immediately be IMPEACHED (and we'll be going after him for way more than just Iran).

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      CaptainLucid4 months, 2 weeks ago

      I wish but I think if you give the public a war it will energize enough of the my country right or wrong types for long enough to vote republican and the dems lack the balls to stand up to him. The dems were elected on a stop the war platform and then immediately let a lame duck with the worst approval rating in history bully them around. Afterwords a bunch of republicans will be standing around and wondering why gas is now $10 a gal and the dollar is now even with the peso. They just don't get reality.

      Reply
• 0%

  cowboygrandpa4 months, 2 weeks ago

  DM:

  Then we should go in and kick the crap out of the insurgents.

  To make it unprofittable to join the terrorists.

  Just go in and eliminate the known terrorists. Don't do a song and dance routine don't talk about it. DO IT!!!

  This is what has angered me. If the government knows it and can prove it. Take care of the problem.

  Don't wait for world approval they will never get it.

  To me it sounds like everyone is so afraid of sounding like a war mongerer. That they are afraid to act on good intel.

  Reply

  13 Replies

  • 0%

    Dicax_Maximus4 months, 2 weeks ago

    cbg - Whilst I can understand the frustration & sentiment, I don't think that the "west" can do that. Simple reason, ALL our armed forces are stretched to breaking point already !!!! The other option (some VERY precise targetted bombing of certain places) would probably PO the Russians & Chinese to such an extent that WWIII would be a distinct possibility ! I really don't know what the anser is, but I expect to hear for more "sanctions" (like they do damm all good anyway).......

    Reply
  • 0%

    libsRfunny4 months, 2 weeks ago

    " Then we should go in and kick the crap out of the insurgents.

    To make it unprofittable to join the terrorists."

    We have, gramps. Al Qaeda is on the ropes and down some 94 percent in operational effectiveness, according to their own sources. And Iraq is kicking some tail on it's own. You might have noticed quite a few of the recent actions reported involved Iraqi military success against insurgents.

    Reply

    10 Replies

    • 0%

      hyperbola4 months, 2 weeks ago

      More pentagon propaganda from libs! Why am I not surprised.

      How the American Imperial Dream Foundered in Iraq

      Politics â;; At all levels of society, usually at great sacrifice, the Iraqi people frustrated the imperial designs of a superpower. As the occupation wore on, the Bush administration found itself swimming against a tide of resistance of a previously unimaginable sort, and ever further from its goals.

      http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/05/23/...

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        hyperbola4 months, 2 weeks ago

        Where Are Those Iranian Weapons in Iraq?

        Politics â;; The US military command in Iraq continues to talk about an alleged pipeline of Iranian weapons to Iraqi Shiites opposing the US occupation, but still cannot find any Iranian weapons to show to the world.

        http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/05/22/...

        US Confession: Weapons Were Not Made In Iran After All

        News â;; In a sharp reversal of accusations against Iran, the US military made an unprecedented confession: the weapons recently found in Iraq were not made in Iran at all. In contrast, the Pentagon admitted it lost a third of the weapons distributed to Iraqi security forces in 2004/2005. The 190,000 assault rifles and pistols roam free in Iraqi streets today

        http://news.propeller.com/story/2008/05/12/us-c...

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          hyperbola4 months, 2 weeks ago

          Iraq war as incubator of terrorism

          Politics â;; Bush admin lies again about Iraq. In the first quarter, the number of fatal bombings in Iraq spiked. Every month, ever-more American and Iraqi soldiers were being killed. The number of deaths has doubled since December. Larger numbers of Iraqi civilians are dying. Also, the war is breeding violent insurgent cells across the Arab world.

          http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/05/12/...

          Reply
    • 0%

      pongping4 months, 2 weeks ago

      94%? Are you sure it's not 93.9% or 94.1%?

      You can't believe that H.S., can you? If their sources are giving us such detailed information, which I doubt they even have a clue, then we ought to know a whole lot more about them, especially where the other 6% are.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        libsRfunny4 months, 2 weeks ago

        Was from observations date from a Arabic Jihadist based on claims by al Qaeda. Story was posted the other day.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          pongping4 months, 2 weeks ago

          So you believe jihadists? Honest bunch of folks, no doubt.

          Reply
    • 0%

      ADAGUY4 months, 2 weeks ago

      Are you aware that 87.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

      Reply
    • 0%

      CaptainLucid4 months, 2 weeks ago

      Damn libs, that is the dumbest thing I have read in a long time even by your low standards. 94% effectiveness? Is this like a lab where they test detergent. New alqaeda, now 94% less effective than the leading terrorist brand. Furthermore you say according to their own sources. Are you so stupid you would believe their sources? These are meaningless statements that reflect political currents not reality. After 9/11 W was saying BinLadin, dead or alive. Once he completely screwed up the capture he changed the line to say he wasn't worried about BinLadin. You should really read Aesops fable about the fox and the grapes.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        Dicax_Maximus4 months, 2 weeks ago

        CL - Now that's a fairly silly comment if I've ever read one !!!

        94% less effective and you fail to understand what that translates to in reality ???

        Sad...................

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          CaptainLucid4 months, 2 weeks ago

          I tutored statistics in college. The 94% number is not like average home price or median income. Those numbers are reached by taking measurements and applying the rules of math. The 94% number is just a random number that some war marketeers made up. It is even less significant than W's color coded terror alert. W's terror alerts were at least tied to a real stat like W's approval rating. The terror warning color was exposed as a fraud and no longer gets mentioned by real news. This 94% number has even less relevance to reality. It is a nonsense number like an African election result. The president claims victory because got 78% of the vote and his opponent only got 53%. Everyone knows that the numbers are a fraud but a few media idiots report it as fact with a straight face. Then there are a few idiots who actually believe it. The press who reported the 94% were paid to say it. You believe it for free.

          Reply
  • 0%

    CaptainLucid4 months, 2 weeks ago

    Cowboy, I wish it were that easy. The reality is we are paying both sunni and shiite militias not to kill each other or us. They are happy to take our money and the weapons we provide. On their duty time the iraqi police do very little. In their off time they do what their sectarian leaders tell them to. Some of the same people we pay during the day plant IED's at night. We do not have good intel. It is like when cops pull up to a domestic disturbance and both people are saying the other person started it. Both are probably lying so what do you do? It is impossible to make terrorism unprofitable given the situation there. We can give them money but they take the money and then they take another $100 from anyone there who hates us which is most of the country to plant bombs anyway. Our leadership cannot understand that just because they take your money in daylight that they will not kill you that night.

    Reply
• 0%

  mmrhe4 months, 2 weeks ago

  Increasing Iranian influence? Wasn't that one of the reasons we stayed out of Iraq after Desert Storm?

  Reply
• 0%

  Dicax_Maximus4 months, 2 weeks ago

  df - True, but in this case, it's a different sovereign nation that's (reportedly) sticking it's nose in.....

  Reply

• ranchhandComment removed: User banned.9 Replies

  • 0%

    Dicax_Maximus4 months, 2 weeks ago

    ranch - I quite agree, and he's NOT the first !!! Prince Andrew flew a Tornado jet in the Falklands war.

    Reply
  • 0%

    hyperbola4 months, 2 weeks ago

    So you like secret police that savage their own population? That is what our overthrowing a longstanding secular, parliamentary democracy in Iran to install the Shah achieved. Perfectly alright to have bloody dictators abusing their population so long as those dictators kowtow to our corruption? What happens when our local dictator (e.g. Saddam worked with the CIA from 1959 onwards) gets out of control? We should just help kill a couple of million people (e.g. in Iraq from 1981 to now)?

    Reply

    4 Replies

    • 0%

      jimdoze4 months, 2 weeks ago

      So you are fed up with Realpolitik, are you?

      Gee, so is/was the current U.S. administration.

      The break up of the Ottoman Empire really created some problems in the area, didn't it!? Still is. And the Persians are still trying to take advantage of those problems. The southern Iraqi oil fields are long coveted by the Iranians and the Turks figure the northern oil fields to be rightly theirs in the first place.

      A democratic Iraq would be of great benefit to Iran since it would be far less likely to threaten it... so, in that case, why isn't Iran laying off? Because Iran hopes for the breakup and partition of Iraq so that it can get its piece. When that happens, the Turks will take the north.

      So, back to the point of "bloody dictators..." I gather many of you would prefer the re-emergence of those kindly Persian and Ottoman empires... each in control of larger chunks of the world's most important strategic resource.

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        hyperbola4 months, 2 weeks ago

        You continue to tell us lies here. The Shah of Iran was installed by us as monarch after our CIA supported a coup to end a longstanding secular, parliamentary democracy in Iran. Why? For cheap oil. No matter what spin you try to put on it, meddling in other countries keeps biting us in the ass. As for oil, you think it is america's to steal?

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          jimdoze4 months, 2 weeks ago

          The BIG LIE is that we are stealing the oil.

          If we had gone into Iraq with the intent to steal oil: 1) we wouldn't be paying for it. 2) we wouldn't care about Baghdad or any area other than the oilfields. The oil fields would cost us far less in men and materiale to take and defend.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            hyperbola4 months, 2 weeks ago

            You really are naive.

            The present boundaries in the mideast were explicitly created to facilitate colonial control (mainly by britain and france) and involved things like hiving Kuwait off from Iraq so that British Petroleum could more easily control the oil fields of the 1920s. After WWII we took over the colonial role.

            We explicitly overthrew a democratic parliamentary government in Iran to impose a "monarch" that promised us cheap oil.

            We have explicitly demanded that Iraq "sell" us oil under contractual conditions that will cost the Iraqis hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue.

            Reply
  • 0%

    mesodude4 months, 2 weeks ago

    " Now we have to be concerned with Iran and those he targets. I agree with Cowboy, and you. Bomb locations and wipe out the insurgents."

    --But if Iran was such a concern, why did we make a beeline to Iraq after Bush let OBL escape in Afghanistan? When Bush cut and ran from Afghanistan, shouldn't he have been headed to Iran or North Korea? ;-(

    Reply
  • 0%

    blinkers4 months, 2 weeks ago

    It cannot be said too often that the Shah of Iran would have been swept away no matter what president was sitting in the White House. Internal opposition to Pahlavi's despotic rule was building inexorably long before Jimmy Carter even considered running for president.

    Reply
  • 0%

    Natureboy4 months, 2 weeks ago

    If the US hadn't INSTALLED the shah, we likely wouldn't have this issue.

    Reply

• ranchhandComment removed: User banned.2 Replies

  • 0%

    ADAGUY4 months, 2 weeks ago

    Please take time to read this!

    http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile1.html

    Reply
  • 0%

    Natureboy4 months, 2 weeks ago

    "Its refreshing to see a Royal who isn't afraid to get his hands dirty."

    Pure idiocy. It takes no balls whatsoever to send other people to kill and die, only a lack of conscience.

    Reply
• 0%

  SwampFox-82nd4 months, 2 weeks ago

  Wished I could agree with you, my cool friends. Had we not made a secret deal with Iran to hold the American hostages until AFTER the election. Dumb me read that is called treason somewhere in our law-books. That's what our beloved VP (Bush) managed to broker with the Contras and Iran. Instead of bothering congress with messy details, they by-passed congress by paying for the Iranian arms with cocaine. Seems congress cut financial support with the Contras after they raped and bayoneted a group of nuns. I was there to witness what the Contras do with dirty communistic left-winged radical terrorists cleverly disguised as nuns...in the name of the USA and God...

  Reply

  7 Replies

  • 0%

    libsRfunny4 months, 2 weeks ago

    Secret deal to hold the hostages until after the election? More lunacy. The Iran-Contra affair was long after the election was over. For what you and so many idiots have suggested to be true, Regan's people would have had to negotiate with Iran while he was campaigning for president. You'd have to be nuts to think that ever happened or that Jimmy Carter ever had a chance against Reagan.

    Obviously, you forgot about Carter's rare feat of double -digit inflation AND unemployment. That alone had him doomed as president. To suggest Reagan negotiated with Iran to hold the hostages until after he was elected is completely nutty and wholly lacking any kind of sane evidence.

    Somehow, I seriously doubt your alleged military service.

    Reply

    6 Replies

    • 0%

      hyperbola4 months, 2 weeks ago

      Well libs, you just show us that you don't know anything about the history of the Reagan era. The fact is that Reagan / Bush daddy committed treason to win the 1980 election (see below). Apart from that, you do know that Carter had a better record than Reagan on both job growth, wages and economic growth?

      The Imperium's Quarter Century

      The origins of George W. Bush's imperial-style government can be traced back to the extraordinary moment a quarter century ago when Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President and 52 Americans hostages were simultaneously freed in Iran. Americans were swept up in a surge of patriotism and many bought into the idea that Reagan's tough-guy image had scared Iran's fundamentalist Islamic government. The reality of that fateful day now appears to have been quite different, but the cover-up of a Republican scheme that bordered on treason remains an important state secret even 25 years later.

      http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile.html

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        libsRfunny4 months, 2 weeks ago

        "Well libs, you just show us that you don't know anything about the history of the Reagan era. The fact is that Reagan / Bush daddy committed treason to win the 1980 election (see below). Apart from that, you do know that Carter had a better record than Reagan on both job growth, wages and economic growth?"

        Those statements are proof you are a complete idiot.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          hyperbola4 months, 2 weeks ago

          Nope. Unlike an israel-firster like you, I am an american patriot.

          Reply
        • 0%