Page 3 of 3
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:03 pm
by LTS TRN 2
mvscal wrote:LTS TRN 2 wrote:...the idea of Iran holding sway--or direct power--in Iraq is as ludicrous...
That must explain why they immediately infiltrated the country with thousands of agents, millions of dollars and weapons for insurgents...because Arabs and Persians are "oil and water." Oddly enough both of which provide more than adequate incentive to control Iraq.
the "Slam Dunk" argument for WMDs in Iraq (which you also vigorously supporterd, you clown).
The "Slam Dunk Argument" was made by the Director of Central Intelligence and was seconded by every intelligence agency on planet Earth.
What a bunch of backpeddling bullshit! "Thousands of agents"? Any evidence? Of course not.
As for "every intelligence agency on earth"? How about actual experts who were there, like Scott Ritter? In fact, every (ACCURATE) source who disputed Tenet's fatuous fabrication was summarly smeared. Are you following the Libby trial? Are you walking around in little circles in the dark?
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:08 pm
by LTS TRN 2
Allright, my bad on Cyrus. It was of course Darius, etc. So let's say "since Alexander" Persia has not been hegemonous. And moreover, move it up to 1952 and start backpeddling some more.
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:10 pm
by 420
left to right... mvstard and nick hitler
... and the winner is?
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:20 pm
by LTS TRN 2
C'mon you chickenshit puppet, move on up to the present era. Tell us how Scott Ritter was a "tool" even though he was dead on in saying "NO WMDs--DON'T INVADE!"
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:22 pm
by Tom In VA
LTS TRN 2 wrote:C'mon you chickenshit puppet, move on up to the present era. Tell us how Scott Ritter was a "tool" even though he was dead on in saying "NO WMDs--DON'T INVADE!"
And how do we know, now for a fact, that he was "DEAD ON".
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:30 pm
by Mister Bushice
Damn, this thread just took a sharp turn into "who gives a fuck"
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:33 pm
by LTS TRN 2
Uh, it's been four fucking years, Tom, and even the Cheney cabal itself has admitted there were no WMDs, that they were wrong. What? Are YOU somehow hanging onto the rationale that MAYBE Saddam did have something--and therefore we HAD to do it? Are you really that much of a jerkoff?
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:45 pm
by Tom In VA
LTS TRN 2 wrote: and even the Cheney cabal itself has admitted there were no WMDs, that they were wrong.
Yes when unfettered access and not having to rely upon Saddam's subjective "tour" he gave to the U.N.
FOUR YEARS AFTER HE EXPELLED THEM.
Kindly sell your bullshit somewhere else. Someone lied, you're right, it was Saddam. His bluff got called.
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:49 pm
by The Seer
LTS TRN 2 wrote:
I support secular values.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:02 am
by KC Scott
mvscal wrote:LTS TRN 2 wrote:So, Iran wants to "take over" Iraq? Really?
...really.
Really.
Don't tell me anyone here doesn't get the basic premise that Iran wants a Shia regime in Iraq -
It's the exact same as what the Syrians tried to do in Lebannon.
You'd have to be pretty blind to miss that
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:56 am
by LTS TRN 2
Uh, sorry but the Syrians are Sunni. And the Iranians are not Arab and are not as nearly welcomed in Iraq despite what Surge crowd would have you believe. And there's no evidence to the contrary, regardless of the Daily Telegraph's assurance. The idea that the Iranians would seek unilaterally--that is, without the cooperation of the solid Iraqi Shiite majority--to "take over" Iraq is so patantly ludicrous it can't really even be imagined, and yet that is apparently where your argument is based. Astonishing. And even more so is the fact that you appear to trust the very same sources on this premise who completely fucked up--catastrophically--on their previous similar assertions.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 4:02 am
by KC Scott
LTS TRN 2 wrote:Uh, sorry but the Syrians are Sunni.
The Syrian regime is Allawite, the majority of the population Sunni.
Hence the Muslim Brotherhood's attempts to overthrow Asad as mentioned earlier
And the Iranians are not Arab and are not as nearly welcomed in Iraq despite what Surge crowd would have you believe.
No shit??? Gee......... I guess you reading this thread actually did some good.
And there's no evidence to the contrary, regardless of the Daily Telegraph's assurance. The idea that the Iranians would seek unilaterally--that is, without the cooperation of the solid Iraqi Shiite majority--to "take over" Iraq is so patantly ludicrous it can't really even be imagined, and yet that is apparently where your argument is based.
As soon as the US is out of Iraq, you'll see a full scale civil war. The Shia majority, with the full financial and millitary support of Iran will push the Sunni's west and liquidate those they do not move. The "democracy" in Iraq will be replaced with a "democratically elected" Theocracy just like Iran. I'd guess Al Sadr would have designs as the religous head of the Shia regime.
In the north, the Kurds will declare autonomy and seek to establish a state with the Turkish kurd population. This will then thrust Turkey into confrontaion as I'm sure they won't ceed any land to 20% of their population without a fight.
When the other nations throughout Central Asia and Africa with large Muzzie poplulations see success, you'll see more attempts to overthrow whatever form of government happens to be in place and replace them with Theocracies.
Basically, you'll get to redraw all kinds of maps, and since we're talking about vast amounts of natural resources, expect to see Russia & China casting their lots with whomever keeps the oil flowing.
Astonishing. And even more so is the fact that you appear to trust the very same sources on this premise who completely fucked up--catastrophically--on their previous similar assertions.
The only source you've seen me reference is Bob Baer.
Do I trust his assessment? Yea.... he spent 20+ years in the region and has no ties to this or any past administration.
You on the otherhand, are a stringent anti-semetic, who seems to ignore facts given you.
Your pollyanna view that everything will just be OK if we leave is the typical claptrap I hear from those who choose not confront the problem, then bitch later when it explodes in their face.
You don't address any of the facts about Iran's murder of Americans from 1982 forward, their involvement in global terrorism or their nuclear ambitions. In your view, They're just a fun loving bunch of Persians who wanna live in peace and burn a few flags. Ever wonder just how elcomed you'd be over there? It's time to grow up and face the realities of the big, bad world.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 4:18 am
by RadioFan
Rack Scott.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 4:20 am
by KC Scott
LTS TRN 2 wrote:and are not as nearly welcomed in Iraq despite what Surge crowd would have you believe. And there's no evidence to the contrary, regardless of the Daily Telegraph's assurance. The idea that the Iranians would seek unilaterally--that is, without the cooperation of the solid Iraqi Shiite majority--to "take over" Iraq is so patantly ludicrous it can't really even be imagined,
Gee.......
Imagine that
Anti-American cleric flees Iraq for Iran
By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr fled
Iraq for
Iran ahead of a security crackdown in Baghdad and the arrival of 21,500 U.S. troops sent by
President Bush to quell sectarian violence, a senior U.S. official said Tuesday.
Al-Sadr left his Baghdad stronghold some weeks ago, the official said, and is believed to be in Tehran, where he has family. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss U.S. monitoring activities, said fractures in al-Sadr's political and militia operations may be part of the reason for his departure. The move is not believed to be permanent, the official said.
Word of al-Sadr's departure coincides with an announcement that Iraq will close its borders with Iran and
Syria for 72 hours as part of the drive to end the violence that has threatened to divide the capital along sectarian lines.
The U.S. official said it is not clear how firmly the radical Shiite cleric is controlling his organization and the associated Mahdi Army militia from exile.
"The question for us is to what extent his organization is going to participate in the political process," the official said, referring to al-Sadr's on-again, off-again relationship with the fragile democratic government in Baghdad.
Al-Sadr's departure was reported by several television networks Tuesday.
Al-Sadr's militia is widely seen as the main threat to Iraq's unity and high on the list of targets for the Baghdad security operation.
A ragtag but highly motivated militia that fought U.S. forces twice in 2004, the Mahdi Army is blamed for much of the sectarian strife shaking Iraq since a Shiite shrine was bombed by Sunni militants a year ago. U.S. officials have for months pressed Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to move against the militia, but he has so far done little to comply, largely because he does not want to lose al-Sadr's support.
Al-Sadr rose from obscurity in the aftermath of the ouster of
Saddam Hussein to lead a movement of young, underprivileged Iraqis united by opposition to U.S. military presence as well as hunger for Shiite domination.
The cleric, who is in his mid-30s, is a master of street politics, and his young lieutenants can rally tens of thousands of protesters at short notice. Once wanted in the 2003 killing of a key cleric, al-Sadr gained much influence when his parliamentary bloc of 30 of 275 deputies was instrumental in al-Maliki's election.
Dismissed by older Shiite politicians as a dangerous upstart, al-Sadr set up the Mahdi Army militia in 2003. It is suspected of being behind the abduction and murder of thousands of Sunnis in what are known as death squad killings.
Two key members of al-Sadr's political and military organization were gunned down last week, the latest of as many as seven key figures in the al-Sadr organization killed or captured in the past two months.
The deaths and captures came after al-Maliki, also a Shiite, dropped his protection for the organization.
Shiite leaders insist that the Shiite militias flourished because the U.S. and its allies could not protect civilians. They say if the Sunni insurgents were crushed, the threat from Shiite hard-liners would go away.
Shiite politicians have long maintained that Sunni militants pose a greater threat to Iraq's stability. Thousands of Shiite civilians have been killed in bombings and suicide attacks carried out by al-Qaida in Iraq and other Sunni groups.
Thousands regularly cross the porous Iraq-Iran border, and Iran has been a popular destination for elite Shiite Iraq exiles. In Saddam's time those exiles included al-Maliki, who like other educated and politically active Shiites feared for his safety in Iraq.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 4:29 am
by 420
RadioFan wrote:Rack Scott.
You do know you're getting played??? lol!!!
Maybe not.
the truth
Funny TIMES!!!
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:26 am
by LTS TRN 2
Look, Scott, we fucked up Iran--deposing their president for the butcher Shah, and then instigating a ghastly war against them--and we've totally fucked up in Iraq--on a completely bullshit (and hangable) false premise of lies, smears and distortions. Okay? Bob Baer would agree 100% so far.
As to what's best? First, we get the fuck out militarily. Then we begin making massive reparations to the hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed because of our (unelected) administrations criminal acts. Of course there will be instability and bloodshed in Iraq--that's absolutely guaranteed, and the ludicrous proposition by the current Surge coalition (which is, what?...Cheney, the Chimp, the new puppet general...and who else?...Oh yeah, Joe Lieberman) that this will somehow "gain security" is about as ass-backwards as ALL OF THEIR INTITIAL CLAIMS. Remember all the predictions of Perle and Wolfie and Cheney? And how EVERY one of them was completely the opposite? So just stand the fuck down, jackass, and start accepting that you've been lied to, manipulated, and used. And that we need first and foremost to begin holding Cheney and his ilk to the fire--seriously.
Then we start SERIOUSLY bringing to heel the criminal fantasy land of Israel--and its massive illegal nuclear weapons stores. And end to the absurd Buinker Society and its fanatical white settler movement.
As for the Iran, we STOP villifying them and start accepting THEIR help in actually eradicating the criminal gangs of muslim fanatics--which are SUNNI. The "radical" Shiite groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are in fact not as nearly as dangerous as the standard fear-mongering sources would have you believe (and you DO believe them). In fact Hezbollah has attacked no U.S. anything, period. Same with Hamas.
As for Sadr fleeing to Tehran, why not? He's welcome there. His people, the Shiites never savaged Iran with America's help. Why should Iran be presumed guilty of anything? Oh, that's right, Cheney--and then FOX News said so. Remember, WE put Sadr in his current position of power.
As for your claptrap about my being "anti semetic," at least learn to spell it: Semitic. And guess what? Arabs are 100% semitic, while Ashkanazi Jews are about 25%. And remember also, you can't spell Ashkanazi without spelling Nazi. That is, I'm clearly against the particular design and policies of this particular race-state experiment. Nothing more. Any claim that I'm anti-Jewish is ridiculous far beyond your silliest speculations.
WAKEY WAKE........NOW
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:33 pm
by The Whistle Is Screaming
LTS TRN 2 wrote:As for your claptrap about my being "anti semetic," at least learn to spell it: Semitic. And guess what? Arabs are 100% semitic ...
However, the term "Anti-Semitic" is specifically used in reference to Jews.
http://www.reference.com/search?q=anti-semitic
That is, I'm clearly against the particular design and policies of this particular race-state experiment. Nothing more. Any claim that I'm anti-Jewish is ridiculous far beyond your silliest speculations.
You admit that you are fervently anti-Israel and since most Jews are pro-Israel, it’s an easy jump to say you are anti-Semitic. It may seem like a ridiculous claim to you, but for the rest of us, it's the perception you portray. Before you get your panties in a ruffle, I'm not accusing you of being anti-Semitic, but trying to make you understand that you do come off as one.
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:20 pm
by ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2
LTS TRN 2 wrote:is about as ass-backwards as ALL OF THEIR INTITIAL CLAIMS.
The word is initial. If you're going to use it, at least learn how to fucking spell it.
WAKEY WAKEY.
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:10 pm
by LTS TRN 2
Okay, j-off, "initial"...happy?
Now, kindly deal with the fact that the entire neocon cabal was COMPLETELY WRONG in all of their INITIAL claims, and that this seriously erodes their credibility in making new similar charges (also without evidence).
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:32 pm
by KC Scott
mvscal wrote:
800 .50 caliber sniper rifles were sold by Austria to Iran over the objections of the British and US governments. At least 100 of those rifles have been recovered from insurgents in Iraq.
The Jews and thier american puppets sold them and wrote the bill of sale in Farsi.
Sin,
LTS Dumbfuck &
The
Vertically challenged
One
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 8:42 am
by LTS TRN 2
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:18 am
by Moving Sale
KC Scott wrote:Moving Sale wrote:Nice knot you talked your way into you stupid racist fuck.
Why are you so anti Semetic anyway?
Who said I was anti-semetic? I said HAMAS was founded in 1987. How is that anti-semetic?
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:56 am
by LTS TRN 2
Here, idiot, sing along with mitch and wander around somewhere you really don't belong
http://www.flurl.com/item/2_u_202445
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:48 am
by Mister Bushice
It's video links like that, that you gleefully post, that make me want to report you to the guys running guantanamo.
No one from either side should revel in shit like that.
You might want to remember, asshole, that my fingers are still unbroken, much like the pic archive on my hard drive...
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:03 pm
by LTS TRN 2
"Gleefully post"? Oh, I get it, you think I'm joining in with the accompanying marches and choruses (where do those guys rehearse?). Uh, no.
You're seriously confused if you think I like any part of this catastrophe. But I'm not in favor of HIDING returning dead U.S. serviceman by restricting press access and having the bodies delivered at night. I'm in the WAKEY WAKE department, remember? I'm showing what the Cheney/Snow FOX gang doesn't want you to see. And hopefully I'd like you to realize things that these same fascist criminals don't want you to think about.
Look...at the twenty-three-year-old grunts, standing in the tortured city streets "on guard" as children inexorably continue to play...and then a cartoon-like flashing rocket-bullet takes out one guy with a head shot (statistically, he's from California, low education) as the children swirl like startled birds--and his buddy jumps around...horrified, confused, WITHOUT A MISSION...and then tries to drag his dead comrade out a few yards away...but is tagged with another shot himself as leaves the frame--permanently.
You see, that one horrifying dose of harsh reality, Busher, tells an entirety of the grotesque mistake of invadng Iraq. Encapsuled in its stark dynamic is the truth of this matter. Of America's absurd misapprehension of "realities on the ground," for starters.
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:46 pm
by KC Scott
Moving Sale wrote:KC Scott wrote:Moving Sale wrote:Nice knot you talked your way into you stupid racist fuck.
Why are you so anti Semetic anyway?
Who said I was anti-semetic? I said HAMAS was founded in 1987. How is that anti-semetic?
You've been on the "Israel's Fault" bandwagon since I can remember.
There's never been a mideast thread you didn't bag on the jews.
Are you denying this?
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:08 pm
by LTS TRN 2
I don't equate Israel and "jews," nor does Chomsky and neither should you.
