PDA

View Full Version : Sadr Flees Iraq...



OklahomaTuba
2/13/2007, 09:01 PM
Damn, looks like that Surge of troops into Iraq, that the donks are trashing right now, just might be working.


Feb. 13, 2007 — While members of the U.S. House of Representatives take turns weighing in on President Bush's planned troop surge in Iraq, the focus in Iraq is not on the arrival of more U.S. troops, but the departure of one of the country's most powerful men, Moqtada al Sadr and members of his army.

According to senior military officials, al Sadr left Baghdad two to three weeks ago and fled to Tehran, Iran, where he has family.

Al Sadr commands the Mahdi army, one of the most formidable insurgent militias in Iraq, and his move coincides with the announced U.S. troop surge in Baghdad.

Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News' Martha Raddatz, "He is scared he will get a JDAM [bomb] dropped on his house."
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2872953

royalfan5
2/13/2007, 09:21 PM
I've been wondering about something touched on in this story, and another one today about plans to seal the Iran/Iraq/Syrian borders for 3 days. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6358517.stm
Why are we only doing this for three days? and why the hell weren't the borders sealed immediately and for the whole time we've been there. I recongize it might of taken more troops but wouldn't letting less Iranians and Syrians and weapons into the country made the troops job a lot easier over the long run?

OklahomaTuba
2/13/2007, 09:27 PM
I've been wondering about something touched on in this story, and another one today about plans to seal the Iran/Iraq/Syrian borders for 3 days. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6358517.stm
Why are we only doing this for three days? and why the hell weren't the borders sealed immediately and for the whole time we've been there. I recongize it might of taken more troops but wouldn't letting less Iranians and Syrians and weapons into the country made the troops job a lot easier over the long run?

I wondered the same damn thing myself.

This country has issues when it comes to borders for some reason.

jeremy885
2/13/2007, 09:42 PM
I've been wondering about something touched on in this story, and another one today about plans to seal the Iran/Iraq/Syrian borders for 3 days. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6358517.stm
Why are we only doing this for three days? and why the hell weren't the borders sealed immediately and for the whole time we've been there. I recongize it might of taken more troops but wouldn't letting less Iranians and Syrians and weapons into the country made the troops job a lot easier over the long run?


Have you seen how big Iraq is? It would take every troop we have over there to completely seal those two borders.

And before you say "we have Iraqi allies to help", do remember the last time we had allies secure something for us? Tora Bora comes to mind.

As for Sadr, that was probably one of his smartest moves in this war. Take a couple months of vacation in Iran and then come back, after the surge is over, and claim some sort of victory over the infidels.

royalfan5
2/13/2007, 09:48 PM
Have you seen how big Iraq is? It would take every troop we have over there to completely seal those two borders.

And before you say "we have Iraqi allies to help", do remember the last time we had allies secure something for us? Tora Bora comes to mind.

As for Sadr, that was probably one of his smartest moves in this war. Take a couple months of vacation in Iran and then come back, after the surge is over, and claim some sort of victory over the infidels.
Then send more troops. Use minefields build a fence, dig a trench and fill it with poisonous snakes., I don't care. Not sealing the borders is holding back our efforts in the long run. Some solution has to be found.

Scott D
2/13/2007, 09:59 PM
we can't even patrol our borders properly and you want us to patrol someone else's borders effectively?

royalfan5
2/13/2007, 10:03 PM
we can't even patrol our borders properly and you want us to patrol someone else's borders effectively?
I want us to at least f'ing try. Honestly, how long would it take our engineers to build a double razor wire fence with a minefield in between up and down the border? I bet they could do it pretty f'ing quick if they were given the proper resources.

MojoRisen
2/13/2007, 10:32 PM
Lets just use a Lazer from space- see people not authorized crossing the border on Satelite - blast em...

SleestakSooner
2/13/2007, 10:33 PM
once again... what is a donk? Do you mind if I call you a pube?

SleestakSooner
2/13/2007, 10:36 PM
Then send more troops. Use minefields build a fence, dig a trench and fill it with poisonous snakes., I don't care. Not sealing the borders is holding back our efforts in the long run. Some solution has to be found.

Or we could maintain the current 'bite off more than we can chew' agenda.

OCUDad
2/13/2007, 10:37 PM
Much as I would like to see Mookie al Sadr twist in the wind, I don't buy the post hoc ergo propter hoc logic that assumes his departure is a direct result of a troop surge that hasn't happened yet.

jk the sooner fan
2/13/2007, 10:40 PM
Much as I would like to see Mookie al Sadr twist in the wind, I don't buy the post hoc ergo propter hoc logic that assumes his departure is a direct result of a troop surge that hasn't happened yet.

the troop surge is happening as we speak

my own son is a part of it

OCUDad
2/13/2007, 10:43 PM
All respect and admiration for you and your son. "Is happening" is not the same as "has happened," and I'm questioning the conclusion that al Sadr's departure is directly linked to it. Please don't read more into the statement than that.

jk the sooner fan
2/13/2007, 10:44 PM
well they've just stuck a brigade size element in sadr city....with a entirely new set of ROE......you do the math

Widescreen
2/13/2007, 10:46 PM
If he didn't high-tail it out of Baghdad because of the troops surge, then why now? There's no way that's a coincidence.

OCUDad
2/13/2007, 10:46 PM
Thanks. Sorry I brought it up.

jk the sooner fan
2/13/2007, 10:47 PM
the libs never cease to amaze me.....oh wait, i know.....sadr fled the city because he decided he had allergies and figured the air in Iran would be better for his deviated septum

SleestakSooner
2/13/2007, 10:48 PM
from the report I heard he actually left as long as two to three weeks ago.

OCUDad
2/13/2007, 10:50 PM
the libs never cease to amaze me.....oh wait, i know.....sadr fled the city because he decided he had allergies and figured the air in Iran would be better for his deviated septumYour insistence on calling someone who disagrees with you a "lib" pretty much weakens any other argument you make. I made the mistake of disagreeing with Tuba. I suppose that makes me a donk, a lefty, a lib, a commie, or any of the other knee-jerk "insults" preferred by those who favor dogma over discussion.

jk the sooner fan
2/13/2007, 10:50 PM
he left after the Presidents "surge speech"....the departure has only recently been confirmed

but dont think that troops are just now going into those areas.....troop strength was immediately shifted from other places...they've had boots on the ground for over a week.....we've been kicking in doors in a big way the last week +

heaven forbid the bush haters might actually give credit to a plan because it might actually work

jk the sooner fan
2/13/2007, 10:52 PM
Your insistence on calling someone who disagrees with you a "lib" pretty much weakens any other argument you make. I made the mistake of disagreeing with Tuba. I suppose that makes me a donk, a lefty, a lib, a commie, or any of the other knee-jerk "insults" preerred by those who favor dogma over discussion.

dude, its ok if your'e a liberal....i've seen/read a "few" of your posts....if i'm mistaken and you're a raging conservative, then my apology

OCUDad
2/13/2007, 10:56 PM
Let's just say I consider Cindy Sheehan and Rush Limbaugh Is My Clone opposite sides of the same ugly coin. You can pigeonhole me however you like after that.

jk the sooner fan
2/13/2007, 10:57 PM
and for the record.......calling somebody a "lib" (short for liberal) is NOT an insult

calling somebody a stupid jackass is an insult

jk the sooner fan
2/13/2007, 11:00 PM
Let's just say I consider Cindy Sheehan and Rush Limbaugh Is My Clone opposite sides of the same ugly coin. You can pigeonhole me however you like after that.

you seem fairly anti-bush, pretty much status quo these days..i'm only going by what i've read from your posts

my comment had more to do with the fact that those who vehemently oppose bush are so blinded by their hatred that they'd never be able to see anything successful over there...short of an all out troop withdrawal

if you fit in that group, then so be it......you dont have any evidence that Sadr DIDNT flee because of the troop surge and you certainly tried to split hairs between "has happened" and "is happening"....really, if you know the troops are coming after you, are you going to wait until "has happened" to flee? that didnt work so well for Saddam

sooneron
2/13/2007, 11:07 PM
I heard he left cuz JKII is in country.

jk the sooner fan
2/13/2007, 11:08 PM
he's a bad mutha.... :)

mdklatt
2/13/2007, 11:46 PM
If he didn't high-tail it out of Baghdad because of the troops surge, then why now? There's no way that's a coincidence.


Unlike global warming and increased CO2 concentrations, which clearly have nothing to do with each other.

;)

OklahomaTuba
2/14/2007, 09:05 AM
Much as I would like to see Mookie al Sadr twist in the wind, I don't buy the post hoc ergo propter hoc logic that assumes his departure is a direct result of a troop surge that hasn't happened yet.

Holy shiat

http://dunamai.com/Humor/BagdadBob/images/bagdad_bob_large.gif

You two aren't related now, are you?

Imagine that, an anti-war progressive not giving his country any credit whatsoever.

Shocking. :rolleyes:

TUSooner
2/14/2007, 09:12 AM
Holy Shiat indeed. OCU Dad raises a simple question about cause and effect -nothing more, no indictment of policy, no slam on America and the trooops, and all of sudden turds are flying at him. There's no reason for that.

Widescreen
2/14/2007, 09:15 AM
I think the problem is that when people comment on hotbutton issues around here, there is typically a motive. It doesn't seem to be just an observation. And I'm pointing the finger at myself too.

TUSooner
2/14/2007, 09:28 AM
I think the problem is that when people comment on hotbutton issues around here, there is typically a motive. It doesn't seem to be just an observation. And I'm pointing the finger at myself too.
Maybe so. But overreaction and vilification are typical as well; that's what I'm talking about.

CatHunter
2/14/2007, 09:31 AM
Al Sadr left Iraq for the same reason I did. No Beer.

OklahomaTuba
2/14/2007, 09:41 AM
Holy Shiat indeed. OCU Dad raises a simple question about cause and effect -nothing more, no indictment of policy, no slam on America and the trooops, and all of sudden turds are flying at him. There's no reason for that.

At some point, one has to use some common sense though.

jk the sooner fan
2/14/2007, 09:43 AM
if you flee.....you're running from "something"

otherwise you're just on vacation.....or a business trip

sooneron
2/14/2007, 10:00 AM
if you flee.....you're running from "something"

otherwise you're just on vacation.....or a business trip
Well if you book 1st class on your platinum card, you get a free companion ticket. Maybe he needed some time off with a "companion".

royalfan5
2/14/2007, 10:01 AM
Well if you book 1st class on your platinum card, you get a free companion ticket. Maybe he needed some time off with a "companion".
I have heard Tehran is nice this time of year.

TUSooner
2/14/2007, 10:03 AM
At some point, one has to use some common sense though.
fer sure

jk the sooner fan
2/14/2007, 10:13 AM
Well if you book 1st class on your platinum card, you get a free companion ticket. Maybe he needed some time off with a "companion".

veddy veddy.........veddy rewarding

colleyvillesooner
2/14/2007, 10:18 AM
Al Sadr left Iraq for the same reason I did. No Beer.

HEH

JohnnyMack
2/14/2007, 10:22 AM
If a troop surge is working, why did it take so long for W to increase the number of troops on the ground in the hot zones? Why does it happen to coincide with his SotU address and a bottoming out of his approval ratings?

I mean it's all well and good that the tide is slowly turning, but forgive me if I'm a bit cynical about the timing of the whole thing.

jk the sooner fan
2/14/2007, 10:26 AM
If a troop surge is working, why did it take so long for W to increase the number of troops on the ground in the hot zones? Why does it happen to coincide with his SotU address and a bottoming out of his approval ratings?

I mean it's all well and good that the tide is slowly turning, but forgive me if I'm a bit cynical about the timing of the whole thing.

very valid criticism.......no idea what the actual straw was that broke the camels back......my guess is that they've been trying to fight this war in a very PC way, so as to not offend too many people....and you just cant do it that way

they were wrong for not having been this aggressive along time ago, and its a criticism that Bush will have to live with and answer at some point

Vaevictis
2/14/2007, 10:27 AM
if you flee.....you're running from "something"

True, but there could be other explanations for the decision to get out of dodge.

Maybe we've had an intelligence coup and have an insider in his organization feeding us information on his whereabouts, for example, and he's catching on to the fact due to a bunch of too-close-calls recently. Maybe someone in a position in power in his organization is sick of his leadership, and he's afraid of a coup. Maybe our existing troops have been squeezing him so hard recently that he felt the need to get out of there.

Oh, wait, look at what the rest of the article says:


In recent months, al Sadr has come to the political table to force change rather than use military force to have an impact. Sources say an even more extreme faction within his militia isn't pleased with this turn of events and is trying to force the cleric to respond to recent Sunni attacks with more violence.

Unrest in his own ranks? That sort of thing tends to make leaders flee.

Or it could just be the increasing troop levels as you suggest.

The point is that the evidence is inconclusive as to the cause at this point.

jk the sooner fan
2/14/2007, 10:30 AM
the timing is curious.....

Vaevictis
2/14/2007, 10:37 AM
I don't think anyone disagrees that the timing is curious. There is certainly strong correlation. But correlation does not imply causation, which was pretty much OCUDad's point.

SoonerProphet
2/14/2007, 10:41 AM
Some other odd things about this story. He doesn't get his chill on in Baghdad, but in Najaf. Secondly, he is avowedly nationalist and one his main shticks is that he never fled to Iran or Qom and those that did are traitors. He is an Iraqi nationalist more than a Shia.

JohnnyMack
2/14/2007, 10:41 AM
very valid criticism.......no idea what the actual straw was that broke the camels back......my guess is that they've been trying to fight this war in a very PC way, so as to not offend too many people....and you just cant do it that way

they were wrong for not having been this aggressive along time ago, and its a criticism that Bush will have to live with and answer at some point

It's really no wonder that CP quit. Is it?

jk the sooner fan
2/14/2007, 10:43 AM
you know, i dont think his heart was ever in it after the intelligence failed and he was made to look like an idiot in front of the world after the UN

from reading Tommy Franks book, he was never really in agreement on the application of tactics to execute the ground war

OklahomaTuba
2/14/2007, 11:01 AM
It's really no wonder that CP quit. Is it?

He may have quit the administration, but he still strongly supports the war. That is unless we plan on doing enough to not win or lose as we were doing (hopefully not anymore).

OklahomaTuba
2/14/2007, 11:06 AM
If a troop surge is working, why did it take so long for W to increase the number of troops on the ground in the hot zones? Why does it happen to coincide with his SotU address and a bottoming out of his approval ratings?

I mean it's all well and good that the tide is slowly turning, but forgive me if I'm a bit cynical about the timing of the whole thing.

Bush's ratings have been dismal for some time now. The Surge was announced at least a month ago. So not really sure what conclusions you are trying to draw here, but your facts are a little off as usual.

You are right on the way the war has been fought though. It is a disgrace we have not been fighting to win. This thing could be over in weeks or months if we had the spine to do the job right.

OklahomaTuba
2/14/2007, 11:11 AM
I don't think anyone disagrees that the timing is curious. There is certainly strong correlation. But correlation does not imply causation, which was pretty much OCUDad's point.

In this instance, correlation does imply causation.

Too many things point to the obvious. Iraq's PM dropping his support of Sadr, the change in the ROE, the Surge into Baghdad, the additional pressure on Iran and outing of their aggression towards our military in Iraq, etc.

But then again, leave it to the liberals to ignore the obvious, yet again.

sitzpinkler
2/14/2007, 11:28 AM
In this instance, correlation does imply causation.


no it doesn't

NormanPride
2/14/2007, 11:29 AM
Only a sith deals in absolutes...

JohnnyMack
2/14/2007, 11:34 AM
Bush's ratings have been dismal for some time now. The Surge was announced at least a month ago. So not really sure what conclusions you are trying to draw here, but your facts are a little off as usual.

You are right on the way the war has been fought though. It is a disgrace we have not been fighting to win. This thing could be over in weeks or months if we had the spine to do the job right.

My conclusion is that his ratings have been sliding like he was riding the Silver Bullet at Big Splash and used his SotU address to announce the troop surge in an effort to improve his dismal popularity.

And yes, he has fought this war like a big *****. But I don't know that that's not how war's have to be fought nowadays. The way the media sinks its fangs into collateral damage stories makes it difficult to do what needs to be done.

Bourbon St Sooner
2/14/2007, 12:17 PM
I don't think this is so much about Bush trying to improve his ratings as it is a admission that we've f'ed things up so far and we've got one last ditch attempt to save the whole thing from going up into flames.

I don't know what this would do to improve his ratings in the short term. If it is mostly a political ploy, it may be to make all the Democratic presidential candidates fight it how to see who can get the farthest left.

Widescreen
2/14/2007, 12:23 PM
But I don't know that that's not how war's have to be fought nowadays. The way the media sinks its fangs into collateral damage stories makes it difficult to do what needs to be done.
Yes they do. And if a President doesn't have the sack to do what needs to be done - including ignoring the media - he shouldn't send our troops to war. This should've been over a couple of years ago. I hope this really does mean a true change in the ROE.

JohnnyMack
2/14/2007, 12:49 PM
Yes they do. And if a President doesn't have the sack to do what needs to be done - including ignoring the media - he shouldn't send our troops to war. This should've been over a couple of years ago. I hope this really does mean a true change in the ROE.

I don't necessarily think this is a recent turn of events. I think the media has been doing this for the better part of a generation. We could have "won" in Viet Nam, but doing what would have been necessary wasn't popular.

Vaevictis
2/14/2007, 12:52 PM
In this instance, correlation does imply causation.

No, it doesn't. Correlation never implies causation.

(Keep in mind that in this case, "imply" doesn't mean "suggests". It means "is by itself a sufficient condition for".)

Frozen Sooner
2/14/2007, 12:53 PM
I want us to at least f'ing try. Honestly, how long would it take our engineers to build a double razor wire fence with a minefield in between up and down the border? I bet they could do it pretty f'ing quick if they were given the proper resources.

I think the US is pretty opposed to laying down minefields anymore. I could be very wrong on that, but I sort of thought that kind of behavior was frowned on these days.

Widescreen
2/14/2007, 12:54 PM
I don't necessarily think this is a recent turn of events. I think the media has been doing this for the better part of a generation. We could have "won" in Viet Nam, but doing what would have been necessary wasn't popular.
No doubt about it. The media can suck it.

royalfan5
2/14/2007, 12:57 PM
I think the US is pretty opposed to laying down minefields anymore. I could be very wrong on that, but I sort of thought that kind of behavior was frowned on these days.
It's time to reconsider that stance in my view. If not that, some strategy has to be developed to stop the flow of weapons and people into Iraq that are opposed to us. If the minefield is between two physical barriers, I bet it's a lot less dangerous to civilians than suicide bombers with explosives from elsewhere.

Frozen Sooner
2/14/2007, 12:59 PM
Well, there's the whole "Kids getting legs blown off 20-30 years later" thing that you have to consider. Minefields are tricky-they tend to stick around for a long time after their purpose has been served.

royalfan5
2/14/2007, 01:01 PM
Well, there's the whole "Kids getting legs blown off 20-30 years later" thing that you have to consider. Minefields are tricky-they tend to stick around for a long time after their purpose has been served.
The way I see it, the Iraqis have 20-30 years to teach their kids to stay away from the minefield or get them removed. I'm not arguing for random minefields. I'm arguing for a physical barrier at the border that enables us to seal it, and if minefields are part of it so be it.

colleyvillesooner
2/14/2007, 01:05 PM
Uh oh, time to 1 star this thread. ;)

Sam Spade
2/14/2007, 01:09 PM
heaven forbid the bush haters might actually give credit to a plan because it might actually work
It won't.

Vaevictis
2/14/2007, 01:24 PM
Well, there's the whole "Kids getting legs blown off 20-30 years later" thing that you have to consider. Minefields are tricky-they tend to stick around for a long time after their purpose has been served.

Also, IIRC, we're signatories to a treaty that requires you to remove the minefield when you're "done" with it.

I bet that gets expensive.

Widescreen
2/14/2007, 01:24 PM
Treaty schmeaty.

Vaevictis
2/14/2007, 01:28 PM
That's what Kim Jong-il said. :D

Widescreen
2/14/2007, 01:34 PM
But he's an evildoer so it's bad when he does it.

;)

Scott D
2/14/2007, 01:35 PM
I want us to at least f'ing try. Honestly, how long would it take our engineers to build a double razor wire fence with a minefield in between up and down the border? I bet they could do it pretty f'ing quick if they were given the proper resources.

What would the proper resources be? Basically walling off two borders that a country has is a lot more complex and takes far more resources than blockading Idaho from Nebraska because of a minor corn versus potato dust up.

royalfan5
2/14/2007, 01:54 PM
What would the proper resources be? Basically walling off two borders that a country has is a lot more complex and takes far more resources than blockading Idaho from Nebraska because of a minor corn versus potato dust up.
That's question for the military people, I've been waiting to her why exactly we haven't sealed the border and why are just trying a three day thing now. Perhaps this complexity should have been planned for in the beginning? And why in your example did you use two states that aren't even anywhere close to each other. We're not trying to keep Bulgarians out, where trying to keep Iranians out.

Scott D
2/14/2007, 02:03 PM
everyone knows Wyoming is a non factor in the turf war for growing stuff.

royalfan5
2/14/2007, 02:14 PM
everyone knows Wyoming is a non factor in the turf war for growing stuff.
But those crazy Mormons intercept anyone out there anyway. They all have V-8 Ford Interceptors, and there is a Dome of Thunder near Cody. It's a natural barrier to begin with.

Ike
2/14/2007, 02:16 PM
Maybe Sadr went to deliver a package (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2268932.ece)

Scott D
2/14/2007, 02:18 PM
Well with Sadr it's amusing that his family was already in Iran. But basically as I understand it with him, his lieutenants were becoming a little more power hungry and extreme than he expected. I think that's part of the reason that you often see in the Middle East or Theocratic Dictatorships the generally quick and ruthless removal of 'competition' within the ranks.

Widescreen
2/14/2007, 03:44 PM
This was on the front page of foxnews.com. :D

http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/where_is_mookie.jpg

Ike
2/14/2007, 03:52 PM
This was on the front page of foxnews.com. :D

http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/where_is_mookie.jpg


they need to get him a better nickname. Mookie makes me think of a few past MLB players. Somehow, I don't think Sadr can hit a slider.

KABOOKIE
2/14/2007, 04:27 PM
It won't.


Who forgot to flush?

Frozen Sooner
2/14/2007, 04:35 PM
they need to get him a better nickname. Mookie makes me think of a few past MLB players. Somehow, I don't think Sadr can hit a slider.

:sad:

Mookie is MY nickname. Really. That's what a bunch of my friends call me.

Harry Beanbag
2/14/2007, 04:50 PM
I think the US is pretty opposed to laying down minefields anymore. I could be very wrong on that, but I sort of thought that kind of behavior was frowned on these days.


Also, IIRC, we're signatories to a treaty that requires you to remove the minefield when you're "done" with it.

I bet that gets expensive.


We still have millions in storage and reserve the right to use them. We haven't really had much of a reason to use them since Vietnam though.



Ten Years Later, The U.S. Is No Closer to Mine Ban
May 16, 2006

On May 16, 1996, President Clinton committed the United States to "aggressively pursue an international agreement to ban the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel landmines." Many people concerned with the humanitarian effects of antipersonnel mines thought after the May 1996 announcement that the U.S. was on the road to banning anti-personnel landmines. Unfortunately, President Clinton back stepped and refused to join with the majority of the world’s nations in signing the Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty. Ten years later, the Pentagon still holds a stockpile of over 10 million antipersonnel mines, reserves the right to use these weapons anywhere in the world, and may be soon moving toward producing new antipersonnel landmines.

President Bush’s landmine policy represents a further step away from banning the pernicious and hidden weapons that kill tens of thousands each year. In 2004, the Bush administration announced that it would not join the Ottawa Treaty because "its terms would have required us to give up a needed military capability." The U.S. thus became the first country to state that it will never join the Mine Ban Treaty.

In addition to the call for an international agreement, President Clinton’s 1996 policy directed the Secretary of Defense to undertake a research program aimed at finding alternatives to antipersonnel mines in order to end reliance on these weapons as soon as possible. Proposals for alternative weapons were supposed to be completed by 2006. While the Bush administration abandoned this earlier commitment to eventually eliminate use of antipersonnel mines, it continued the research and development program searching for alternatives to "conventional" antipersonnel landmines. The Pentagon has spent more than $320 million on the research program since 1997.

Growing out of this decade-long research program, the Pentagon is beginning to propose the development of new types of mines. According to budget documents submitted to Congress in 2005, it is preparing to begin production of a new landmine called "Spider." While Congress delayed a final decision on whether to move forward with development of Spider due to concerns over the weapon’s indiscriminate effects, there is no indication that the Bush administration will stop its drive to produce Spider.

To learn more about Spider and Congress’ decision to delay production go to : http://www.banminesusa.org/news/883_spyder.htm (http://www.banminesusa.org/news/883_spyder.htm) .
Civil society has played a critical role in securing the international ban on antipersonnel mines and it is essential that people in the United States stand up and act to retain the movement’s successes. We must not let the U.S. move further away from President Clinton’s commitment 10 years ago.


http://www.banminesusa.org/

Harry Beanbag
2/14/2007, 04:55 PM
If a troop surge is working, why did it take so long for W to increase the number of troops on the ground in the hot zones? Why does it happen to coincide with his SotU address and a bottoming out of his approval ratings?

I mean it's all well and good that the tide is slowly turning, but forgive me if I'm a bit cynical about the timing of the whole thing.


As jk said, this is a valid point, and it probably should have been done a long time ago. But Bush was/is in a no win situation politically. The "opposition" that is throwing a fit over this troop increase is comprised of some of the same characters that have been roasting him and Rumsfeld for the last couple of years about not having enough troops there.

Bush is the enemy to them, not the jihadists.

Vaevictis
2/14/2007, 05:04 PM
We still have millions in storage and reserve the right to use them. We haven't really had much of a reason to use them since Vietnam though.

No doubt. I'm just commenting that if we're treaty bound to clean them up (and I think we are), the use of the mines on a large scale could get prohibitively expensive.

It's one thing if you're trying to limit access to a portion of a base or battlefield; it's another if you're planning on mining the entire Iraq/Iran border.

Harry Beanbag
2/14/2007, 05:15 PM
No doubt. I'm just commenting that if we're treaty bound to clean them up (and I think we are), the use of the mines on a large scale could get prohibitively expensive.

It's one thing if you're trying to limit access to a portion of a base or battlefield; it's another if you're planning on mining the entire Iraq/Iran border.


Nothing I've read in the last 5 minutes on the internet ;) says anything about a treaty you're talking about. Since most of the world's countries signed the Mine Ban Treaty, there's really no reason to have a separate treaty to force bad people like the U.S., who may still use them, to clean them up. But the U.S. contributes hundreds of millions of dollars and provides personnel to countries throughout the world to clean up mines that we didn't lay.

This is an interesting read on the subject:

http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=2738



Oh, and I think we should mine the entire United States-Mexico border, so I don't have a problem with doing the same over there. :)

Frozen Sooner
2/14/2007, 05:18 PM
Bush is the enemy to them, not the jihadists

C'mon, man. He's part of the problem in that he's making things worse with his proposed solutions to some, but I doubt that many truly believe that Bush is the enemy any more than many on the right believed Clinton was the enemy.

I'm sure I'm about to get bombarded with weirdos demonstrating now.

Harry Beanbag
2/14/2007, 05:26 PM
C'mon, man. He's part of the problem in that he's making things worse with his proposed solutions to some, but I doubt that many truly believe that Bush is the enemy any more than many on the right believed Clinton was the enemy.

I'm sure I'm about to get bombarded with weirdos demonstrating now.


I've never said Bush is perfect, far far from it. This is the cycle in American politics now days though. Oppose whatever the other party supports no matter what. I'm sure you understand what I'm saying.

If a dem wins in '08 I'm sure we'll see it swing around the other way again. It's sickening, and the real enemies love it.

Frozen Sooner
2/14/2007, 05:30 PM
True. I have a feeling that if someone with the wrong letter behind their name unveiled a cold-fusion model that only produced fried chicken and beer as a waste product some people would be denouncing it.

Harry Beanbag
2/14/2007, 05:32 PM
True. I have a feeling that if someone with the wrong letter behind their name unveiled a cold-fusion model that only produced fried chicken and beer as a waste product some people would be denouncing it.


Yep, sounds kinda racist to me. ;)

OklahomaTuba
2/14/2007, 05:32 PM
Interesting how Zawahiri and the defeatocrats are sounding more and more alike these days...


Among the most important of these events is Bush being forced to admit his failure in Iraq...after continuing to be stubborn as usual and repeating the lie which he became addicted to that he is winning in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush suffers from an addictive personality and was an alcoholic. I don't know his present condiditon. Americans know best about that as they are experts in alcohol and addiction to it. But the one who examines his personality finds that he is addicted to two other faults, lying and gambling. As regards lying, his record is well known and he has gone down in history as one of the most notorious liars. As for his addiction to gambling, it motivates him to continue to place losing bets until he goes completely bankrupt, which is the obvious psychological motivation behind his Iraq policy out of greed for the Muslims' treasures and in animosity to them.

Vaevictis
2/14/2007, 05:52 PM
Nothing I've read in the last 5 minutes on the internet ;) says anything about a treaty you're talking about. Since most of the world's countries signed the Mine Ban Treaty, there's really no reason to have a separate treaty to force bad people like the U.S., who may still use them, to clean them up. But the U.S. contributes hundreds of millions of dollars and provides personnel to countries throughout the world to clean up mines that we didn't lay.

I think (tm) I'm actually talking about the predecessor to the Mine Ban Treaty, which we are signatories to. "Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices" of 1983.

It doesn't explicitly require us to remove it, but it has some provisions which may de facto require it:


1. The parties to a conflict shall record the location of:

(a) all pre-planned minefields laid by them; and
(b) all areas in which they have made large-scale and pre-planned use of booby-traps.

2. The parties shall endeavour to ensure the recording of the location of all other minefields, mines and booby-traps which they have laid or placed in position.

3. All such records shall be retained by the parties who shall:

(a) immediately after the cessation of active hostilities:

(i) take all necessary and appropriate measures, including the use of such records, to protect civilians from the effects of minefields, mines and booby-traps; and either

(...)

After the cessation of active hostilities, the parties shall endeavour to reach agreement, both among themselves and, where appropriate, with other States and with international organizations, on the provision of information and technical and material assistance--including, in appropriate circumstances, joint operations--necessary to remove or otherwise render ineffective minefields, mines and booby-traps placed in position during the conflict.

Now, I'm not saying that a plain text reading of that alone requires a clean-up after withdrawal, but in practice, removal may be required as the only way to protect civilians in the long term is to remove the mines (unless we want to be stuck maintaining signs, fences and guards in perpetuity, which is also expensive).

Also, I would suggest that mining the Mexico border would be outright banned by that treaty, as the primary impact of such an action would be against civilians. :)

Harry Beanbag
2/14/2007, 06:03 PM
I think (tm) I'm actually talking about the predecessor to the Mine Ban Treaty, which we are signatories to. "Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices" of 1983.

It doesn't explicitly require us to remove it, but it has some provisions which may de facto require it:

Now, I'm not saying that a plain text reading of that alone requires a clean-up after withdrawal, but in practice, removal may be required as the only way to protect civilians in the long term is to remove the mines (unless we want to be stuck maintaining signs, fences and guards in perpetuity, which is also expensive).


I'm thinking we would probably clean it up whether we're required to or not considering we give money to other countries to remove them. Since when does the government worry about the cost of anything?

And in that last link I posted it talks about some new type of mine that disarms itself after a certain period of time, which isn't ideal for a number of reasons, but is an improvement as far as protecting kids that like to wander around in old minefields go.





Also, I would suggest that mining the Mexico border would be outright banned by that treaty, as the primary impact of such an action would be against civilians. :)


Then we need to pull out of that treaty. :)

leavingthezoo
2/14/2007, 06:46 PM
Interesting how Zawahiri and the defeatocrats are sounding more and more alike these days...

where'd you get that quote from? and how come you know zawahari so well and what insults he's slinging at the President? and how come you support the war but not the troops? there's a whole bunch of "defeatocrats" in combat as we post and you've been mocking every one of them for some time now, yet the republicans who seem to agree with those rascally defeatocrats have not fallend under you scorn yet. btw, i'm glad you can pick up catchy little insults and brilliantly tweak words while quoting idiocy. your efforts in this war have not gone unnoticed. i see a purple heart in your future.

we need more self-sacrificing 'mericans like you. if we had just one or two more, maybe the front page news on Fox would say, not-so-clever namecalling ends the war.

notice i didn't call you a single name. i think there are some REALLY STUPID republicans out there, but blanket statements are almost as successful as a prolonged war with little direction. good jorb, though, for trying to prove me wrong with almost every single post in which you mention the evil, evil party of which makes you soil your knickers each night.

please copy and send this to your friends (the clone, sg, etc). they should be applauded for their efforts also.

:rolleyes:

mdklatt
2/14/2007, 07:14 PM
fried chicken

This is a no-no in New York City among other places (trans fats).



beer

This certainly isn't going to fly in Baptist country.


Damn scientists, always up to no good.

Ike
2/14/2007, 07:19 PM
True. I have a feeling that if someone with the wrong letter behind their name unveiled a cold-fusion model that only produced fried chicken and beer as a waste product some people would be denouncing it.


You're right. I'd be denouncing it since cold fusion violates the laws of thermodynamics.

But I'd at least hold off on that until the fried chicken and beer was gone.

Frozen Sooner
2/14/2007, 07:24 PM
You're right. I'd be denouncing it since cold fusion violates the laws of thermodynamics.

But I'd at least hold off on that until the fried chicken and beer was gone.

Some scientist YOU are. If someone demonstrated cold fusion, would you really be sitting there saying that it violates thermodynamics, or would you think that thermodynamics needs to be rethought? Observable evidence that's contrary to scientific law disproves the law.

stoopified
2/14/2007, 07:34 PM
AS soon as someone can give me a plan to exit Iraq without leaving a terrorist hornets nest behind us ,I'm all ears.All i have heard from the donks (Democrats) is that we mase a mistake attacking and destroying Sadaam.The bigger mistake would have been leaving him in power.I hope the SURGE works,if not then something else must be tried .H May God help us if Mrs. Clinton gets to be president AGAIN.(you didn't really think that idiot Bill was the President did you?

OklahomaTuba
2/14/2007, 09:37 PM
where'd you get that quote from? and how come you know zawahari so well and what insults he's slinging at the President?

Ever read the news???? Oh, I know, those pesky facts have a way of gutting a liberals world view. Much easier to put ones head in the sand and just blame Bu****ler and those Christofacist NeoKKKons, cause they are the REAL enemy after all.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,125219,00.html

Again, interesting how our biggest enemy is parroting the words of the left. Or is it the other way around??

Also interesting how far some will go to defend these words. Lord knows they won't defend their own country. :rolleyes:

Ike
2/14/2007, 09:41 PM
Some scientist YOU are. If someone demonstrated cold fusion, would you really be sitting there saying that it violates thermodynamics, or would you think that thermodynamics needs to be rethought? Observable evidence that's contrary to scientific law disproves the law.
Pons and Fleischman claimed to have observed it.


I'd need several repetitions of the experiment.

OklahomaSooners
2/14/2007, 10:02 PM
But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.— edit KJV text (http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/index.php?title=2_Peter_Chapter_2%2C_Verse_10/KJV&action=edit)

And especially them who walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise government: audacious, self willed, they fear not to bring in sects, blaspheming.— edit Douay text (http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/index.php?title=2_Peter_Chapter_2%2C_Verse_10/Douay&action=edit)



Make of it what you will, but I think I can read between the lines.

And despise government. Marg., dominion. That is, they regard all government in the state, the church, and the family, as an evil. Advocates for unbridled freedom of all sorts; declaimers on liberty and on the evils of oppression; defenders of what they regard as the rights of injured man, and yet secretly themselves lusting for the exercise of the very power which they would deny to others -- they make no just distinctions about what constitutes true freedom, and in their zeal array themselves against government in all forms. No topic of declamation would be more popular than this, and from none would they hope to secure more followers; for if they could succeed in removing all respect for the just restraints of law, the way would be open for the accomplishment of their own purposes, in setting up a dominion over the minds of others. It is a common result of such views, that men of this description become impatient of the government of God himself, and seek to throw off all authority, and to live in the unrestrained indulgence of their vicious propensities

leavingthezoo
2/14/2007, 10:13 PM
Lord knows they won't defend their own country. :rolleyes:

you make me smile. happy valentine's day. :D

and thanks for the link (finally...). however, except for your relations with Zawahiri, my post pretty much still stands as you've mocked a certain demographic of our soldiers once again. if nothing else, at least you're consistent.

Frozen Sooner
2/14/2007, 10:21 PM
But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.— edit KJV text (http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/index.php?title=2_Peter_Chapter_2%2C_Verse_10/KJV&action=edit)

And especially them who walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise government: audacious, self willed, they fear not to bring in sects, blaspheming.— edit Douay text (http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/index.php?title=2_Peter_Chapter_2%2C_Verse_10/Douay&action=edit)



Make of it what you will, but I think I can read between the lines.

And despise government. Marg., dominion. That is, they regard all government in the state, the church, and the family, as an evil. Advocates for unbridled freedom of all sorts; declaimers on liberty and on the evils of oppression; defenders of what they regard as the rights of injured man, and yet secretly themselves lusting for the exercise of the very power which they would deny to others -- they make no just distinctions about what constitutes true freedom, and in their zeal array themselves against government in all forms. No topic of declamation would be more popular than this, and from none would they hope to secure more followers; for if they could succeed in removing all respect for the just restraints of law, the way would be open for the accomplishment of their own purposes, in setting up a dominion over the minds of others. It is a common result of such views, that men of this description become impatient of the government of God himself, and seek to throw off all authority, and to live in the unrestrained indulgence of their vicious propensities

Hey, congratulations. It's not often someone plagiarizes then claims to be "reading between the lines."

Frozen Sooner
2/14/2007, 10:22 PM
Pons and Fleischman claimed to have observed it.


I'd need several repetitions of the experiment.

Well, yeah. I was being imprecise. What I meant was that if someone with the wrong letter behind their name announced a repeatable and verifiable cold fusion whose only byproducts were cheap power, fried chicken, and beer people from the other side would be up in arms about it in no time.

OklahomaSooners
2/14/2007, 10:27 PM
Hey, congratulations. It's not often someone plagiarizes then claims to be "reading between the lines."

Well theres only one so whatever, and since I believe he created you and I, Who am I to argue with him? Geez It must have hit a nerve!!!

Vaevictis
2/14/2007, 10:30 PM
Heh, and here we go:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/14/ex_aide_says_rice_misled_us_congress_on_iran/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News


Leverett, speaking at a conference hosted by the New America Foundation think tank, said the 2003 overture "was a serious proposal" for a comprehensive agenda for U.S.-Iranian rapprochement.
(...)
Leverett said Powell, in a conversation about the Iranian proposal, told him he "couldn't sell it at the White House." This was evidence it had been discussed there, he said.
(...)
The proposal was transmitted in May 2003 by the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, Tim Guldimann, who represented U.S. interests there.
(...)
This included an end to Iran's support for anti-Israel militants and acceptance of Israel's right to exist.


The proposal itself: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/us_iran_1roadmap.pdf


He then said "They (meaning above all the Leader) agree with 85%-90% of the paper. But everything can be negotiated." (By 'agree' he meant to agree with the points themselves referred to as 'US aims' in the Roadmap, and not only to agree that the US put these points on the agenda).
(...)
US Aims:: (Iran agress that the US puts the following aims on the agenda)

WMD: full transparency for security that there are no Iranian endeavours to develop or possess WMD, full cooperation with IAEA based on Iranian adoption of all relevant instruments (93+2 and all further IAEA protocols)
Terrorism: decisive action against any terrorists (above all Al Qaida) on Iranian territory, full cooperation and exchange of all relevant information.
Iraq: coordination of Iranian influence for actively supporting political stabilization and the establishment of democratic institutions and a democratic government representing all ethnic and religious groups in Iraq
Middle East:

stop of any material support to Palestinian opposition groups (Hamas, Jihad etc.) from Iranian territory, pressure on these organizations to stop violent action against civilians within borders of 1967.
action on Hisbollah to become an exclusively political and social organization within Lebanon
acceptance of the two-states-approach



Iranian aims: (the US accepts a dialogue "in mutual respect" and agrees that Iran puts the following aims on the agenda

US refrains from supporting change of the political system by direct interference from outside
Abolishment of all sanctions: commercial sanctions, frozen assets, refusal of access to WTO
Iraq: pursuit of MKO, support of the repatriation of MKO-members, support of the Iranian claims for Iraqi reparation, no Turkish invasion in North Iraq, respect for the Iranian national interests in Iraq and religious links to Najaf/Kerbala
Access to peaceful nuclear technology, biotechnology and chemical technology
Recognition of Iran's legitimate security interests in the region with the according defense capacity
Terrorism: action against MKO and affiliated organizations in the US


So basically, Tehran sent a diplomat with instructions to communicate that -- even before negotiations begin -- Tehran agrees in principle to do what we want them to do on "85%-90%" of what appears to be almost the entire list of issues we currently have with Iran.

In return for ceasing to act like a rogue state, they mostly just want us to stop treating them like one. Oh, and go after a group we already recognize as terrorist in nature. Seems reasonable to me.

(Although I wonder how they think "respect for Iranian national interests in Iraq" and "recognition of Iran's legitimate security interests in the region" is supposed to play out... The immediate, clear sticking point would be reparations, but I bet that could be worked out.)

What does our government do? Explore the possibilities? Nope. They do absolutely nothing. Brilliant!

For ****'s sake people, what's it take to recognize that diplomacy is actually a legitimate way to resolve differences?

TUSooner
2/14/2007, 10:31 PM
But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.— edit KJV text (http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/index.php?title=2_Peter_Chapter_2%2C_Verse_10/KJV&action=edit)

And especially them who walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise government: audacious, self willed, they fear not to bring in sects, blaspheming.— edit Douay text (http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/index.php?title=2_Peter_Chapter_2%2C_Verse_10/Douay&action=edit)



Make of it what you will, but I think I can read between the lines.

And despise government. Marg., dominion. That is, they regard all government in the state, the church, and the family, as an evil. Advocates for unbridled freedom of all sorts; declaimers on liberty and on the evils of oppression; defenders of what they regard as the rights of injured man, and yet secretly themselves lusting for the exercise of the very power which they would deny to others -- they make no just distinctions about what constitutes true freedom, and in their zeal array themselves against government in all forms. No topic of declamation would be more popular than this, and from none would they hope to secure more followers; for if they could succeed in removing all respect for the just restraints of law, the way would be open for the accomplishment of their own purposes, in setting up a dominion over the minds of others. It is a common result of such views, that men of this description become impatient of the government of God himself, and seek to throw off all authority, and to live in the unrestrained indulgence of their vicious propensities

I don't know what's creepier, that post, or the fact that you posted it.
What are trying to say and about whom (in your own words)?
Be careful swinging the Word around like that; you might hack off something that belongs to you. :rolleyes:

TUSooner
2/14/2007, 10:36 PM
Heh, and here we go:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/14/ex_aide_says_rice_misled_us_congress_on_iran/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News



The proposal itself: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/us_iran_1roadmap.pdf



So basically, Tehran sent a diplomat with instructions to communicate that -- even before negotiations begin -- Tehran agrees in principle to do what we want them to do on "85%-90%" of what appears to be almost the entire list of issues we currently have with Iran.

In return for ceasing to act like a rogue state, they mostly just want us to stop treating them like one. Oh, and go after a group we already recognize as terrorist in nature. Seems reasonable to me.

(Although I wonder how they think "respect for Iranian national interests in Iraq" and "recognition of Iran's legitimate security interests in the region" is supposed to play out...)

What does our government do? Explore the possibilities? Nope. They do absolutely nothing. Brilliant!

For ****'s sake people, what's it take to recognize that diplomacy is actually a legitimate way to resolve differences?

You fail to realize that some of the folks you are arguing with are convinced that the only way to survive is to kill all the reds and ragheads. First over there, then over hear. Utopia is nigh, brutha.

OklahomaSooners
2/14/2007, 10:40 PM
I don't know what's creepier, that post, or the fact that you posted it.
What are trying to say and about whom (in your own words)?
Be careful swinging the Word around like that; you might hack off something that belongs to you. :rolleyes:

It means what it says my friend. No more, no less. Everyother one of us seem to blame the government for whats happening over there.
Thats why I posted it. I will have no other comments. It says enough on its own!! Oh and by the way, I think you know what person or sect or orientation or political preference im speaking of!!!

SoonerGirl06
2/14/2007, 10:51 PM
If a troop surge is working, why did it take so long for W to increase the number of troops on the ground in the hot zones? Why does it happen to coincide with his SotU address and a bottoming out of his approval ratings?

I mean it's all well and good that the tide is slowly turning, but forgive me if I'm a bit cynical about the timing of the whole thing.


Maybe because Rumsfeld is no longer Sec of Defense? I'm not sure....

OklahomaTuba
2/15/2007, 09:07 AM
For ****'s sake people, what's it take to recognize that diplomacy is actually a legitimate way to resolve differences?

They are doing one hell of a fine job on their end Vae, by murdering our men and women in uniform and openly talking about slaughtering millions of Jews.

Some should try learning from history sometime.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/hitler-chamberlain.jpg

Hamhock
2/15/2007, 09:29 AM
I think if Abraham Lincoln were president today, he would fix it all.

JohnnyMack
2/15/2007, 10:13 AM
They are doing one hell of a fine job on their end Vae, by murdering our men and women in uniform and openly talking about slaughtering millions of Jews.

Some should try learning from history sometime.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/hitler-chamberlain.jpg

You need some coffee or something. You're pulling out scare tactics from 2 years ago.

C&CDean
2/15/2007, 10:15 AM
I'm not crawling out on Tuba's limb, but I will say this. Diplomacy does NOT work with muslims. The End.

mdklatt
2/15/2007, 10:43 AM
Diplomacy does NOT work with muslims. The End.

Except for the largest Muslim country in the world, Indonesia. And Turkey. And Albania. I'm sure there are some more.

C&CDean
2/15/2007, 11:00 AM
Except for the largest Muslim country in the world, Indonesia. And Turkey. And Albania. I'm sure there are some more.

Is the government/leadership in these countries controlled by Shiite or Sunni clerics? Does a mullah make all the decisions? Are these countries experiencing civil war between warring factions of Islam? Do christians in these countries get murdered on a regular basis? Are armed muslims blowing **** up every day?

I'm asking because I don't know, but I'm pretty confident that the answer is "no."

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 11:13 AM
They are doing one hell of a fine job on their end Vae, by murdering our men and women in uniform and openly talking about slaughtering millions of Jews.

Some should try learning from history sometime.

Oh, I know all about Hitler. Do you know about this guy?

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/6401/anwar20sadatmu0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I know you like to reduce everything to a sound bite comparing it to Hitler, but not every bad guy is Hitler, and not every situation compares to Nazi Germany.

This offer came before Iran's involvement in Iraq -- back in 2003. Before Iranians were "murdering our men and women in uniform." And they were also offering to give up their designs on Israel.

Like I said -- they were offering to do pretty much everything we've ever wanted them to do. And they were offering to do it for the price of our stopping the sanctions we implemented because they weren't doing the things we wanted them to do, for the price of offering diplomatic support on reparations from Iraq, and for the price of things we already want to do -- such as prevent a Turkish invasion in North Iraq and get the MKO (a group labelled as terrorists by our own government).

In other words, they weren't asking for Poland or the Sudetenland. They were roughly asking for normalization of relations and maybe some diplomatic support. Which is what a rogue nation should expect to get when they stop being a rogue nation.

Hamhock
2/15/2007, 11:20 AM
oops....i think you meant to post that picture in the shawshank redemption thread.

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 11:22 AM
oops....i think you meant to post that picture in the shawshank redemption thread.

That would be Anwar Sadat, not Prince Faisal ;)

Faisal fought for an Arabic Empire with TE Lawrence in WWI, Anwar Sadat made lasting peace with Israel. There's a big difference. :)

Hamhock
2/15/2007, 11:28 AM
That would be Anwar Sadat, not Prince Faisal ;)

Faisal fought for an Arabic Empire with TE Lawrence in WWI, Anwar Sadat made lasting peace with Israel. There's a big difference. :)

i thought it was morgan freeman. :O

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 11:33 AM
i thought it was morgan freeman. :O

Ah, I thought you were referring to the "Favorite Movies Thread." (In which many people cite the Shawshank Redemption)

My mistake. :D

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 11:55 AM
I'm not crawling out on Tuba's limb, but I will say this. Diplomacy does NOT work with muslims. The End.
(...)
Is the government/leadership in these countries controlled by Shiite or Sunni clerics? Does a mullah make all the decisions? Are these countries experiencing civil war between warring factions of Islam? Do christians in these countries get murdered on a regular basis? Are armed muslims blowing **** up every day?

I'm asking because I don't know, but I'm pretty confident that the answer is "no."

Iran has had successful diplomatic relations with all kinds of countries -- even ones religiously dominated by Christians (Russia comes to mind).

They're not big fans of the west, and there will always be some friction there, but they also have additional reasons why they agitate against us all the time:
* We support Israel
* The Shah (which is totally understandable IMO)
* We've been trying to overthrow their government since the fall of the Shah

While I think they're wrong on Israel, tell me you wouldn't hold a grudge if some foreign power toppled our democratic government, installed a dictator, trained their secret police (who ran around dissapearing and torturing people), and then when we finally regained our independence, spent a bunch of their time trying to overthrow our new independent government.

C&CDean
2/15/2007, 11:59 AM
Iran has had successful diplomatic relations with all kinds of countries -- even ones religiously dominated by Christians (Russia comes to mind).

They're not big fans of the west, and there will always be some friction there, but they also have additional reasons why they agitate against us all the time:
* We support Israel
* The Shah (which is totally understandable IMO)

Dude, diplomatic relations with Iran is like having diplomatic relations with a pit viper. He hasn't bitten you......yet.

And I thought the Shah of Iran rocked. One of my favorite capitalist pigs.

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 12:02 PM
And I thought the Shah of Iran rocked. One of my favorite capitalist pigs.

Of course you did. He was a pig, but he was our pig.

Of course, if it was our democratic government that was overturned by another nation, and their dictator and his secret police running the show, you might have a problem with it.

C&CDean
2/15/2007, 12:04 PM
Of course you did. He was a pig, but he was our pig.

Of course, if it was our democratic government that was overturned by another nation, and their dictator and his secret police running the show, you might have a problem with it.

Oh. So you're saying your good buddy Aytollah Khomeni rocked your face off huh?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/15/2007, 12:07 PM
As jk said, this is a valid point, and it probably should have been done a long time ago. But Bush was/is in a no win situation politically. The "opposition" that is throwing a fit over this troop increase is comprised of some of the same characters that have been roasting him and Rumsfeld for the last couple of years about not having enough troops there.

Bush is the enemy to them, not the jihadists.This is, of course, the essence of the problem. The left and their attack-dogs, the MSM, simply don't want ANY republican to succeed at ANYTHING. When conservatives succeed, it hurts the left's chances to increase their power. Not hard to understand, if you simply pay attention, and employ your memory.

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 12:10 PM
I'm saying that Iran's hostility towards us is not entirely unjustified, nor is it entirely (or even mostly) rooted in the Muslim/Christian friction thing.

Again, if someone came into our country, overthrew our democratic government, installed a dictator, arranged for the training of that dictators secret police who went around dissappearing and torturing dissenters, would you not hold a grudge?

C&CDean
2/15/2007, 12:12 PM
I'm saying that Iran's hostility towards us is not entirely unjustified, nor is it entirely (or even mostly) rooted in the Muslim/Christian friction thing.

Again, if someone came into our country, overthrew our democratic government, installed a dictator, arranged for the training of that dictators secret police who went around dissappearing and torturing dissenters, would you not hold a grudge?

When did the USA invade Iran, overthrow their democratic government, install their own dictator, and trained secret police to go around murdering and torturing "dissenters" (and I'm assuming you mean muslims here)?

And **** em' over the Israel deal. Tough titty. I'm gonna tag along with God's chosen people, thank you very much.

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 12:18 PM
When did the USA invade Iran, overthrow their democratic government, install their own dictator, and trained secret police to go around murdering and torturing "dissenters" (and I'm assuming you mean muslims here)?

Read up on Operation Ajax. Wikipedia link, if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax


And **** em' over the Israel deal. Tough titty. I'm gonna tag along with God's chosen people, thank you very much.

*shrug* If they're willing to accept Israel's right to exist, AND at the 1967 borders, that problem is resolved, yes?

Widescreen
2/15/2007, 12:21 PM
Iran has had successful diplomatic relations with all kinds of countries -- even ones religiously dominated by Christians (Russia comes to mind).
Russia's probably not the best example since they seem to have decent diplomatic relations with most countries that hate us.

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 12:24 PM
Russia's probably not the best example since they seem to have decent diplomatic relations with most countries that hate us.

My point is that it isn't always about the Muslim/Christian friction thing. Russia gets along fine with Iran (for the most part) and is overwhelmingly Russian Orthodox.

There are factors in play other than "OMFG, Muslims hate Christians!"

SoonerProphet
2/15/2007, 12:27 PM
The Indian's are on pretty good terms with the Persians.

leavingthezoo
2/15/2007, 12:28 PM
This is, of course, the essence of the problem. The left and their attack-dogs, the MSM, simply don't want ANY republican to succeed at ANYTHING. When conservatives succeed, it hurts the left's chances to increase their power. Not hard to understand, if you simply pay attention, and employ your memory.

which lefty are you pulling for to succeed? :D

picasso
2/15/2007, 12:32 PM
My point is that it isn't always about the Muslim/Christian friction thing. Russia gets along fine with Iran (for the most part) and is overwhelmingly Russian Orthodox.

There are factors in play other than "OMFG, Muslims hate Christians!"
geography might have something to do with that. you know, get along or die?

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 12:36 PM
geography might have something to do with that. you know, get along or die?

Maybe. It could be a lot of things. I won't pretend to know all of the dynamics there. All I know is that Russia is a good counter-example to the theory that it's all about "Muslims hate Christians, so there's no way diplomacy could possibly work."

Fugue
2/15/2007, 12:42 PM
Maybe. It could be a lot of things. I won't pretend to know all of the dynamics there. All I know is that Russia is a good counter-example to the theory that it's all about "Muslims hate Christians, so there's no way diplomacy could possibly work."


you're right, that whole Chechnya thing is going well. :texan: ;)

Widescreen
2/15/2007, 12:43 PM
Maybe. It could be a lot of things. I won't pretend to know all of the dynamics there. All I know is that Russia is a good counter-example to the theory that it's all about "Muslims hate Christians, so there's no way diplomacy could possibly work."
I don't know all the dynamics either. However, I'm pretty sure Iran is good with Russia because the Russians provide them with stuff. Same reason Iran is good with China and North Korea. Interesting that all of these countries are on our bad list. (Well, except for Russia and China who we still continue to pretend to like).

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 12:46 PM
you're right, that whole Chechnya thing is going well. :texan: ;)

Heh, yeah, but is that particular conflict due to a religious issue, or the fact that those ****ers have been going at each other for over a hundred years? :D

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 12:48 PM
I don't know all the dynamics either. However, I'm pretty sure Iran is good with Russia because the Russians provide them with stuff. Same reason Iran is good with China and North Korea. Interesting that all of these countries are on our bad list. (Well, except for Russia and China who we still continue to pretend to like).

If I had to guess, I'd say it's Cold War left overs.

("Hey, it's been working so far, so why trash a good thing over religion?")

WILBURJIM
2/15/2007, 12:54 PM
If the Shah was such a detestable, puppet of the US, why did the Iranians
replace him with a more destestable creature? Khomeini and the mullahs have done more damage, killed more political opponents, sucked up more money than the Shah ever did. Well at least the dirty dog infidel Americans are not profiting from any of their oil. Oil, that they were too clueless to know its value, much less know how to pump out of the ground.

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 12:58 PM
Wilbur, as said earlier: "He was a pig, but he was our pig."

The Iranians probably don't find Khomeini more detestable because at a minimum he's THEIR PIG.

I suspect it also has to do with the fact that Khomeini's been giving us the middle finger since 1979. People will put up with a lot of domestic crap as long as they think the leaders are fighting against "the enemy." Sound familiar at all? Happens all the time.

Scott D
2/15/2007, 01:04 PM
so anyone remember when they had that state funeral for Khomeini? Remember how funny it was when it was televised live and his body fell out of the bottom of his coffin?

WILBURJIM
2/15/2007, 01:11 PM
so anyone remember when they had that state funeral for Khomeini? Remember how funny it was when it was televised live and his body fell out of the bottom of his coffin?

That, is something I did not know. Funny thing happen on my way to hell...

WILBURJIM
2/15/2007, 01:23 PM
People will put up with a lot of domestic crap as long as they think the leaders are fighting against "the enemy." Sound familiar at all? Happens all the time.

And that is where islam comes in. The religion that has an outline in their holybook on how to treat, and what to do with unbelievers.

By no means do I agree with the re-instating of the shah in the 1950s but, hindsight 20/20, and that is just how we did things back then.

Little Factoid:One of Khomeini's first official acts was to lower the age for girls to marry to 9 years of age.(The prophet Muhammad married his favorite wife, Aisha, when she was 6, consumated when she was 9) Khomeini said something to the effect:"It is good to not let your daughters first blood be in your household."

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 01:32 PM
By no means do I agree with the re-instating of the shah in the 1950s but, hindsight 20/20, and that is just how we did things back then.

There's clearly nothing we can do about it now.

But, to repeat: Iran gets along fine with (some) other non-Islamic countries. Hell, they get along fine with at least one overwhelmingly Christian nation. There's clearly more at play here than just religion.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/15/2007, 01:57 PM
which lefty are you pulling for to succeed? :DSo far,Rudy Giuliani.

OklahomaTuba
2/15/2007, 02:03 PM
This offer came before Iran's involvement in Iraq -- back in 2003. Before Iranians were "murdering our men and women in uniform." And they were also offering to give up their designs on Israel.

Iran didn't murder our men and women in uniform before 2003?

I think the families of embassy bombings in south America and the 220 marines killed near Beirut would disagree with that statement, but I digress.

Did that offer include the disarmament of Hezbollah? No, it did not.

Again, interesting how you and the other libz will defend the worst people in the world, no matter what.

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 02:07 PM
Iran didn't murder our men and women in uniform before 2003?

I think the families of embassy bombings in south America and the 220 marines killed near Beirut would disagree with that statement, but I digress.

I figured you were talking about what's going on in Iraq right now. *shrug*


Did that offer include the disarmament of Hezbollah? No, it did not.


action on Hisbollah to become an exclusively political and social organization within Lebanon

"Exclusively political and social organization" sounds like disarmament to me.

OklahomaTuba
2/15/2007, 02:10 PM
I'm saying that Iran's hostility towards us is not entirely unjustified


Holy smokes, I am just totally shocked that a lib blames America for Iran's never-ending hard-on to cleanse the earth of Jews and Americans.

Shocked!

OklahomaTuba
2/15/2007, 02:12 PM
"Exclusively political and social organization" sounds like disarmament to me.

So you think Hezbollah is a political and social organization??? Funny stuff!!!!

I wonder who many more "political and social" organizations have suicide bombers and mercenary armies whose only mission is to kill people because of their faith??

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 02:13 PM
Holy smokes, I am just totally shocked that a lib blames America for Iran's never-ending hard-on to cleanse the earth of Jews and Americans.

Shocked!

Tuba, answer truly: If someone overthrew our democratically elected government, installed a dictator, trained a secret police (SAVAK) that dissapeared and tortured American citizens, would you hold a grudge?

Of course you would. Why shouldn't they?

And me, I'm just totally shocked that you're willing to give a pass on whatever our government does to other people, no matter how rotten it is. Not.

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 02:15 PM
So you think Hezbollah is a political and social organization??? Funny stuff!!!!

I wonder who many more "political and social" organizations have suicide bombers and mercenary armies whose only mission is to kill people because of their faith??

Tuba, go back and read.

Iran was proposing to take action to MAKE Hisbollah an "exclusively political and social organization."

That sounds like a proposal for disarmament to me.

OklahomaTuba
2/15/2007, 02:15 PM
Tuba, answer truly: If someone overthrew our democratically elected government, installed a dictator, trained a secret police (SAVAK) that dissapeared and tortured American citizens, would you hold a grudge?

Of course you would. Why shouldn't they?

No, I would blame the democrats. :D

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 02:17 PM
No, I would blame the democrats. :D

Punt.

Again, Iranians have cause to be resentful, and you wouldn't feel any other way if say, the Soviets had visited upon us what we visited upon Iran.

OklahomaTuba
2/15/2007, 02:18 PM
Tuba, go back and read.

Iran was proposing to take action to MAKE Hisbollah an "exclusively political and social organization."

That sounds like a proposal for disarmament to me.

Explain to me how a foreign based terrorist group becomes a political and social organization? I think Lebannon would love to know that one.

Scott D
2/15/2007, 02:19 PM
Punt.

Again, Iranians have cause to be resentful, and you wouldn't feel any other way if say, the Soviets had visited upon us what we visited upon Iran.

http://www.movieactors.com/freezeframes5/RedDawn39.jpeg

WOLVERINES!!!

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 02:20 PM
Explain to me how a foreign based terrorist group becomes a political and social organization? I think Lebannon would love to know that one.

If Hisbollah's a client group for Iran, and Iran directed them to do it, just maybe they'd listen.

There are all kinds of terrorist groups in the past which have been assimilated into mainstream culture. Hell, some of the first people trying to establish Israel were terrorists.

OklahomaTuba
2/15/2007, 02:22 PM
Punt.

Again, Iranians have cause to be resentful, and you wouldn't feel any other way if say, the Soviets had visited upon us what we visited upon Iran.

You mean like what the Japanese or Germans tried to do to us? What about the British?

And how does this explain what they are doing to Israel???

And I would love to see proof that we torchured people, as you claim we did.

:pop:

OklahomaTuba
2/15/2007, 02:24 PM
If Hisbollah's a client group for Iran

If???????

Are you ****ing kidding me with this????

You have no problem pouring it on your own country, but when it comes to telling the truth about Iran and its support of terrorist groups, you seem to be in denial or something. :rolleyes:

Scott D
2/15/2007, 02:25 PM
You mean like what the Japanese or Germans tried to do to us? What about the British?

And how does this explain what they are doing to Israel???

And I would love to see proof that we torchured people, as you claim we did.

:pop:

he didn't say that. He said Americans trained the 'secret police' the Shah had whom on the Shah's orders kidnapped and tortured people. Essentially we set up a model for Saddam when we assisted his rise to power in Iraq.

OklahomaTuba
2/15/2007, 02:25 PM
There are all kinds of terrorist groups in the past which have been assimilated into mainstream culture.

Well, at least you do recognize its a terrorist group.

But I guess thats OK then, huh?

OklahomaTuba
2/15/2007, 02:26 PM
he didn't say that. He said Americans trained the 'secret police' the Shah had whom on the Shah's orders kidnapped and tortured people. Essentially we set up a model for Saddam when we assisted his rise to power in Iraq.

Ahh, then I read it incorrectly. My apologies. ;)

Scott D
2/15/2007, 02:30 PM
Ahh, then I read it incorrectly. My apologies. ;)

heh....not saying I agree with him...well not on all of it. Especially because I think at some point in the future there will be armed conflict on American soil. But even so, if there was the prospect that we could have minimalized or even eliminated Iranian involvement in Iraq (which in my opinion was inevitable) wouldn't it have been worth at least looking into? Personally I think the entire 'Axis of Evil' thing put the administration into a painted corner and out of an attempt to not 'appear' weak, they chose to ignore the possibility of changing the stakes in the game at that time.

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 02:32 PM
You mean like what the Japanese or Germans tried to do to us? What about the British?

Yep, like that. Contemporaries at the time often felt quite a bit of resentment about it.

Now imagine if they had actually succeeded.


And how does this explain what they are doing to Israel???

It doesn't. Their actions wrt Israel are bull****.

... and, as mentioned previously, they say they're willing to stop if we're willing to normalize relations.


And I would love to see proof that we torchured people, as you claim we did.

Read up on SAVAT some time. I'm not claiming we directly tortured anyone in Iran. I'm saying we trained and organized the people who did.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+ir0187)

^ Start there. Established: 1. We organized and trained SAVAK. 2. They held people indefinately without trial.

Other sources will put forth evidence of torture on their part. Go to the library if you really care; the online stuff is of questionable quality.

EDIT: Pfft, that link already expired.


Iran
SAVAK

Formed under the guidance of United States and Israeli intelligence officers in 1957, SAVAK developed into an effective secret agency. General Teymur Bakhtiar was appointed its first director, only to be dismissed in 1961, allegedly for organizing a coup; he was assassinated in 1970 under mysterious circumstances, probably on the shah's direct order. His successor, General Hosain Pakravan, was dismissed in 1966, allegedly for having failed to crush the clerical opposition in the early 1960s. The shah turned to his childhood friend and classmate, General Nematollah Nassiri, to rebuild SAVAK and properly "serve" the monarch. Mansur Rafizadeh, the SAVAK director in the United States throughout the 1970s, claimed that General Nassiri's telephone was tapped by SAVAK agents reporting directly to the shah, an example of the level of mistrust pervading the government on the eve of the Revolution.

In 1987 accurate information concerning SAVAK remained publicly unavailable. A flurry of pamphlets issued by the revolutionary regime after 1979 indicated that SAVAK had been a full-scale intelligence agency with more than 15,000 full-time personnel and thousands of part-time informants. SAVAK was attached to the Office of the Prime Minister, and its director assumed the title of deputy to the prime minister for national security affairs. Although officially a civilian agency, SAVAK had close ties to the military; many of its officers served simultaneously in branches of the armed forces. Another childhood friend and close confidant of the shah, Major General Hosain Fardust, was deputy director of SAVAK until the early 1970s, when the shah promoted him to the directorship of the Special Intelligence Bureau, which operated inside Niavaran Palace, independently of SAVAK.

Founded to round up members of the outlawed Tudeh, SAVAK expanded its activities to include gathering intelligence and neutralizing the regime's opponents. An elaborate system was created to monitor all facets of political life. For example, a censorship office was established to monitor journalists, literary figures, and academics throughout the country; it took appropriate measures against those who fell out of line. Universities, labor unions, and peasant organizations, among others, were all subjected to intense surveillance by SAVAK agents and paid informants. The agency was also active abroad, especially in monitoring Iranian students who publicly opposed Pahlavi rule.

Over the years, SAVAK became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest and detain suspected persons indefinitely. SAVAK operated its own prisons in Tehran (the Komiteh and Evin facilities) and, many suspected, throughout the country as well. Many of these activities were carried out without any institutional checks. Thus, it came as no surprise when, in 1979, SAVAK was singled out as a primary target for reprisals, its headquarters overrun, and prominent leaders tried and executed by komiteh representatives. High-ranking SAVAK agents were purged between 1979 and 1981; there were 61 SAVAK officials among 248 military personnel executed between February and September 1979. The organization was officially dissolved by Khomeini shortly after he came to power in 1979.

Data as of December 1987

sitzpinkler
2/15/2007, 02:39 PM
Holy smokes, I am just totally shocked that a lib blames America for Iran's never-ending hard-on to cleanse the earth of Jews and Americans.

Shocked!

America is not and will not always be blameless for certain things. We are not perfect. I love this country too, but geez, you act like we can do no wrong.

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 02:40 PM
But even so, if there was the prospect that we could have minimalized or even eliminated Iranian involvement in Iraq (which in my opinion was inevitable) wouldn't it have been worth at least looking into?

Clearly it's better to look macho than take some action which doesn't cost us much but maybe a little face, but could save the lives of American servicemen and prevent a bunch of them from getting injured too.

... oh, and possibly prevent Iraq from turning into the insurgent/terrorist ****hole it's become.

</sarcasm>

colleyvillesooner
2/15/2007, 02:42 PM
Everyone still having fun?

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/1654/merry20go20round20photopy2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

OklahomaTuba
2/15/2007, 02:51 PM
... and, as mentioned previously, they say they're willing to stop if we're willing to normalize relations.


Heh, "normalize" relations.

In other words, they will be nice to us if we just appease them and stop supporting/defending Israel.

That picture of hitler I posted would fit nicely here.

Fugue
2/15/2007, 02:52 PM
Everyone still having fun?

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/1654/merry20go20round20photopy2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)



http://4fxearth.net/phpBB2/smilies_mod/upload/1beb8b2ae6d61633f35d740313c6c610.gif

OklahomaTuba
2/15/2007, 02:55 PM
America is not and will not always be blameless for certain things. We are not perfect.

Again, its interesting how libz love to tell everyone how bad we are time and time again, as if people really think America is somehow perfect.

Maybe libz like you and Vae should start defending your own nation for once instead of the world's worst murderers and dictators.

Or maybe I should stop "looking at the world through my American eyes" as John F. Kerry says. Hehe.

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 02:55 PM
In other words, they will be nice to us if we just appease them and stop supporting/defending Israel.

Or, from another view point, the sanctions we put on them worked and they're finally willing to cave and do what we were trying to get them to do when we implemented the sanctions in the first place.

EDIT: IE, they offered surrender, AND pretty much on our terms. Why the **** not accept it? (or at least explore it?)

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 02:57 PM
In other words, they will be nice to us if we just appease them and stop supporting/defending Israel.

Oh, and since you apparently haven't noticed, as part of the proposal, they said that they would recognize Israel at the 1967 borders. (ie, the borders Israel wants to be recognized at.)

Fugue
2/15/2007, 03:02 PM
Tuba and V

http://talkwichita.com/thunder/style_emoticons/default/drunk.gif




;) :D

Vaevictis
2/15/2007, 03:15 PM
Maybe libz like you and Vae should start defending your own nation for once instead of the world's worst murderers and dictators.

I won't defend our actions when they're indefensible. And the good we do? It speaks for itself. It doesn't need my praises.

As far as "defending" these people go, if you honestly believe that's what I'm doing, then you're a fool. I do however believe that there is profit in understanding the motivations of all our friends and enemies. Not every problem can be solved by the application of brute force or vain posturing as you seem to think. Sometimes diplomacy and manipulation are necessary or even just preferable, and to successfully use them, it is helpful to understand the person/people/nation you're dealing with.

You and people like you are fond of saying "We should win this war by any means necessary." But what you mean is "We should win this war by any *military* means necessary." Diplomacy, subterfuge and manipulation? Well, **** em, even if it does cost the lives of our servicemen.

sitzpinkler
2/15/2007, 03:26 PM
Again, its interesting how libz love to tell everyone how bad we are time and time again, as if people really think America is somehow perfect.

Maybe libz like you and Vae should start defending your own nation for once instead of the world's worst murderers and dictators.

Or maybe I should stop "looking at the world through my American eyes" as John F. Kerry says. Hehe.

Please show me where I described "how bad we are" time and time again. That's right, I didn't. Don't try and paint me as anti-American just because I disagree with our current administration's foreign policy. How I wish I could have been around to hear your criticisms of Clinton's administration so I could paint you into the same anti-America corner that you do to anyone who doesn't agree with Bush's foreign policy.

I haven't defended any of the worlds dictators or murderers either. I don't think I've seen anybody on here do that.

Don't tell me what to defend. I will criticize the foreign policy I disagree with and defend the policies I do agree with, just like everybody else does. I didn't serve in the military for you to tell me what I should and shouldn't stand for.

OklahomaSooners
2/15/2007, 09:22 PM
When did the USA invade Iran, overthrow their democratic government, install their own dictator, and trained secret police to go around murdering and torturing "dissenters" (and I'm assuming you mean muslims here)?

And **** em' over the Israel deal. Tough titty. I'm gonna tag along with God's chosen people, thank you very much.

AMEN Couldn't have said it better myself.

OklahomaTuba
2/15/2007, 11:18 PM
Oh, and since you apparently haven't noticed, as part of the proposal, they said that they would recognize Israel at the 1967 borders. (ie, the borders Israel wants to be recognized at.)

They also claim they aren't building nukes either.

Oops, guess they lied about that as well.

Again, its more than a little sad that you choose to trust Iran's word cause we were mean to them once.

And yet you somehow believe your own nation should just ignore the past murders, kidnappings, terrorist attacks and threats by Iran and appease the mullahs everytime they fax something to us.

OklahomaTuba
2/15/2007, 11:24 PM
You and people like you are fond of saying "We should win this war by any means necessary." But what you mean is "We should win this war by any *military* means necessary.

Wars usually mean that diplomacy has failed.

Also, I do NOT believe diplomacy should be applied to nations that support mass genocide, that support and fund terrorism, are building nukes, and killing our soliders and have a near 30 history of killing, kidnapping and murdering Americans.