Printable View
I suspect, if you look at sheer volume of resources, the US might be one of the largest contributors to the insurgency. IIRC 12 billion dollars are unaccounted for in the last few years, and how much of that has been skimmed off by insurgency sympathisers? Given most of the violence has come from the Sunnis whom the Iranians hate, embezzled American money may well have killed more American soldiers in total than Iranian money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
The sad thing is that even if it is true, all credibility has been lost. :shame:
For a supposedly insane person he's playing a very tidy game.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Never do. But those other countries aren't the ones levelling the accusations right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
Shoot the messenger, Vlad? :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Anyway, perhaps by now you have read my second post:
It's not (in the main) the Shia militias that are killing American troops.Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
Well, they 'understand' the parable of the talents. :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
No, it's that you launched into a crude attack, citing a biased source, didn't check your facts, and are ignoring history. Besides, is it a numbers game with you? “In the main”? The article, and these weapons, focus on hard targets (armor) and not open air markets. You’re suggesting that because the death toll isn’t high enough that it’s not important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Either you didn’t read the article of you merely skimmed over it just to reinforce some malevolent, preconceived notion. Do you expect us to believe that you don’t know the difference between Shia and Sunni? I suppose you’re proud of your fine English heritage then.
Fantasy-mongers? Uninformed and trite. I suppose many of the soldiers patrolling Baghdad are also fantasy mongers. If you were paying attention this issue or had done your :idea2: research you’d know that this has been going on for a while. If you also knew your history on the “fabricated” intelligence, you’d know that it’s the same evidence used and vetted around the world and, yes, confirmed by members of the opposition party here (to include the previous administration). Gotcha politics are cheap and this is a large, seperate subject.
Trust me, there are plenty of other things that this administration deserves to be lampooned on, but this has wrong written all over it.
Crude, uninformed, and trite. Before you take offense consider this as a sign of respect and yourself as a mortally wounded victim of your own success. It’s like you’re trying to fence while high on PCP :duel: . My God, I was so traumatized that I had to read it three times to make sure I wasn't the one on drugs.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: What bollox you cite "evidence" that is from a newpaper report about information given to them from the same source :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: the same thouroughly discredited source:oops:Quote:
If you were paying attention this issue or had done your research you’d know that this has been going on for a while.
Errrrrr......no , that would be an accurate description of the current adminisration Vladimir .Quote:
No, it's that you launched into a crude attack, citing a biased source, didn't check your facts, and are ignoring history.
~:doh:Quote:
Fantasy-mongers? Uninformed and trite. I suppose many of the soldiers patrolling Baghdad are also fantasy mongers.
No:whip: havn't you realised yet it is the muppets who sent the soldiers to Baghdad who are the fantasy mongers .
Oh yes!!! I forgot the old prevemptive strike theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by General arguement
Look we've some strong assumptions that you may be X so we're going to invade you just in case.
EDIT: That seems totally plausible too...
Invade no, interdict yes.
Hasn't this passed the point of interdiction? Besides, what are they going to interdict exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
If you want to prevent the militias getting weapons, sending a few accountants out there to keep track of the money you're handing out will probably be more effective than sending an aircraft carrier to bomb Iran. Does cost effectiveness, or even plain vanilla effectiveness, not enter the calculations?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
Watch out for stories linking Iran with the Nazis in days to come. They tried it last year with the yellow ribbons, but that was exposed as a fake within hours. The usual stable of neocon mouthpieces will again link Israeli security with the need for American aggression, with dissenters shouted down as anti-semites. I only hope we will be out of there by then.
al-Sadr seems pretty cozy with Iran to me...Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Anti-American cleric flees Iraq for Iran
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Iran's hand in Iraq is not a question, its a fact. However all these sources seemed to omit the administration expressing its faith in the Iranian leadership in its efforts to stop these flow of arms. The sounds bytes of this were dropped from most news channels over here because it didn't make for exciting and controversial news.
Something else nobody wants to pony up to is Iran's long term goals with Syria and Lebanon. There were published and confirmed intelligence reports for years before the mess in Iraq about Iran's Middle East strategy. Iranian Clerics and government officials were upset with 9/11, not because of it occurring, but because of the timetable and its delivery without proper warnings (the proper warnings being debated between the camps on a regular basis, but basically shadow to forgo the substance). However, this has also resulted in an added benefit as seen in the invasion of Iraq and the turmoil and violence that not only tarnishes US diplomatic currency(not based on reality, but on the global marketing of the conflict) but they know when Iraq does stabilize itself, it will have a shia majority making their goals with Syria that much easier to obtain. The aim has been and will continue to be the destruction of Israel. Any argument to the contrary is ignorant.
The U.S. and its current administration is not saber rattling and itching for a fight with Iran. Iran knows where we stand on the important issues, there is no doubt here and Iran knows that if it came to armed conflict the war in Iran would be a very different thing than the war in Iraq. The U.S. doesn't want this and Iran doesn't want this. It flies in the face of both agendas. Of course we'll see both sides at times step out of box to earn diplomatic currency, but thats it.
Muqtada has shown that he can get cosy with anyone, even the Saudi king, when the situation calls for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Anyway, I wonder, did he run from the Americans or the Deraa faction of his own militia?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Yes it seems to you , based on a newsarticle that cites what an anonymous source beleves may be possible:inquisitive:Quote:
al-Sadr seems pretty cozy with Iran to me...
I take it that it seems you pretty much ignore named sources that place him in Najaf then .:yes:
I wonder which one turns out to be correct .
Interesting post there Shadehonestus , so you link the shia clerics in Iran with the wahabi al-Qaida , then claim that the damage that the fiasco in Iraq has done to America and her diplomatic credibility is not based on reality .
A proverb of the region says, "My brother against my brother, but both of us against our cousin."Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
This has been seen and played out numerous times when dealing with any threat, big or small, religious or secular in the region and especially in their dealings with the west and Israel. The damage done to American diplomatic credibility would have to be based on something new for it to be a reality, therefore a stage provided for old and well known prejudice and ethnocentric ideas (on both sides) to be seen in all its glory does not represent this. Plainly stated, was anyone surprised by the U.S. action's in the Middle East or by the reaction in the Middle East? Sure officials will state surprise, religious leaders will act affronted by the other's rhetoric, but to believe that anything in this conflict represents unknown characteristics is very odd.
Isn't that the same "idea" that they used to link Saddam and Al-Qaida .Quote:
"My brother against my brother, but both of us against our cousin."
Ah I see , you limit the scope of the damage to Americas credibilty to the region of the middle east . OK what about the damge it has inflicted to the credibilty wordwide , or even at home ?Quote:
The damage done to American diplomatic credibility would have to be based on something new for it to be a reality, therefore a stage provided for old and well known prejudice and ethnocentric ideas (on both sides) to be seen in all its glory does not represent this. Plainly stated, was anyone surprised by the U.S. action's in the Middle East or by the reaction in the Middle East?
You will have noticed yesterday that Republicans were challenging the Secrateary of State on the claims being made and the President himself distanced himself slightly from what the the experts had actually said .
Iran supporting the sunni militia in Iraq is not a casus belli for Bush. If it were true - which I won't speculate about - it's just another demonstration of the lunacy that the war in Iraq is. So if somebody interferes with that war - invade that country too? Quite undisciplined, like a line of infantry breaking ranks to chase horse archers...
Supplying Iraqi militia with arms isn't a casus belli for attacking Iran, since Bush didn't at all discuss the invasion of Iraq, Iran's neighbor, with Iran before carrying out the operation. The Iraq invasion has severely damaged Iran by the mass export of cheap oil from Iraq, as well as risks of the unrest spreading into Iran, as well as refugees from Iraq heading to Iran. Furthermore, Bush has worked for UN sanctions and trade embargoes against Iran. And since because of Bush's pressure and threats nobody dares to listen to Iran in the UN, I don't see how any Iranian leader could have any other options but these two:
- do nothing, wait for the Bush army to recover from the occupation war defeat in Iraq and get ready for a new assault operation, then attack Iran after fabricating evidence against Iran
- try to wear down the Bush army in Iraq and slow down the redirection of the Bush army towards Iran. Bush has made clear that once he has either won or given up in Iraq, he will try to move the Bush army to attack Iran as his next target. Supplying the militia with weapons is the only option of doing this. Given the Bush position previously to the war in Iraq, and during the war in Iraq, this wouldn't be a casus belli for Bush
Just for balance , can we hear some condemnation for the foriegn support to terrorists operating out of Iraq , Pakistan and Afghanistan who are attacking Iran ?
Or doesn't it work like that in some peoples minds when they want to condemn one party only and only want to condemn one sort of terrorist/freedom fighter ?
Sure, how naughtyQuote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Hell, it's the reason we funded the lads in Afghanistan for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
So someone got hold of the US military's plans for Iraq.
I'm surprised it's turned out as well as it has done really.
Even if they hadn't completely dismantled the civil service and the Iraqi army (now widely considered mistakes), a 5,000 strong garrison by the end of 2006 would be incredibly optimistic.
I realize that this "prognosis" was abandoned well before the invasion, but to think that several US generals could be so stupid to hope for this...sad.
Errrrr. but when they used that "logic" to "prove" their case in the example I used it turned out to be bollox didn't it .Quote:
Hell, it's the reason we funded the lads in Afghanistan for a long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
There was never a direct link purported to be between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, even though officals did meet and refuge was given at times by the Iraqi governemnt, that is a fact, even though the two groups of people were odds. The issued link was between Saddam and terrorism, that is a fact beyond reproach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
No, I speak worldwide. Is there any global reaction that that cannot be understood in context and motive? If you think the reactions over the middle east are about the middle east, well you would have made a sucker in the days of swooning women. Whenever anything takes place countries line up either in the U.N. or in front of the news cameras to score points in the name of everything but that issue. To sit there and claim that those countries who expressed dissapointment at the Iraq war did and do so out of a stance of principal would demonstrate a great deal of Naïveté. The reality of those reactions has been pretty empty other than the U.S.'s distaste for french fries which lasted a week.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
It's 2007 and can you guess what is just around the corner? That's right, its going to be time for all those cabinet members and aids to dust off their resume's political and professional. The issues of Iran are not shocking enough where polics only favors in the affirmative. There is going to be plenty of berth given to any such issue. Even the democratic presidential candidates can backpedal on their own previously stated views on the hill itself, even those who were privy to same intelligences as the president all along, because its an election year and its time to sow the seeds that will bring forth the fruits of votes and/or staff employment.
You will also notice that the Korean deal that came down was also hotly crticized by the President's own party as the same failed deal done by the Clinton administration. Why? RE: politics 101
Really , so George Bush didn't stand up and say in a rather big speech that they had aided trained and harboured Al-Qaida ?Quote:
There was never a direct link purported to be between Saddam and Al-Qaeda,
Would you like that speech or would you like one from rummy or cheney where they also didn't make those claims ?:dizzy2:
It's also a fact beyond reproach that other countries have had far stronger links with anti-US terrorism than Iraq. However, Iraq, Iran and Syria are targeted because they've said bad things about Israel, while Saudi Arabia and Pakistan remain US allies because they are guilty of far less heinous crimes, such as providing the majority of the crews, funding and training for the 9/11 attackers.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
It always bedazzles me why American patriots are willing to overlook the culprits of attacks on their homeland, while justifying punitive action against countries that Israel isn't fond of. For instance, what are you currently doing about Osama Bin Laden?
:juggle2: Dodedodedo :juggle2:Quote:
It always bedazzles me why American patriots are willing to overlook the culprits of attacks on their homeland, while justifying punitive action against countries that Israel isn't fond of. For instance, what are you currently doing about Osama Bin Laden?
It bedazzles me even more how they can forget what their leaders claimed , and forget that they had a big commitee looking at what had been claimed who decided that their claims were of the large testicular variety which were based mainly on false information fed to them by the Iranian regime .
The over playing of this fact was never in question by those Americans who could look at fact and not grab and hang on sond bytes, that is to what I'm referring. The real information in and out of D.C. at the time proves this out. Cheney himself admitted to overplaying this in speeches as did the white house spokesman. The fact remains that there was a relationship.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
This is without questionQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
They've done more than "say bad things" about Israel, don't lessen your points by false injections. The fact is that Iran and Syria's backing of terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah present a constant and long lasting threat. Hezbollah targets U.S. because of our support for Israel. It could be said that Hezbollah is the "best" terrorist organization in the world with Al-Qaeda being a very distant second.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Not to mention that these two countries have been a constant breeding ground for radical muslim clerics. There is a very disctinct difference here which has to be understood. The regimes in Saudi and Pakistan have both pledged to crack down on the terrorists in their midsts and have done so accordingly to a degree and they do not represent "state funded" terrorism, at least in the present. However both of their reigns are not as stable as needed to go the whole 9 yards, but they do cooperate as far as they can. We would like to see Saudi and Pakistan to be able to make the policy changes necessary to be stronger allies. The terrorist activities by Syria and Iran are of an entire different cookie, these are states directly funding terrorism and yes Iraq and Saddam directly funded terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Yep, thats right, Syria beat Israel in a soccer game and they've held a grudge ever since then. I'm sorry but the stakes go far beyond "fondness."Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
"For instance, what are you currently doing about Osama Bin Laden?"
The CIA is currently building $20 hammers for $50,000 apiece to see what they can do.
Hold on didn't you just say ........There was never a direct link purported to be between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, :yes: I mean come on you could at least have let me give you quotes spanning the 2002-2005 period from Bush Cheney and Rummy before you folded .~;)Quote:
The over playing of this fact was never in question by those Americans who could look at fact and not grab and hang on sond bytes, that is to what I'm referring. The real information in and out of D.C. at the time proves this out. Cheney himself admitted to overplaying this in speeches as did the white house spokesman.
Errrrrr...what was it the commitee decided was the actual fact ?Quote:
The fact remains that there was a relationship.
They decided it was bollox didn't they , so if they decided after reviewing all the available information that it was bollox then how on earth can you still claim it remains a fact ?