PDA

View Full Version : Iranian Republican guard to be labeled terrorist organization


KC Jones
08-15-2007, 09:57 AM
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008206779


Interesting. On the one hand I have no problem labeling those scumbags so we can go after them. On the other I wonder about the designation of a nations armed forces as such. The designation was ostensibly because terrorist organizations are not nations and existing laws/regulations/treaties are not capable of handling the threat.

patteeu
08-15-2007, 10:09 AM
I'm sure one of our earnest Bush haters will come up with a reason to dislike this move.

AFAIC, we have license to take military action against Iran for their meddling in Iraq if we want to so this seems like a pretty restrained response by comparison.

oldandslow
08-15-2007, 10:19 AM
I'm sure one of our earnest Bush haters will come up with a reason to dislike this move.

AFAIC, we have license to take military action against Iran for their meddling in Iraq if we want to so this seems like a pretty restrained response by comparison.

Just to be contrarian - if we have license to take military action against Iran for meddling in Iraq, does Iraq have license to take military action against the US for meddling in Iraq?

StcChief
08-15-2007, 10:22 AM
Just to be contrarian - if we have license to take military action against Iran for meddling in Iraq, does Iraq have license to take military action against the US for meddling in Iraq?
Sure Iraq could take us on. Go for it. We will own you.

KC Jones
08-15-2007, 10:23 AM
AFAIC, we have license to take military action against Iran for their meddling in Iraq if we want to so this seems like a pretty restrained response by comparison.

I'd agree with that.

oldandslow
08-15-2007, 10:26 AM
Sure Iraq could take us on. Go for it. We will own you.

and what does that solve...

I will never, ever understand the need to jump into another country's problems.

The folks that hit the WTC were from Saudi Arabia - not Iraq. Sadaam's link to that act is very tenuous, even if you buy that he had anything at all to do with it.

Cochise
08-15-2007, 10:34 AM
and what does that solve...

I will never, ever understand the need to jump into another country's problems.

The folks that hit the WTC were from Saudi Arabia - not Iraq. Sadaam's link to that act is very tenuous, even if you buy that he had anything at all to do with it.

I fail to see how their country of birth means anything at all.

memyselfI
08-15-2007, 11:13 AM
The reason you don't want to do this is because we want OUR soldiers to be treated as such and afforded protection under the Geneva Convention if they are foreign hands.

As soon as other countries start labeling OUR soldiers 'terrorists' is the day when they lose any protections they may have held under the GC at least as interpreted by DUHbya and CO and subsequently applied by others. Remember, what goes around...

Cochise
08-15-2007, 11:17 AM
The reason you don't want to do this is because we want OUR soldiers to be treated as such and afforded protection under the Geneva Convention if they are foreign hands.

As soon as other countries start labeling OUR soldiers 'terrorists' is the day when they lose any protections they may have held under the GC at least as interpreted by DUHbya and CO and subsequently applied by others. Remember, what goes around...

ROFL I'm sure that Iran was going to give them 5 star treatment until now. ROFL

memyselfI
08-15-2007, 11:18 AM
ROFL I'm sure that Iran was going to give them 5 star treatment until now. ROFL

That is not the point. The point is we can't expect others to abide by laws, rules, and conventions if we are not going to do so ourselves. Once again, it's about moral high ground...

I know the same group of Bushbots will scoff at this but just remember what I said about Guantanimo and AG.

Cochise
08-15-2007, 11:21 AM
That is not the point. The point is we can't expect others to abide by laws, rules, and conventions if we are not going to do so ourselves. Once again, it's about moral high ground...

I know the same group of Bushbots will scoff at this but just remember what I said about Guantanimo and AG.

You're right, they were never going to saw the heads off people they captured until Abu Ghraib. It's just a form of justified retaliation for our actions.

StcChief
08-15-2007, 11:30 AM
I could actually see that happening if the minority is running the show again.

Iraq declares war on us while we are in their country.
Good move.


Iran's "Guards" are either operating autonomously from
the Gov't or the Gov't is looking the other way and pretending to not know what's going on.

the communication between gov't and guard leaders would be very telling.

memyselfI
08-15-2007, 11:37 AM
From my understanding, the IRG is a separate but equal branch of military that operates in the same fashion as the army, navy, etc. If history is any indication then they are as brutal and respressive as other previous Iranian military organizations with the approval of the government.

Still, the US needs to tread carefully here. It's much more than semantics.

Cochise
08-15-2007, 11:40 AM
Stc, I don't think many people doubt that Iran is probably supporting the insurgency if not outright participating in it.

StcChief
08-15-2007, 11:53 AM
Stc, I don't think many people doubt that Iran is probably supporting the insurgency if not outright participating in it.
Could be why the "Guards" are labeled 'Terrorist organization'.

an attempt to get Iran gov't to make a statement regarding such.

looks like a setup as we have plenty of proof otherwise to roll out to the
world (if they care).

BucEyedPea
08-15-2007, 12:35 PM
So Cheney and company are blaming Iran for our own blowback. LMAO!
If at first we don't succeed blame, blame Iran.

Meanwhile, US has been funding a terror group called MEK in Iran as early as 2003, who've been killing and kidnapping officials, setting off car bombs,while we invaded Iraq. In additioona to our supporting Kurds to do raids in Iran. Why wouldn't Iran not be involved? Wouldn't we do the same if this was going on Mexico. Yup! Despite this, discoveries by US forces have found workshops in Iraq are manufacurturing EFPs.

The increased attacks are blowback from U.S.ncreased attacks on Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army during the spring and summer to which they're now responding. It's a false report that the big parts of Mahdi army has broken up into rogue units that are supported by Iran. There's only been a few rogue attacks. U.S. military has never produced evidence that a significant number of units are no longer loyal to Sadr either.

Bush and Co are paving the public relations road for the sheep for our impending war on Iran which was wanted long before 9/11. Next stop...Syria!

If at first you don't succeed lie, lie again.

StcChief
08-15-2007, 12:50 PM
So Cheney and company are blaming Iran for our own blowback. LMAO!
If at first we don't succeed blame, blame Iran.

Meanwhile, US has been funding a terror group called MEK in Iran as early as 2003, who've been killing and kidnapping officials, setting off car bombs,while we invaded Iraq. In additioona to our supporting Kurds to do raids in Iran. Why wouldn't Iran not be involved? Wouldn't we do the same if this was going on Mexico. Yup! Despite this, discoveries by US forces have found workshops in Iraq are manufacurturing EFPs.

The increased attacks are blowback from U.S.ncreased attacks on Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army during the spring and summer to which they're now responding. It's a false report that the big parts of Mahdi army has broken up into rogue units that are supported by Iran. There's only been a few rogue attacks. U.S. military has never produced evidence that a significant number of units are no longer loyal to Sadr either.

Bush and Co are paving the public relations road for the sheep for our impending war on Iran which was wanted long before 9/11. Next stop...Syria!

If at first you don't succeed lie, lie again.

Syria has been complacent if not covertly supporting allowing foreigners into IRAQ to fight US troops.

Part of the solution / part of the problem. which is it.

I have no problem taking on Iran and Syria. Damacus and Tehran could be rubble in hours.

BucEyedPea
08-15-2007, 12:53 PM
Syria has been complacent if not covertly supporting allowing foreigners into IRAQ to fight US troops.

Part of the solution / part of the problem. which is it.

I have no problem taking on Iran and Syria. Damacus and Tehran could be rubble in hours.
Are you a descendent of Napoleon?
You blood lust knows NO bounds. None of those countries have planned to attack us the way our present leadership wants to attack them...and had nothing to do with 9/11. If I recall they expressed their sympathy.

StcChief
08-15-2007, 01:29 PM
Are you a descendent of Napoleon?
You blood lust knows NO bounds. None of those countries have planned to attack us the way our present leadership wants to attack them...and had nothing to do with 9/11. If I recall they expressed their sympathy.
False sympathy by Syria/Iran. they are standing by not helping stablize their own neighbors and allowing insurgence into Iraq. How else do they get in? Syria/Hes bola connection.

Attempting to create a power vacuum in Iraq to allow their folks to take over.

Not buying any of this Syria/Iran are our friends. Don't turn your back, they played nice with Nancy to gain the Dems trust.

BucEyedPea
08-15-2007, 01:35 PM
False sympathy by Syria/Iran. they are standing by not helping stablize their own neighbors and allowing insurgence into Iraq. How else do they get in? Syria/Hes bola connection.

Attempting to create a power vacuum in Iraq to allow their folks to take over.

Not buying any of this Syria/Iran are our friends. Don't turn your back, they played nice with Nancy to gain the Dems trust.
Who has sympathy? I was using reason.
They're damned if they do help and damned if they don't.
But it's not true Syria hasn't helped. Yet they still get blamed by lunatic NCs despite having helped. People don't like that. These NC's are Nazis.
Hezbollah does it's dirty work in Israel. If we continue to provoke and agitate they said they'd welcome war with us. We don't need to continue on such a path.

Attempting to create a power vacuum in Iraq? That's us.
Iran is a natural ally for Iraq Shiites. In fact Maliki who we put in power has even asked for their help.

It's up to the US to seek Iran's help and the stubborn jerks like Cheney and his neocon cabal refuse to. Baker, Scowcroft and the realists say we have no choice but to do so. It is a workable solution depsite rumor and gossip we've got about Iran.

go bowe
08-15-2007, 01:36 PM
Stc, I don't think many people doubt that Iran is probably supporting the insurgency if not outright participating in it.there is no doubt that iranian munitions have magically appeared in the hands of shiite militia...

and it's iranian high tech roadside bombs that penetrate even the armor of our best tanks...

nevertheless, any military action on our part inside of iran is a totally insane idea...

one me war (iraq) has cost us a great deal of treasure and blood and it's still going...

our military has been stretched pretty thin by the current war, how would they come up with enough troops to invade iran?

iran is not iraq, it would be much more difficult and costly to start a fight with iran, which has a much larger army, better equipment, and better training than the iraq military...

even if we somehow won a war with iran, we just don't have the troops to occupy yet another country in the muslim world...

StcChief
08-15-2007, 01:42 PM
Who has sympathy? I was using reason.
They're damned if they do help and damned if they don't.
But it's not true Syria hasn't helped. Yet they still get blamed by lunatic NCs despite having helped. People don't like that. These NC's are Nazis.
Hezbollah does it's dirty work in Israel. If we continue to provoke and agitate they said they'd welcome war with us. We don't need to continue on such a path.

Attempting to create a power vacuum in Iraq? That's us.
Iran is a natural ally for Iraq Shiites. In fact Maliki who we put in power has even asked for their help.

It's up to the US to seek Iran's help and the stubborn jerks like Cheney and his neocon cabal refuse to. Baker, Scowcroft and the realists say we have no choice but to do so. It is a workable solution depsite rumor and gossip we've got about Iran.

Their help has been fleeting at best....what was in the loaded trucks leaving baghdad for syria before the war. Why have we continued to catch fight insurgents coming over their border.... what are they doing to stop anything?

I'm not buy the damned if you do/don't Take a stand for peace in your region. maybe their Prince leader isn't ready to lead.

The leadership in the Arab region seems to be afraid of terrorists....

Change is hard and hand... they aren't doing anything to foster it. The power loss will filter into their country if Iraq succeeds in becoming a democracy.... their people may start demanding change.

BucEyedPea
08-15-2007, 02:32 PM
Their help has been fleeting at best....what was in the loaded trucks leaving baghdad for syria before the war. Why have we continued to catch fight insurgents coming over their border.... what are they doing to stop anything?
They have not been fleeting about it unless you read NC or NConned Conservative publications and news. They've actually bent over backwards but our press doesn't report it. Those trucks having those wmd has been disproven.
As far as I know Syris hassecured the border but may not be able to stop it all of it. We can't even secure our own. So quit calling the kettle black.

I'm not buy the damned if you do/don't Take a stand for peace in your region. maybe their Prince leader isn't ready to lead.
Other than their border issues regarding Iraq I could care less what they do.
They do not seek war with the US. Their conflict is with Israel existing as state on land what was once part of greater Syria.

If Syria is so bad why don't Syrian Jews move to Israel? I'll tell you why because Syrian Jews are treated well in Syria. I got that from a former Christian missionary who also claims the Syrians love Assad.

There are also 25,000 Iranian Jews living in Iran. How come they won't move to Israel, despite Israel reaching out to them to come? Because in Iranian Jew'
s words they don't support Zionism. Not all Jews do you know. They'd rather stay in Iran despite being a minority group. What will happen to them if we strike Iran militarily? Ever think of that?

The leadership in the Arab region seems to be afraid of terrorists....
Of course, becasue they sit on restive populations that feel that leadership are puppets of the US.

Change is hard and hand... they aren't doing anything to foster it. The power loss will filter into their country if Iraq succeeds in becoming a democracy.... their people may start demanding change.
We were told it would be easy and over with in months though.

Regardless, I'd rather just leave them alone, trade for their oil and visit as a tourist. I think it far wiser to stay out of the historical ethnic and religious hatreds of the ME includind Arab vs Arab wars like PGWI. We have enough trouble just being an ally of Israel to deal with.

CHIEF4EVER
08-15-2007, 04:11 PM
The reason you don't want to do this is because we want OUR soldiers to be treated as such and afforded protection under the Geneva Convention if they are foreign hands.

As soon as other countries start labeling OUR soldiers 'terrorists' is the day when they lose any protections they may have held under the GC at least as interpreted by DUHbya and CO and subsequently applied by others. Remember, what goes around...

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So cutting off effing heads, torturing prisoners and dragging dead bodies through the streets is ALLOWED by the Geneva Convention? ROFL

memyselfI
08-15-2007, 04:36 PM
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So cutting off effing heads, torturing prisoners and dragging dead bodies through the streets is ALLOWED by the Geneva Convention? ROFL

And how are the Iranians are responsible for those actions??? :hmmm:

patteeu
08-15-2007, 04:41 PM
Just to be contrarian - if we have license to take military action against Iran for meddling in Iraq, does Iraq have license to take military action against the US for meddling in Iraq?

I think that depends on your perspective. From mine, no. For one thing, we are operating in Iraq at the will of the sovereign Iraqi government at the moment.

patteeu
08-15-2007, 04:45 PM
So Cheney and company are blaming Iran for our own blowback. LMAO!
If at first we don't succeed blame, blame Iran.

Meanwhile, US has been funding a terror group called MEK in Iran as early as 2003, who've been killing and kidnapping officials, setting off car bombs,while we invaded Iraq. In additioona to our supporting Kurds to do raids in Iran. Why wouldn't Iran not be involved? Wouldn't we do the same if this was going on Mexico. Yup! Despite this, discoveries by US forces have found workshops in Iraq are manufacurturing EFPs.

The increased attacks are blowback from U.S.ncreased attacks on Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army during the spring and summer to which they're now responding. It's a false report that the big parts of Mahdi army has broken up into rogue units that are supported by Iran. There's only been a few rogue attacks. U.S. military has never produced evidence that a significant number of units are no longer loyal to Sadr either.

Bush and Co are paving the public relations road for the sheep for our impending war on Iran which was wanted long before 9/11. Next stop...Syria!

If at first you don't succeed lie, lie again.

I think Iran had better get concerned about blowback.

patteeu
08-15-2007, 04:52 PM
Are you a descendent of Napoleon?
You blood lust knows NO bounds. None of those countries have planned to attack us the way our present leadership wants to attack them...and had nothing to do with 9/11. If I recall they expressed their sympathy.

We're in the war already, the question now is whether or not we're serious about winning it. Do we look the other way just because the countries who are currently supporting our enemy in Iraq weren't involved in 9/11? We shouldn't let national boundaries dictate our actions. Each situation deserves unique consideration. The reasons for refusing to overtly violate Pakistani sovereignty don't necessarily apply to Iran or Syria.

BucEyedPea
08-15-2007, 05:03 PM
I think Iran had better get concerned about blowback.
You have a misunderstood word with the way you use blowback.
You can't put the horse before the cart....sequences matter.

BucEyedPea
08-15-2007, 05:05 PM
We're in the war already, the question now is whether or not we're serious about winning it. Do we look the other way just because the countries who are currently supporting our enemy in Iraq weren't involved in 9/11? We shouldn't let national boundaries dictate our actions. Each situation deserves unique consideration. The reasons for refusing to overtly violate Pakistani sovereignty don't necessarily apply to Iran or Syria.
Iran and Syria aren't at war with us. Certain leaders want to be at war with them...as the aggressors. That's much is true.

patteeu
08-15-2007, 05:27 PM
You have a misunderstood word with the way you use blowback.
You can't put the horse before the cart....sequences matter.

I know exactly what you mean by blowback and I'm using it correctly. Sequences matter, as you say. Iranian covert attacks against the US and its meddling in Iraq runs the risk of generating some blowback.

patteeu
08-15-2007, 05:29 PM
Iran and Syria aren't at war with us. Certain leaders want to be at war with them...as the aggressors. That's much is true.

IMO, supplying weaponry, assistance and training to our enemy during wartime constitutes being at war with us.

memyselfI
08-15-2007, 06:18 PM
IMO, supplying weaponry, assistance and training to our enemy during wartime constitutes being at war with us.

Great. When do we nuke Saudi Arabia??? ROFL

patteeu
08-15-2007, 06:43 PM
Great. When do we nuke Saudi Arabia??? ROFL

Is that what you want to do?

memyselfI
08-15-2007, 06:51 PM
Is that what you want to do?

Of course not but by your definition of war then we should keep our options on the table because we are at war with them. :hmmm: ROFL

patteeu
08-15-2007, 07:04 PM
Of course not but by your definition of war then we should keep our options on the table because we are at war with them. :hmmm: ROFL

I agree that we should keep our options on the table. That seems to be quite a bit different than nuking them though.

ChiefaRoo
08-15-2007, 07:09 PM
Great. When do we nuke Saudi Arabia??? ROFL

To paraphrase the great Sheriff Buford T. Justice "One asshole at a time"

Logical
08-15-2007, 07:43 PM
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008206779


Interesting. On the one hand I have no problem labeling those scumbags so we can go after them. On the other I wonder about the designation of a nations armed forces as such. The designation was ostensibly because terrorist organizations are not nations and existing laws/regulations/treaties are not capable of handling the threat.

It is called moving the goal posts.

Logical
08-15-2007, 07:45 PM
Just to be contrarian - if we have license to take military action against Iran for meddling in Iraq, does Iraq have license to take military action against the US for meddling in Iraq?:D

Good point!!!

Logical
08-15-2007, 07:47 PM
The reason you don't want to do this is because we want OUR soldiers to be treated as such and afforded protection under the Geneva Convention if they are foreign hands.

As soon as other countries start labeling OUR soldiers 'terrorists' is the day when they lose any protections they may have held under the GC at least as interpreted by DUHbya and CO and subsequently applied by others. Remember, what goes around...

Oh hell no.... DenIse applying logic, we are possibly in the end times folks.:p

Logical
08-15-2007, 07:50 PM
Could be why the "Guards" are labeled 'Terrorist organization'.

an attempt to get Iran gov't to make a statement regarding such.

looks like a setup as we have plenty of proof otherwise to roll out to the
world (if they care).

I just hope our proof is better this time than it was to suspect Saddam of having the makings of Nukes.

Logical
08-15-2007, 07:52 PM
So Cheney and company are blaming Iran for our own blowback. LMAO!
If at first we don't succeed blame, blame Iran.

Meanwhile, US has been funding a terror group called MEK in Iran as early as 2003, who've been killing and kidnapping officials, setting off car bombs,while we invaded Iraq. In additioona to our supporting Kurds to do raids in Iran. Why wouldn't Iran not be involved? Wouldn't we do the same if this was going on Mexico. Yup! Despite this, discoveries by US forces have found workshops in Iraq are manufacurturing EFPs.

The increased attacks are blowback from U.S.ncreased attacks on Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army during the spring and summer to which they're now responding. It's a false report that the big parts of Mahdi army has broken up into rogue units that are supported by Iran. There's only been a few rogue attacks. U.S. military has never produced evidence that a significant number of units are no longer loyal to Sadr either.

Bush and Co are paving the public relations road for the sheep for our impending war on Iran which was wanted long before 9/11. Next stop...Syria!

If at first you don't succeed lie, lie again.

Unfortunately I think you are right about what Bush/Cheney want to do with Iran.

Mi_chief_fan
08-15-2007, 08:04 PM
I fail to see how their country of birth means anything at all.

Are you SERIOUS!!! :banghead:

BucEyedPea
08-15-2007, 08:06 PM
Unfortunately I think you are right about what Bush/Cheney want to do with Iran.
This is what I call the "War Dance" phase.
We think we're so advanced and civilized, just because our toys are hi-tech but this is nothing new.

Ugly Duck
08-15-2007, 08:37 PM
I'm sure one of our earnest Bush haters will come up with a reason to dislike this move.

Not from me (here's the second time we agree). This is way, WAY overdue. Iran has been killing us with those whatchamacallit formed projectile IED's for way too long. Iran is in cahoots with the Shiite Iraqi government death squads - they are the enemy.

Oh sure... the Sunni insurgents have decided to call themselves "Al Queda in Iraq" after the fact - butcha gotta look why they are fighting. They don't wanna be revenge-ruled by Shiites & they don't wanna be cut out of the oil revenue. I started a thread just after the invasion entitled "Partition Iraq" (CP thought it was idiotic). It proposed cutting a large chunk of the oil fields to the Sunnis & using our military to protect them against the Iran-leaning Shiites. Saudi & the oil kingdoms would have supported us all the way. AQ would have never gained a foothold - money talks & thats what we would have been offering the Iraqi Sunnis.... autonomy & oil wealth.

Instead, we have the neocon idiot-boyz handing power to the Iranian-backed Shiites & then backing the Iraqi Sunnis into a corner where AQ is their only ally. Stoopid, stoopd, stoopid. And now they are surprised & upset that Iran is the major player in the region, flexing its power and killing our soldiers. Well.... DUH!

Logical
08-15-2007, 08:43 PM
Not from me (here's the second time we agree). This is way, WAY overdue. Iran has been killing us with those whatchamacallit formed projectile IED's for way too long. Iran is in cahoots with the Shiite Iraqi government death squads - they are the enemy.

Oh sure... the Sunni insurgents have decided to call themselves "Al Queda in Iraq" after the fact - butcha gotta look why they are fighting. They don't wanna be revenge-ruled by Shiites & they don't wanna be cut out of the oil revenue. I started a thread just after the invasion entitled "Partition Iraq" (CP thought it was idiotic). It proposed cutting a large chunk of the oil fields to the Sunnis & using our military to protect them against the Iran-leaning Shiites. Saudi & the oil kingdoms would have supported us all the way. AQ would have never gained a foothold - money talks & thats what we would have been offering the Iraqi Sunnis.... autonomy & oil wealth.

Instead, we have the neocon idiot-boyz handing power to the Iranian-backed Shiites & then backing the Iraqi Sunnis into a corner where AQ is their only ally. Stoopid, stoopd, stoopid. And now they are surprised & upset that Iran is the major player in the region, flexing its power and killing our soldiers. Well.... DUH!

Gawl Dammit UD would you quit making sense, it scares me when we agree.

patteeu
08-15-2007, 10:46 PM
Not from me (here's the second time we agree). This is way, WAY overdue. Iran has been killing us with those whatchamacallit formed projectile IED's for way too long. Iran is in cahoots with the Shiite Iraqi government death squads - they are the enemy.

Oh sure... the Sunni insurgents have decided to call themselves "Al Queda in Iraq" after the fact - butcha gotta look why they are fighting. They don't wanna be revenge-ruled by Shiites & they don't wanna be cut out of the oil revenue. I started a thread just after the invasion entitled "Partition Iraq" (CP thought it was idiotic). It proposed cutting a large chunk of the oil fields to the Sunnis & using our military to protect them against the Iran-leaning Shiites. Saudi & the oil kingdoms would have supported us all the way. AQ would have never gained a foothold - money talks & thats what we would have been offering the Iraqi Sunnis.... autonomy & oil wealth.

Instead, we have the neocon idiot-boyz handing power to the Iranian-backed Shiites & then backing the Iraqi Sunnis into a corner where AQ is their only ally. Stoopid, stoopd, stoopid. And now they are surprised & upset that Iran is the major player in the region, flexing its power and killing our soldiers. Well.... DUH!

I was with you for the first paragraph or so. :)

Cochise
08-15-2007, 10:48 PM
Are you SERIOUS!!! :banghead:

If I was born in the US, went and trained with Al Queda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and then blew up a train or something in the UK, does that mean the UK should attack us?

StcChief
08-16-2007, 11:38 AM
I know exactly what you mean by blowback and I'm using it correctly. Sequences matter, as you say. Iranian covert attacks against the US and its meddling in Iraq runs the risk of generating some blowback.Blowback.... more like blow up.
cruise missile style. We have been to easy on them this long.

Iran's "Guards" need to feel the wrath.

Mi_chief_fan
08-16-2007, 12:24 PM
If I was born in the US, went and trained with Al Queda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and then blew up a train or something in the UK, does that mean the UK should attack us?


Does it make sense that NOBODY involved in the attacks on 9/11 was born in Iraq, but 15 were born in Saudi Arabia, and we attack Iraq? Why not attack Canada, they had as much to do with it.

StcChief
08-16-2007, 01:18 PM
Does it make sense that NOBODY involved in the attacks on 9/11 was born in Iraq, but 15 were born in Saudi Arabia, and we attack Iraq? Why not attack Canada, they had as much to do with it.
Typical response. We are still tracking Al Queda around the world.

Apples and Oranges for Iraq invasion. UN Sanctions and WMD.

Adept Havelock
08-16-2007, 02:56 PM
UN Sanctions and WMD.

Right, I keep forgetting what a proponent of the UN you are.

BucEyedPea
08-16-2007, 02:58 PM
Well then, pat, you have your sequences in the wrong order then.
You might go all the way back to the 1950's while you're at it too.

Mi_chief_fan
08-16-2007, 08:51 PM
Typical response. We are still tracking Al Queda around the world.

Apples and Oranges for Iraq invasion. UN Sanctions and WMD.

WMD huh? How'd that turn out? And why aren't we tracking Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia?

StcChief
08-17-2007, 08:29 AM
WMD huh? How'd that turn out? And why aren't we tracking Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia?
Yeah WMD. evidence at the time said so. Still believe 55 gal drums of nerve agents etc will turn up somewhere. It might be 10 years they will be found and traced back to Saddam.

Al Queda where ever they are found will be eliminated. We've been too nice with Pakistan because of Muscharoff (sp) and the fact they have Nukes already.

Mi_chief_fan
08-17-2007, 08:46 AM
Yeah WMD. evidence at the time said so. Still believe 55 gal drums of nerve agents etc will turn up somewhere. It might be 10 years they will be found and traced back to Saddam.

Al Queda where ever they are found will be eliminated. We've been too nice with Pakistan because of Muscharoff (sp) and the fact they have Nukes already.

Agree with you on Pakistan, and hope your right about Al Qaeda, but i'm not convinced the current administration really cares about catching or destroying Al Qaeda, certainly not at the cost of losing oil profits in Iraq.

However, the "evidence" that there were WMD's were either 1 of 2 things at this point:

1)Completely WRONG, or

2) Completely fabricated.

I'm not going to make the accusation that the administration told us all bold faced lies to get us into Iraq, but i'm not leaving it off the table either. At this point, I trust nothing coming from this administration.

StcChief
08-17-2007, 09:46 AM
Agree with you on Pakistan, and hope your right about Al Qaeda, but i'm not convinced the current administration really cares about catching or destroying Al Qaeda, certainly not at the cost of losing oil profits in Iraq.

However, the "evidence" that there were WMD's were either 1 of 2 things at this point:

1)Completely WRONG, or

2) Completely fabricated.

I'm not going to make the accusation that the administration told us all bold faced lies to get us into Iraq, but i'm not leaving it off the table either. At this point, I trust nothing coming from this administration.

That's ok... I don't trust a freakin' Democrat as far as I can throw 'em

oldandslow
08-17-2007, 09:50 AM
That's ok... I don't trust a freakin' politician as far as I can throw 'em

FYP

Cochise
08-17-2007, 10:01 AM
Does it make sense that NOBODY involved in the attacks on 9/11 was born in Iraq, but 15 were born in Saudi Arabia, and we attack Iraq? Why not attack Canada, they had as much to do with it.

WTF does a country giving birth to a terrorist make that country liable for his actions? Like it would have been OK to go into Iraq if most of them had been born there?

This is, of all the arguments against Iraq, the dumbest by light years. Implying government complicity in the action of individuals simply due to nation of birth.

Mi_chief_fan
08-17-2007, 10:18 AM
WTF does a country giving birth to a terrorist make that country liable for his actions? Like it would have been OK to go into Iraq if most of them had been born there?

This is, of all the arguments against Iraq, the dumbest by light years. Implying government complicity in the action of individuals simply due to nation of birth.

Alright then, if it's so dumb, then why are we in Iraq again? Why aren't we focusing on countries that are harboring terrorists, like the aforementioned Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Sudan, Phillipines, etc.? WHat exactly are your criteria for what country we attack? Because if you're going to try to imply an Iraq connection to 9/11, save it, there is none.

Cochise
08-17-2007, 10:25 AM
Alright then, if it's so dumb, then why are we in Iraq again?

The statement that we should be attacking countries just because enemies of the state are of that nationality would be stupid even if there were no war anywhere.

Mi_chief_fan
08-17-2007, 10:26 AM
The statement that we should be attacking countries just because enemies of the state are of that nationality would be stupid even if there were no war anywhere.

Alrighty then, your opinion is well established, so I ask again: why are we in Iraq?

StcChief
08-17-2007, 10:32 AM
Alrighty then, your opinion is well established, so I ask again: why are we in Iraq?
I guess we should have left Saddam alone.... he wasn't a threat we could just continue with oil for food (which wasn't getting to his people)
and see if he came around or continued terrorizing the ME....

sounds like a plan. Wonder how many more dead in ME/US/Europe because of him, AlQueda camps in Iraq by now

hind sight still says having him gone is better than him, Uday,Kozy being around in Iraq. :shrug:

Mi_chief_fan
08-17-2007, 10:38 AM
I guess we should have left Saddam alone.... he wasn't a threat we could just continue with oil for food (which wasn't getting to his people)
and see if he came around or continued terrorizing the ME....

sounds like a plan. Wonder how many more dead in ME/US/Europe because of him, AlQueda camps in Iraq by now

hind sight still says having him gone is better than him, Uday,Kozy being around in Iraq. :shrug:
But none of those were the reasons given to us at the time. If the administratin had been honest and said that in the beginning, we're not having this conversation right now. However, it could give the impression to some that we were flat out LIED to (remember Colin Powell at the UN? Embarassing), and I don't care what political party someone is from, I don't like being lied to.

And how many more dead would there be? I don't know, probably not any more than there have been since we came in, the difference is that a lot of those being killed now are Americans, and for what? Because Saddam was taking money from the UN oil for food program? THat's not acceptable to me.

But anyway, I know what your opinion is, i'm trying to get a straight answer from Mr. Cochise, but he seems only intent on calling ideas different from his own "stupid".

Cochise
08-17-2007, 10:39 AM
Alrighty then, your opinion is well established, so I ask again: why are we in Iraq?

I haven't seen you around here before, so let me help you get acclimated.

We're operating at an advanced state of community here. This forum existed before the invasion happened, with the same principals, and the argument was being had back then. We all know who is on which side, we all know all the arguments from both sides, we all know all of the arguments against all of the arguments. There's no need to rehash all of that when we've been through it a thousand times unless something new happens. If you really don't know what the arguments were I suggest the search feature.

There's nothing useful about arguing over straw men like the one you are dutifully setting up. There's no sense in defending them or participating in a debate with someone who is only interested in beating up a scarecrow. So in summary, I'm not interested in having this debate again. It is not a concession in any way. It's just a statement that this argument became tiresome a long time ago. We stay relatively current in here, talking for the most part about the way things are right now, so try to keep up.

The point of me posting that what was said was stupid was because it IS stupid. So monumentally explosively stupid that the idea deserved to be held up on its own and ridiculed for what it was.

Mi_chief_fan
08-17-2007, 10:46 AM
I haven't seen you around here before, so let me help you get acclimated.

We're operating at an advanced state of community here. This forum existed before the invasion happened, with the same principals, and the argument was being had back then. We all know who is on which side, we all know all the arguments from both sides, we all know all of the arguments against all of the arguments. There's no need to rehash all of that when we've been through it a thousand times. If you really don't know what the arguments were I suggest the search feature.

There's nothing useful about arguing over straw men like the one you are dutifully setting up. There's no sense in defending them or participating in a debate with someone who is only interested in beating up a scarecrow. So in summary, I'm not interested in having this debate again. It is not a concession in any way. It's just a statement that this argument became tiresome a long time ago. We stay relatively current in here, talking for the most part about the way things are right now, so try to keep up.

The point of me posting that what was said was stupid was because it IS stupid. So monumentally explosively stupid that the idea deserved to be held up on its own and ridiculed for what it was.

I know, I was here the day the forum was created, I just don't live here like some. Sorry if I don't have the book on you yet.

And calling something "stupid" or a "strawman" or "scarecrow" is just your opinion. That's fine. Unless you have some sort of evidence to back that up, i'd refrain from it from now on.

If you want to give a straight answer, i'd love to see it; if you don't have one, keep doin' whatcher doin'.

patteeu
08-17-2007, 10:48 AM
But none of those were the reasons given to us at the time. If the administratin had been honest and said that in the beginning, we're not having this conversation right now. However, it could give the impression to some that we were flat out LIED to (remember Colin Powell at the UN? Embarassing), and I don't care what political party someone is from, I don't like being lied to.

And how many more dead would there be? I don't know, probably not any more than there have been since we came in, the difference is that a lot of those being killed now are Americans, and for what? Because Saddam was taking money from the UN oil for food program? THat's not acceptable to me.

But anyway, I know what your opinion is, i'm trying to get a straight answer from Mr. Cochise, but he seems only intent on calling ideas different from his own "stupid".

You need to follow more closely I guess. There were many reasons offered in the lead up to the war. To be sure, WMD was emphasized, but the other reasons were not hidden. Take a look at the President's SOTU speech from 2003 and you will see multiple justifications for our invasion. Read the media reports from that period and you'll get an even wider range of rationales.

Mi_chief_fan
08-17-2007, 10:53 AM
You need to follow more closely I guess. There were many reasons layed out in the lead up to the war. To be sure, WMD was emphasized, but the other reasons were not hidden. Take a look at the President's SOTU speech from 2003 and you will see multiple justifications for our invasion. Read the media reports from that period and you'll get an even wider range of rationales.

How many Americans would have been on board had they not been led to believe that Saddam posessed WMD's AND intended to use them against us, the threat was imminent, and was trying to get nukes, and all the other BS surrounding it?

Again, had they been forthright, which you're suggesting they were, I probably would have been on board. I just don't know how many people would have. It certainly would have been more difficult politically.

patteeu
08-17-2007, 11:00 AM
How many Americans would have been on board had they not been led to believe that Saddam posessed WMD's AND intended to use them against us, the threat was imminent, and was trying to get nukes, and all the other BS surrounding it?

Again, had they been forthright, which you're suggesting they were, I probably would have been on board. I just don't know how many people would have. It certainly would have been more difficult politically.

They *were* forthright and they never tried to make the case that the threat was imminent. Instead, the called it a gathering threat. As for the claims about WMD, they were good faith claims made on the basis of the analysis of our intelligence services not stories made up to mislead anyone into war. As Taco said on another subject, a good portion of the responsibility for any misunderstanding here is with the news consumer.

Cochise
08-17-2007, 11:13 AM
I know, I was here the day the forum was created, I just don't live here like some. Sorry if I don't have the book on you yet.

And calling something "stupid" or a "strawman" or "scarecrow" is just your opinion. That's fine. Unless you have some sort of evidence to back that up, i'd refrain from it from now on.

If you want to give a straight answer, i'd love to see it; if you don't have one, keep doin' whatcher doin'.

It's a strawman because you are attacking what you know is an oversimplified version of the argument. You know good and well that no one's argument for Iraq was "the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi".

Since you have no interest in being intellectually honest about that then some people might choose not to engage you on the topics mentioned. I anticipated you treating someone not being inclined to argue about it with admitting you're right, which it certainly is not. (Not that I expect you to understand that burling of speech if you don't understand that what you are doing is straw man...)

Mi_chief_fan
08-17-2007, 05:22 PM
They *were* forthright and they never tried to make the case that the threat was imminent.

I watched Colin Powell's speech at the UN, I remember him using the word "imminent" in describing the threat from Iraq's WMD's.

And as far as being forthright, I think the jury's still out on that.

Mi_chief_fan
08-17-2007, 05:27 PM
It's a strawman because you are attacking what you know is an oversimplified version of the argument. You know good and well that no one's argument for Iraq was "the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi".


Good, we agree there. Whether it's an oversimplification is a matter of opinion, and I happen to not share tha tPOV. I seriously don't know why you're resorting to insults over it, but I guess it's just in some people's DNA, but at least you admit that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that's progress.


Since you have no interest in being intellectually honest about that then some people might choose not to engage you on the topics mentioned. I anticipated you treating someone not being inclined to argue about it with admitting you're right, which it certainly is not. (Not that I expect you to understand that burling of speech if you don't understand that what you are doing is straw man...)

I see...............can't be intellectual if I disagree with you. Nice.

Again,

alanm
08-17-2007, 09:06 PM
Iran and Syria aren't at war with us. Certain leaders want to be at war with them...as the aggressors. That's much is true.
What color is the sky in your world?

Frankie
08-17-2007, 09:46 PM
Iranian Republican guard to be labeled terrorist organization
What have I been telling you about them dang Republicans?!

Nightwish
08-18-2007, 12:35 AM
We shouldn't let national boundaries dictate our actions.
We sure as hell shouldn't ignore them, either, especially when those sovereign borders belong to as powerful of nations as Iran and Syria, both of which are quite capable of handing us our asses if we decide to take them on full bore with our resources stretched as thin as they are. You seem to be all about the bluster and some mythical sense of duty, but without a moment's thought for consequences. Has it never occurred to you that those people who are called upon to fight in Iraq, who will be called upon to fight in Iran and Syria, if it comes to that, aren't just plastic toy soldiers?

Logical
08-18-2007, 12:48 AM
I watched Colin Powell's speech at the UN, I remember him using the word "imminent" in describing the threat from Iraq's WMD's.

And as far as being forthright, I think the jury's still out on that.I don't know how you could have missed him saying he regrets that speech more than any other in his career because it did not reflect his actual beliefs.

patteeu
08-18-2007, 04:39 AM
I watched Colin Powell's speech at the UN, I remember him using the word "imminent" in describing the threat from Iraq's WMD's.

I'm sure you sincerely believe you heard that, but that's not correct. Here's a CNN transcript (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript/index.html) of his testimony.

patteeu
08-18-2007, 04:45 AM
We sure as hell shouldn't ignore them, either, especially when those sovereign borders belong to as powerful of nations as Iran and Syria, both of which are quite capable of handing us our asses if we decide to take them on full bore with our resources stretched as thin as they are. You seem to be all about the bluster and some mythical sense of duty, but without a moment's thought for consequences. Has it never occurred to you that those people who are called upon to fight in Iraq, who will be called upon to fight in Iran and Syria, if it comes to that, aren't just plastic toy soldiers?

As if I said we should ignore them. :LOL:

Nothing you say here is accurate except the part about our soldiers not being plastic toys.

Mi_chief_fan
08-18-2007, 06:40 AM
I don't know how you could have missed him saying he regrets that speech more than any other in his career because it did not reflect his actual beliefs.

Yeah, i'm aware of that, and I still think Colin Powell is an honorable man. I think his regret about the speech says alot about the administration.

Nightwish
08-18-2007, 09:01 AM
As if I said we should ignore them. :LOL:

Nothing you say here is accurate except the part about our soldiers not being plastic toys.Which part did you find inaccurate?

Fact: Our troops and resources are spread very thin, due to the occupation of Iraq.

Fact: Neither Iran nor Syria will be nearly the pushover that Iraq was. Technology may favor us, but homefield advantage, public opinion, regional support and numbers all favor them. Even technology doesn't favor us as much as you might hope, because they (especially Iran) are two of the more advanced military forces in that part of the world. In a conventional, non-nuclear war, I don't see us winning against them as long as we're still bogged down in Iraq; and you'd have to be mad as a hatter to hope that it isn't a conventional, non-nuclear war. Of course, this is you (Mr. "those who disagree with me are all delusional" and "you can't disagree with me and be right") we're talking about here, so I certainly wouldn't put that madness beyond you.

Accurate observation: You do seem to be all about the bluster and some mythical sense that we have a duty to police the planet. And not once have I seen a single post from you that suggests you are aware that there is a cost to the war. You have always taken a "the end justifies the means, no matter what the cost" approach, and seem blissfully unaware that there is actually a cost and consequences to be paid.

patteeu
08-18-2007, 09:31 AM
Which part did you find inaccurate?

I thought I was clear: everything "except the part about our soldiers not being plastic toys."

Nightwish
08-18-2007, 09:41 AM
I thought I was clear: everything "except the part about our soldiers not being plastic toys."
So you believe our troops and resources are not spread thin due to the occupation of Iraq?

So you believe that Iran and Syria are not strong opponents and will not enjoy significant advantages due to homefield advantage, public opinion, regional support, and so on?

So you are aware that there is a cost to war, and that the cost can be prohibitive, and that at some point, the final payoff might not be worth the cost, although you've never troubled yourself to admit it in forum?

What color is the sky in your world?

patteeu
08-18-2007, 10:03 AM
So you believe our troops and resources are not spread thin due to the occupation of Iraq?

So you believe that Iran and Syria are not strong opponents and will not enjoy significant advantages due to homefield advantage, public opinion, regional support, and so on?

So you are aware that there is a cost to war, and that the cost can be prohibitive, and that at some point, the final payoff might not be worth the cost, although you've never troubled yourself to admit it in forum?

What color is the sky in your world?

Look, you tried to change the subject in post 75 and I'm not going to go along with you. I'll answer this one more time and then you can GFY.

The implication that I said anything like we should completely ignore international boundaries is inaccurate. I said they shouldn't dictate to us and that they should be considered on a case by case basis.

The idea that Iran and Syria are "quite capable of handing us our asses if we decide to take them on full bore" is inaccurate. They couldn't.

And the implication that I'm "all about the bluster and some mythical sense of duty, but without a moment's thought for consequences" is inaccurate. What can I say, you've never been very good at figuring these things out. You thought John Murtha had a strategy for victory.

Clear enough?

And I certainly don't say this to everyone, but your aversion to the proper use and comprehension of the English language makes you unworthy of the attention you seek.

Nightwish
08-18-2007, 10:24 AM
Look, you tried to change the subject in post 75 and I'm not going to go along with you.
Ooh, we don't like being challenged in our delusions, do we? From my training in Psychology, I understand that is a typical reaction when people have their delusions challenged, so don't worry, I'm not put aback by it.

The implication that I said anything like we should completely ignore international boundaries is inaccurate.
I neither said nor implied that you had said that. To most readers, the implication is that we should take extreme caution with regard to Iran and Syria (something you are definitely not endorsing), and that the best approach might lie somewhere in the middle. Obviously, you're not the typical reader however, as you seem to have a bit more difficulty with comprehending simple English than most.

I said they shouldn't dictate to us and that they should be considered on a case by case basis.
Actually, "case by case basis" appeared nowhere in your post, nor was it implied. Nice try to amend it after the fact, though.

The idea that Iran and Syria are "quite capable of handing us our asses if we decide to take them on full bore" is inaccurate. They couldn't.
Any particular reason you cut that quote short, eliminating the germaine part "with our resources stretched as thin as they are," in order to make it appear inaccurate? Couldn't possibly be because you know your bluster loses luster when that relevant point is considered, could it?

And the implication that I'm "all about the bluster and some mythical sense of duty, but without a moment's thought for consequences" is inaccurate.
Well, I am not a mind-reader, so I don't know what secret thoughts you've carefully kept hidden from us, but having only your visible posts to go on, it doesn't appear at all inaccurate.

What can I say, you've never been very good at figuring these things out. You thought John Murtha had a strategy for victory.
I didn't think anything of the sort wrt Murtha. What I thought about Murtha was that his name obviously gets your panties in a wad, so taking a position in defense of him is a surefire way to get you in a fuss. And the formula is obviously still working. Have you managed to understand yet that he called for Kuwait and Qatar both before and more often than Okinawa? Or are you still sticking to your fantasy?

And I certainly don't say this to everyone, but your aversion to the proper use and comprehension of the English language makes you unworthy of the attention you seek.
I don't say this to everyone, but here's some advice: grab a dictionary, look up "projection."