# Iraq Wants the US Out - Our New Saigon Moment



## BlackAsCoal (Dec 28, 2010)

BAGHDADPrime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ruled out the presence of any U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of 2011, saying his new government and the country's security forces were capable of confronting any remaining threats to Iraq's security, sovereignty and unity.

Mr. Maliki spoke with The Wall Street Journal in a two-hour interview, his first since Iraq ended nine months of stalemate and seated a new government after an inconclusive election, allowing Mr. Maliki to begin a second term as premier.

A majority of Iraqisand some Iraqi and U.S. officialshave assumed the U.S. troop presence would eventually be extended, especially after the long government limbo. But Mr. Maliki was eager to draw a line in his most definitive remarks on the subject. "The last American soldier will leave Iraq" as agreed, he said, speaking at his office in a leafy section of Baghdad's protected Green Zone. "This agreement is not subject to extension, not subject to alteration. It is sealed."

More at link
Iraqi Prime Minister Says U.S. Forces Must Leave On Time - WSJ.com

Say hello to Iran.

Trillions of taxpayer dollars thrown away, the loss of American influence and stature all over the world, countless of innocent people dead .. including tens of thousands of dead and wounded American soldiers .. all to hand Iraq to Iran like a wonderful Christmas present.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 28, 2010)

We should get it.


----------



## Missourian (Dec 28, 2010)

BlackAsCoal said:


> BAGHDAD&#8212;Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ruled out the presence of any U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of 2011, saying his new government and the country's security forces were capable of confronting any remaining threats to Iraq's security, sovereignty and unity.
> 
> Mr. Maliki spoke with The Wall Street Journal in a two-hour interview, his first since Iraq ended nine months of stalemate and seated a new government after an inconclusive election, allowing Mr. Maliki to begin a second term as premier.
> 
> ...



Cool,  let's go home.

My sole argument for remaining in Iraq when the Democrats insisted we pull out immediately was that we had a responsibility to stabilize Iraq.

I didn't want Iraq to become another Somolia.

IOW,  we broke it,  we were obligated to remain until the Iraqi's could stand on their own.

If Iraq's democratically elected government is telling us they feel confident we have met that obligation,  we should happily acquiesce to their request.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Dec 28, 2010)

Fine by me. We said we would leave when they asked us to. Let's get out. Not sure what the big deal is.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 28, 2010)

Time to leave.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 28, 2010)

If thats what they want, so be it.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 28, 2010)

Thousands of dead American soldiers and many more severely disabled.

Tens of thousands of dead civilian Iraqis and millions more displaced and homeless.

Close to a trillion dollars of taxpayer money spent.

And we accomplished???


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Dec 28, 2010)

Wait.. weren't we told just a few years ago that we'd never get out of Iraq?


----------



## DiamondDave (Dec 28, 2010)

If that is what Iraq wants.. they are ready to handle their own security and national defense... and they are self sustaining on infrastructure enough to continue the rebuild themselves.... good for them... more power to them... hope they thrive as a free constitutional nation in that region for generations to come...

And no, Coal, it does not mean that Iraq gets 'handed over' to Iran... or that we are in to Iran next without some huge reason to attack them


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 28, 2010)

My early preference was to stay and demand a democratic and stable nation there as we demanded of Germany and Japan, both of whom were our mortal enemies, and both of whom are now friends, allies, and strong assets rather than liabilities to the world.

Once we elected for maintenance rather than victory in Iraq, the war was lost.  And once we announced a departure date, any chance we had to demand a stable and forward looking Iraq was also lost.

We might as well pack up and go home now and not expend any more of our blood and treasure for a cause we long ago abdicated.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Dec 28, 2010)

They know their own business best.

I think most of the insurgency is nationalist desire for independence.  Which was one of the problems in Vietnam.   They saw us less as protectors and more of the same as the french.

So I do think much of the support for the insurgency will die off when their is no irritant.

And who wants to be dependent on Obama for their security.   I sure don't.   I am sure the Iraqis like the idea even less.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 28, 2010)

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is a Shiite and so is most of the government, army and police.

Before our ill fated invasion Iraq was a Sunni nation.

Now it will be solidly aligned with the Shiite country of Iran.


Same with Afghanistan, a historically Sunni muslim country.

But we installed a Shiite government, complete with almost total Shiite army and police.

Huge mistakes that we will pay for in the future.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 28, 2010)

BlackAsCoal said:


> BAGHDADPrime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ruled out the presence of any U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of 2011, saying his new government and the country's security forces were capable of confronting any remaining threats to Iraq's security, sovereignty and unity.
> 
> Mr. Maliki spoke with The Wall Street Journal in a two-hour interview, his first since Iraq ended nine months of stalemate and seated a new government after an inconclusive election, allowing Mr. Maliki to begin a second term as premier.
> 
> ...



Think we'll comply?  Or think he'll have an unfortunate accident?


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 28, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is a Shiite and so is most of the government, army and police.
> 
> Before our ill fated invasion Iraq was a Sunni nation.
> 
> ...



The thing is Iraq is predominantly Shite, more than 60% I believe. The thing is during the Iraq/Iran war, Ayatallah Khomeini tried to reach out to the Shite Iraqis to switch sides but they did not, they were loyal to Iraq. I don't think the Iraqi Shites are as friendly to Iran as we think, remember alot of Iraqis lost relatives in the Iran/Iraq war.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 28, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> My early preference was to stay and demand a democratic and stable nation there as we demanded of Germany and Japan, both of whom were our mortal enemies, and both of whom are now friends, allies, and strong assets rather than liabilities to the world.
> 
> Once we elected for maintenance rather than *victory in Iraq*, the war was lost.  And once we announced a departure date, any chance we had to demand a stable and forward looking Iraq was also lost.
> 
> We might as well pack up and go home now and not expend any more of our blood and treasure for a cause we long ago abdicated.



Define that please.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 28, 2010)

It will be nice to let them get back to killing each other over small differences in religion and age old grudges.

We can use the troops to help finish off Afganistan.  Once that's done, maybe we can set up patrols along our southern boarder.  uhm, Once obama is out.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 28, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> The thing is Iraq is predominantly Shite, more than 60% I believe. The thing is during the Iraq/Iran war, Ayatallah Khomeini tried to reach out to the Shite Iraqis to switch sides but they did not, they were loyal to Iraq. I don't think the Iraqi Shites are as friendly to Iran as we think, remember alot of Iraqis lost relatives in the Iran/Iraq war.


The Iraqi shia's are still closer to Iran than they will ever be to the Sunni's


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 28, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> It will be nice to let them get back to killing each other over small differences in religion and age old grudges.
> 
> We can use the troops to help finish off Afganistan.  Once that's done, maybe we can set up patrols along our southern boarder.  uhm, Once obama is out.



No one is putting troops on the border, thats political suicide.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Dec 28, 2010)

Would be cool if they could chill on the religious stupid.  And concentrate on reading Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and the like, rather than goofy religious texts.

In other words, make earth less of a hell.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 28, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is Iraq is predominantly Shite, more than 60% I believe. The thing is during the Iraq/Iran war, Ayatallah Khomeini tried to reach out to the Shite Iraqis to switch sides but they did not, they were loyal to Iraq. I don't think the Iraqi Shites are as friendly to Iran as we think, remember alot of Iraqis lost relatives in the Iran/Iraq war.
> ...



If thats the case they would have all switched sides during the Iran/Iraq war, thats what the Ayatollahs in Iran wanted, Iran wanted Najaf really badly because it is a Shite Holy City. The Shite Iraqis bled and died beside their Sunni brothers in that war.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 28, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > It will be nice to let them get back to killing each other over small differences in religion and age old grudges.
> ...



Thanks for bursting my bubble.

It probably won't, but it is not out of order to assign troops to patrol boarder regions.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 28, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> We can use the troops to help finish off Afganistan. .



What does that mean exactly?

Cause even our government doesn't have a coherent answer??


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 28, 2010)

If their legit, freely, fairly, democratically elected government, that our heroes have sacrificed and died for, is telling us they've got this, that's fine with me.

We've obviously won there anyway.  I'm confident the Iraqi National Army and police can handle it from here.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 28, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



Its not but that will be percieved as an attack on the Hispanics and whoever is President will lose that whole voting base, which is why no one has really pursued it.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 28, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> If their legit, freely, fairly, democratically elected government, that our heroes have sacrificed and died for, is telling us they've got this, that's fine with me.
> 
> We've obviously won there anyway.  I'm confident the Iraqi National Army and police can handle it from here.



I think things in Iraq are as good as their going to get with our troops there, its time for them to take off the training wheels and see if they can handle this on their own.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 28, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > My early preference was to stay and demand a democratic and stable nation there as we demanded of Germany and Japan, both of whom were our mortal enemies, and both of whom are now friends, allies, and strong assets rather than liabilities to the world.
> ...



Victory means one side wins, the other side loses.  Victory means unconditional surrender after which the other nation is at the mercy of the victor.  Victory means the vanquished can request but has no power to demand.  The Victor calls the shots.

That is exactly what happened in both Germany and Japan.  And I am quite sure both are profoundly pleased that it was England and the USA and like minded allies that were their conquerors and not Russia.  We stayed for a number of years after unconditional surrender and helped rebuild them, set a few necessary conditions into place,  and then set them free to assume their places among peaceful and prosperous nations of the world.

I don't buy that Germany nor Japan knew what was best for them before the Allied victory.  I don't buy that Iraq knew what was best for them or knows what is best for them now.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 28, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> Would be cool if they could chill on the religious stupid.  And concentrate on reading Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and the like, rather than goofy religious texts.


Like we really need to listen to Adam Smith (christian) and Milton Friedman (jew)  instead of Muhammad.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 28, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> > If their legit, freely, fairly, democratically elected government, that our heroes have sacrificed and died for, is telling us they've got this, that's fine with me.
> ...



THIS IS the beginning of THE TRUE test of GWB's legacy..........


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 28, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > Would be cool if they could chill on the religious stupid.  And concentrate on reading Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and the like, rather than goofy religious texts.
> ...



Yea......then yall might be forced to jump outta......gasp......the 7th century!


----------



## Sallow (Dec 28, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> > If their legit, freely, fairly, democratically elected government, that our heroes have sacrificed and died for, is telling us they've got this, that's fine with me.
> ...



Going to take much much more then that. Countries that are "birthed" as a result of imperalistic actions seldom do well.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 28, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> I don't buy that Germany nor Japan knew what was best for them before the Allied victory.  I don't buy that Iraq knew what was best for them or knows what is best for them now.


Nice of you to take pity on the poor Iraqi's who have now idea what's best for them even though they have lived there for thousands of years.  

So like the imperialistic British, we need to go to other countries, invade them, subdue them, and teach them our ways which are vastly superior.

Heck, the American Indians didn't know what was good for them until we showed them the white man's way.


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 28, 2010)

No surprise here, Iraq wants Obama's Army out of Iraq, hell, I want Obama out of the USA, only people winning are the Iraqis.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 28, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> My early preference was to stay and demand a democratic and stable nation there as we demanded of Germany and Japan, both of whom were our mortal enemies, and both of whom are now friends, allies, and strong assets rather than liabilities to the world.



Very different. Japan and Germany were basically democratic to begin with. Add in most of their institutions, government officials and military were left basically intact. While reconstruction was "tough", there were people in place to run the show..and knew the landscape.

Iraq on the other..was completely decimated. And I mean that in terms of infrastucture, military and politically. It's been built from the ground up..and not very well. It will be a miracle if there isn't a civil war in the next few years.

The best result will probably be a strong arm dictatorship..like the one we took out.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Dec 28, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > My early preference was to stay and demand a democratic and stable nation there as we demanded of Germany and Japan, both of whom were our mortal enemies, and both of whom are now friends, allies, and strong assets rather than liabilities to the world.
> ...




Of course, brutal, homicidal maniacs are always the best way to go.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 28, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Very different. Japan and Germany were basically democratic to begin with. Add in most of their institutions, government officials and military were left basically intact. While reconstruction was "tough", there were people in place to run the show..and knew the landscape.


LOL. true, we used ex nazis to run the new Germany.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 28, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I don't buy that Germany nor Japan knew what was best for them before the Allied victory.  I don't buy that Iraq knew what was best for them or knows what is best for them now.
> ...



HUGE non sequitur my friend.  Back up and try again.

We didn't threaten or invade Germany to start a war.  But once they started a war, we finished it.

We didn't threaten or invade Japan to start a war.  But once they started a war, we finished it.

We didn't threaten or invade Iraq to start a war.  The difference there is that once they started a war, we just stopped it.  We didn't finish it on the spot.  If we had we might have avoided all the grief and tragedy of the twelve long years of sanctions followed by endless war.

What would have happened if had just stopped Germany and Japan and then went away allowing the same people to hold the power and allowing them to rebuild on their terms?  Would the outcome have been as satisfactory even as both retain the best of their previous cultures?  I can almost guarantee you that it would not.  Nor do I think the outcome in Iraq will be as satisfactory as it would had we determined to demand unconditional surrender and then helped them rebuild into a peaceful prosperous nation.

The situation with the American Indians is a completely different circumstance as is the circumstance of all peoples who give over land and power to others who come in.  That had little in common with winners and losers in war.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 28, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Iraq never started a war with us.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 28, 2010)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Check your history. The United States has installed plenty of them.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 28, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



No, but they did start a war with an ally when they invaded Kuwait and were threatening another when they amassed forces on their border with Saudi Arabia.  And they were unlawfully threatening the oil supply to much of the free world.  So when Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, with blessings of all their other neighbors, AND the U.N. asked for help, most of the free nations of the world stepped in.

Germany and Japan both had dictatorships.  Neither any longer does.  Iraq could have gotten the same deal.  But no nation in which we have pulled punches or just stopped without demanding unconditional surrender has benefitted from their wars as has Germany and Japan.


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 28, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



So what, Iraq is gone as it was known, the world is better off.


----------



## Missourian (Dec 28, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Neither did Germany.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 28, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Kuwait wasn't an Ally. Saddam asked the United States prior to invading Kuwait if it was going to be a problem. The Kuwaitis also sealed their own fate by screwing around with Iraq. Iraq wanted a port city, Hussien thought he was the second coming of Saladin and they were loathe to be intimidated over debts. That, and the Iraqis thought Kuwait was really part of their country. Lo and behold the US said, okie dokie..and Saddam went alot further then the Americans thought he would. That was sort of an "unintended consequence".


----------



## Sallow (Dec 28, 2010)

Missourian said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Sure they did. After Japan declared war..Germany followed suit.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 28, 2010)

mdn2000 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Which world? There has been a great deal of regional instability because of the American invasion.

Are you willing to take in Iraqi refugees? Millions of them have poured into Jordan and Syria.


----------



## Missourian (Dec 28, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




They didn't *start* a war with us...Japan did.


But,  I see what you're saying.


Iraq attacked and occupied Kuwait.  

UN Resolution 678 required Iraq to withdrawal by 15 January 1991, and authorized all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660, and a diplomatic formulation authorizing the use of force if Iraq failed to comply.

Gulf War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​The second invasion of Iraq was authorized by UN Resolution 1441:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein *"a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" *that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]


*Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. *



Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation. 



It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."


United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​


----------



## bodecea (Dec 28, 2010)

Missourian said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Um, yes they did.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 28, 2010)

Missourian said:


> They didn't *start* a war with us...Japan did.


Read a history book junior.

Hitler's Germany declared war on the United States and began using their submarines to torpedo our merchant ships right off the American coast line.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 28, 2010)

Missourian said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



I'll see your wiki..with this wiki!

April Glaspie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> One version of the transcript has Glaspie saying:
> 
>  We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship  not confrontation  regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders? 
> 
> ...


----------



## Missourian (Dec 28, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > They didn't *start* a war with us...Japan did.
> ...




I understand this,  but Japan *started* the war with the U.S.

In World War II, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on the *previous day*, Germany and Italy, led respectively by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, declared war on the United States, and the U.S. Congress responded in kind [on the same day]

Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​


----------



## Missourian (Dec 28, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




Sorry,  I'm missing your point.  

Regardless of what Glaspie said/didn't say/was perceived as saying/interpreted as not saying...the UN authorized the Gulf War and later,  declared Iraq in final breach of the Gulf War Ceasefire.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 28, 2010)

Missourian said:


> Sorry,  I'm missing your point.
> 
> Regardless of what Glaspie said/didn't say/was perceived as saying/interpreted as not saying...the UN authorized the Gulf War and later,  declared Iraq in final breach of the Gulf War Ceasefire.



The point being that Iraq asked..and basically got..and okay to attack Kuwait from the United States. After they beat the crap out of Kuwait, the very same United States said, "Opps, my bad..time to leave."

So how the heck do you do that? Seriously? If you are the leader of a screwed up little country like Iraq..which was very much like Yugoslavia; how exactly do you pull out of a campaign you've committed so much to without looking weak to your people, which would have been a death warrant.

This was an extremely big screw up on the part of the United States..and it continues to this day.


----------



## Missourian (Dec 28, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry,  I'm missing your point.
> ...




Sorry man,  I don't see  "We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned."  as a tacit approval of anything except that the U.S. was concerned about Iraq's intentions.

I don't see anything in the text you submitted where Iraq asked anything.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 28, 2010)

Missourian said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Um..



> When these purported transcripts were made public, Glaspie was accused of having given tacit approval for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which took place on August 2, 1990. It was argued that Glaspie's statements that *"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts" and that "the Kuwait issue is not associated with America*" were interpreted by Saddam as giving free rein to handle his disputes with Kuwait as he saw fit. It was also argued that Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait had he been given an explicit warning that such an invasion would be met with force by the United States.[2][3] Journalist Edward Mortimer wrote in the New York Review of Books in November 1990:



She went on to say that she did not think Iraq would grab "all" of Kuwait. And bear in mind this happened after Iraq attacked Iran..basically at the bidding of the United States.


----------



## rdean (Dec 28, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Thousands of dead American soldiers and many more severely disabled.
> 
> Tens of thousands of dead civilian Iraqis and millions more displaced and homeless.
> 
> ...



According to the right, maybe those WERE the accomplishments.

I don't know, I can't figure it out.  Now they are a hard right wing theocracy and still some call them a democracy.  Just read their Republican supported constitution.  It's all right there in black and white.


----------



## Missourian (Dec 28, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




If Saddam made that interpretation from that sentence,  he may have been one of the biggest imbeciles in human history.

I have no opinion on conflict between you and Rdean.

Do you take that no mean I would not intervene if you attacked him? 



I think this another example of the left grasping at straws,  except,  in this case,  there isn't a straw to grasp.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 28, 2010)

Missourian said:


> If Saddam made that interpretation from that sentence,  he may have been one of the biggest imbeciles in human history.
> 
> I have no opinion on conflict between you and Rdean.
> 
> ...



Actually..that doesn't work.

Our history with Saddam Hussien is a long, complicated and particularly shady one. Like I've posted before, he's done things that haven't been appreciated by the United States like dealing with Russia. But on the whole..he was useful. At the behest of America, the Iranians were attacked and forced into a long brutal war with Iraq. And Hussein was not the brightest light on the tree either. But he felt that he was a combination of Stalin and Saladin..and was going to be a lion of the Arab world. Glaspie, and those handling Hussien knew about the Iraqi problem with Kuwait. Lots of debt, no way to pay it (Because of the Iraq/Iran war), lots of noise, a desire for a port city and a very agitated Iraqi population. Even Glaspie admits that she thought there would be an attack..just not so large.

Be that as it may...that's what you get when you meddle. We keep trying to get resources on the cheap..through deceptive practices and military action. Which is why we keep getting these messes.


----------



## Missourian (Dec 28, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > If Saddam made that interpretation from that sentence,  he may have been one of the biggest imbeciles in human history.
> ...



Glaspie thought there would be an attack...hence the concern at the massing of troops at the border.

Again,  all I see is grasping.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 28, 2010)

Missourian said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Grasping? She gave him an "okay". She basically knew he was going to attack..but thought it would be a limited one.

Gosh.


----------



## Missourian (Dec 28, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > If Saddam made that interpretation from that sentence,  he may have been one of the biggest imbeciles in human history.
> ...




Saddam made a choice to invade a sovereign nation unprovoked.

The U.S. did not invade Iraq unprovoked.

See my original post.


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 28, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Saddam at best communicated with a woman ambassador, the basis of going to war hinged on this, strawman argument at best.

No way did Saddam think Kuwait was part of Iraq, of course thats what he wanted fools to believe. Kuwait was independent long before Iraq was carved out of the former Ottoman empire.

Saddam acted as the tribes of Arabia have acted for centuries, nothing more, nothing less. 
History is crystal clear on this point.


----------



## Missourian (Dec 28, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



I saw no "OK"...I see grasping.

Show me an "ok".


----------



## Sallow (Dec 28, 2010)

Missourian said:


> Saddam made a choice to invade a sovereign nation unprovoked.
> 
> The U.S. did not invade Iraq unprovoked.
> 
> See my original post.



Sure it did.

We had no treaties with Kuwait. Nations attack nations all the time.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 28, 2010)

Missourian said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...





I'd have to start acquainting you with "Diplospeak" which is language all it's own.


----------



## Missourian (Dec 28, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Saddam made a choice to invade a sovereign nation unprovoked.
> ...




UN Resolution 678 required Iraq to withdrawal by 15 January 1991, and authorized all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660, and a diplomatic formulation authorizing the use of force if Iraq failed to comply.

Gulf War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Sallow (Dec 28, 2010)

Missourian said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Well there's probably no way to convince you of how wrong and absurd this action was..

Suffice to say, the region, because of these ridiculous military actions, is in very bad shape. And it's probably not going to sort itself out for sometime to come. It's also reasonable to assume there will be ramifications to the United States because of this meddling..some of which will take the form of violence in our homeland.

There clearly has been many mistakes made here..well clear to some. And hopefully they will be learned from..

And it's very complicated history. I am "nutshelling" quite alot. You might do well to do some research. It's interesting reading. But very very convoluted.


----------



## Missourian (Dec 28, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




Unless the Diplospeak language includes some rule that when a diplomat says "We're concerned by you're army massed on the border of Kuwait,  especially considering your history"  means "We're cool with you invading and occupying Kuwait"...it would be a waste of time.


----------



## rdean (Dec 28, 2010)

Missourian said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



I'm not sure what your point it.

Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Kuwait and the surrounding Arab countries asked for our help.

Bush Sr. drove Iraq out of Kuwait back in to Iraq and stopped at the border.

Bush Sr. understood the cost of taking over a country.  He put the country under sanctions and as former head of the CIA, I suspect he told that agency to keep watch on a country that invaded a neighbor.

Some years go by.

Bin Laden, angry that American Infidels killed Arabs in the Middle East planned the attack on America as "retribution".  How do we know this?  He told us.

But Bush, by protecting Kuwait was right, he did the right thing.  Bin Laden attacking America was on him, not anyone else.  Bush was right, Bin Laden was wrong.

But Bush Jr., knowing that Iraq was under sanctions, without industry or manufacturing in any meaningful amount, invaded.

Only on the right, do people believe that Bush Sr., a former head of the CIA would totally ignore Iraq after kicking their asses out of Kuwait.  Not only that, he was a former war hero.

Only a total tard would ignore an enemy after punching them in the nose.  "Never turn your back on an enemy".  Everyone knows that and yet, the right wing ASSUMES that's EXACTLY what Bush did.  How dumb to believe that.

Only, you have to believe that, otherwise, what's left, is the truth that Iraq was no danger to us and we invaded a country for fun and profit.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 28, 2010)

bodecea said:


> BlackAsCoal said:
> 
> 
> > BAGHDADPrime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ruled out the presence of any U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of 2011, saying his new government and the country's security forces were capable of confronting any remaining threats to Iraq's security, sovereignty and unity.
> ...


----------



## Missourian (Dec 28, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



I understand that U.S.-Middle East history is convoluted...it's one of the prices we pay for being a Republic,  our foreign policy shifts every 4 to 8 years,  and a lot of mistakes have been made all around.


But in my opinion, liberating Kuwait from Iraq wasn't one of them.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 28, 2010)

Missourian said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Well we have to agree to disagree here.


----------



## Missourian (Dec 28, 2010)

Missourian said:


> Saddam made a choice to invade a sovereign nation unprovoked.
> 
> The U.S. did not invade Iraq unprovoked.
> 
> See my original post.





rdean said:


> I'm not sure what your point it.
> 
> Iraq invaded Kuwait.
> 
> ...



Up to this point we are on the same page.

And if we were authorized to liberate and invade Iraq during the Gulf War,  we were authorized to invade Iraq when the UN issued their final resolution that Iraq was in breach of the Gulf War ceasefire agreement,  UN Res. 1441.

If you wish to argue the justification for the Iraq War,  we can do that...again...

But the claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq unprovoked,  or that this was a preemptive war is hogwash, IMO.


----------



## Missourian (Dec 28, 2010)

rdean said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...





Sallow said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Fair enough. 

Rep coming your way...I thoroughly enjoyed the discourse.

You argued your case very well.


----------



## rdean (Dec 28, 2010)

Missourian said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Saddam made a choice to invade a sovereign nation unprovoked.
> ...



The entire world thought Bush had evidence that Iraq was a threat to us.  Bush administration officials gave them their word.

Like I said, Bush Sr. was formerly the head of the CIA.  You know that he put CIA watchdogs on Iraq the second our forces were moving to Kuwait and kept them there.  The man is just too smart to do otherwise.  Bush Sr. was a very smart man.  It's impossible for him to make such a mistake that he wouldn't keep intelligence agencies tuned in to Iraq.

And we know what Clinton thought of Saddam.  No way that he would stop what Bush Sr. started.

And remember WMDs were a "slam dunk"?  We had to wait to invade until the inspectors left Iraq that Bush said weren't in Iraq.  Come on.  The nation was glued to the TV.  Bush didn't invade until after the inspectors left.

Is it any wonder Bush Sr. has been so mysteriously quiet?  Bush Sr. could protect his son from the SEC, from the police for drunk driving, keep him safe in the Champagne unit in the Air Force and help get him into Harvard, but this, this is one thing he couldn't get his son out of.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Dec 28, 2010)

Iraq is kidding itself if it thinks the U.S. is ever going to leave.


----------



## Missourian (Dec 28, 2010)

rdean said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Irrelevant...Saddam booted the inspectors.


That action breached the ceasefire.

He booted them to specifically give the impression that he had a weapons program.

He said so himself.
*FBI interviews detail Saddam Hussein's fear of Iran, WMD bluff*
​

Hussein regarded the Iranian threat as so serious that it was the major factor in his decision not to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to return, he said. Citing their shared border and his belief Iran would intend to annex southern Iraq, Hussein said he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq's weaknesses than repercussions from the United States and the international community. He believed that the inspectors would have directly identified to the Iranians where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq.

FBI interviews detail Saddam Hussein's fear of Iran, WMD bluff - CNN​


----------



## kiwiman127 (Dec 28, 2010)

Missourian said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Regarding the weapons inspectors being booted out by Saddam, what time frame are you addressing?
_AP)  U.N. weapons inspectors climbed aboard a plane and pulled out of Iraq on Tuesday after President Bush issued a final ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to step down or face war.

A plane carrying the inspectors took off from Saddam International Airport at 10:25 a.m. It landed an hour and a half later in Laranca, Cyprus where the inspectors have a base.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all U.N. inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and U.N. observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after U.S. threats to launch war.
Weapons Inspectors Leave Iraq - CBS News_http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544280.shtml

And,,,,
_During the lead-up to war in March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take &#8220;but months&#8221; to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[4] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[5][6][7] Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[8] President Bush asserted peaceful measures couldn't disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War._Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So Missourian, when did Saddam kick out the weapons inspectors?
By the way,,,,thanks to you and Sallow for an interesting discussion.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 28, 2010)

Sallow said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Why do you cherish and support homicidal, genocidal, oppressive dictators?

WTF is wrong with you?


----------



## Missourian (Dec 28, 2010)

kiwiman127 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...




From Wikipedia:

On September 12, 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush addressed the General Assembly and outlined a catalogue of complaints against the Iraqi government.[1] These included:


"In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq supports terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments....And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2001 found "extremely grave" human rights violations
Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.
Iraq used proceeds from the "oil for food" U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.
Iraq flagrantly violated the terms of the weapons inspection program before discontinuing it altogether.
 Following the speech, intensive negotiations began with other members of the Security Council. In particular, three permanent members (with veto power) of the Council were known to have misgivings about an invasion of Iraq: Russia, China, and France.


*In the meantime, Iraq, while denying all charges, announced that it would permit the re-entry of United Nations arms inspectors into Iraq.* The United States characterized this as a ploy by Iraq and continued to call for a Security Council resolution which would authorize the use of military force.​United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 28, 2010)

Sallow said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



We have been taking in Iraqi refugees for years. 

I thought the instability was because we are fighting with our hands tied behind our backs, I am all for destroying all the tyrants of the world, takes time though, especially the educating the society part. 

Regional instability, the Iranian-Iraq war, was the regional stability or are you referring to the invasion of Kuwait as the time of regional stability, maybe you mean gassing of the Kurds as being when the region was stable. What about during the Yemen war or perhaps after Israel declared itself a nation and Iraq went to war against Israel. So your saying there was a bit of stability somewhere in here that Americans upset. I should go on with the Arab wars, much more than I mentioned, and we upset the peace?


----------



## kiwiman127 (Dec 29, 2010)

Missourian said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Thanks Missourian.
_"Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. *Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments*, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."_
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So 1441 had a error or two.
But your answer doesn't nail down a time when Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors.

Now I'll admit I was against invading Iraq, in my mind we should have never taken our eyes off of bin Laden or Afghanistan.  I'm curious what the state of Afghanistan would be like today had the US been as focused with troops, materials and intelligence on Afghanistan as it did in respects to Iraq.


----------



## Missourian (Dec 29, 2010)

kiwiman127 said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...




*A brief history of Iraq's noncompliance with UN Weapon Inspectors (UNSCOM) from Wikipedia:

*Iraq disarmament timeline 1990?2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​I tried twice to condense the cited information into a post,  but the totality is required as context.  IMO Saddam and Iraq *NEVER* complied with the ceasefires inspection requirement.

Right up to the end Hans Blix,  the head of the final inspection team stated to the UN  that Iraq still has not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, despite recent signs of increased cooperation.

After the U.S. began to build up forces on the border,  Blix stated that Iraqi cooperation improved...just like it did in 1998 when President Clinton approved an air strike after Saddam expelled UNSCOM from Iraq...suddenly,  UNSCOM was allow to return and Saddam promised full cooperation.

It lasted 5 day. 

Read the link,  Over and over again, Saddam violated inspection terms of the ceasefire agreement,  forcing the UN and US to put,  almost literally, a gun to his head before he capitulated.

It's comparable to the boy who cried wolf...it was inevitable Saddam would pull this stunt one time too many,  and the trigger would be pulled.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > mdn2000 said:
> ...



When you know what you are talking about..get back to me.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

mdn2000 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > mdn2000 said:
> ...



 Naive doesn't begin to explain this..


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Missourian said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



The oil for food program and the sanctions on Iraq was a joke, Saddam never took those seriously anyways.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



Joke?

Over 100k people died as a result of the Sanctions. The Hussien regime begged for the oil for food program.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 29, 2010)

Not sure how a country could want us out now when a majority never wanted us there in the first place.

2006:

Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show - washingtonpost.com



> In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.
> 
> Another new poll, scheduled to be released on Wednesday by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country.





> The stark assessments, *among the most negative attitudes toward U.S.-led forces since they invaded Iraq in 2003,* contrast sharply with views expressed by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.



April 2004: USATODAY.com - Poll: Iraqis out of patience



> BAGHDAD &#8212; Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.





> But while they acknowledge benefits from dumping Saddam a year ago, Iraqis no longer see the presence of the American-led military as a plus. Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as "liberators" or "occupiers," *71% of all respondents say "occupiers.*"


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Yes it was indeed a huge joke, that program was corrupt by UN officials and Iraqi officials alike.

UN Complicit in Corruption of Iraq's Oil-for-Food Program


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 29, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Yup.  Those 12 years of sanctions killed or harmed far more innocent people than the war did.  And most of the innocents who have been killed in the war were killed by their own countrymen or insurgents determined that Iraq should not be a free and secular nation that was not subject to some brutal clerical regime.

There are sins and righteousness to be said for all sides in this unfortunate conflict, but I am pretty sure that a large majority of Iraqis would not choose to go back to the way things were under Saddam.   Of course there is war weariness as there always is when the stronger side pulls its punches for political correctness reasons and thereby prolongs the destruction, death, and misery.

War is probably the most insane and senseless activity of humankind and should never be seen as the best way to settle anything.  But when it becomes mandatory, the only way to fight one is via overwhelming force with no quarter given and thereby reduce the time, expense, destruction, and misery.  Then an honorable victor gives the vanquished every opportunity to put themselves back together and join a peaceful honorable family of nations and goes home.

Dragging it all out year after year after year until everybody forgets what it was all about in the first place, war weariness becomes intolerable, and finally everybody just stops makes it even more meaningless and indefensible and usually leaves things worse than they were to begin with.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 29, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> There are sins and righteousness to be said for all sides in this unfortunate conflict, but I am pretty sure that a large majority of Iraqis would not choose to go back to the way things were under Saddam.


Have you ever talked to any Iraqi citizens?

Saddam's Iraq had a secular government ran by the Baath Party.

The universities had almost 50% women students; the highest number in the ME.

The average Iraqi was able to safely walk the streets.

Iraqi's had full utilities; running water and electricity all day.

They were safe in their homes.

Now none of that is the case.


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 29, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I can agree with much of that, however the Russians did in fact conquered much of Germany along with eastern Europe.  The Germans were not happy to be in the Russian sector either.  They were happy to be in the US, France and/or the UK's.


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 29, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > There are sins and righteousness to be said for all sides in this unfortunate conflict, but I am pretty sure that a large majority of Iraqis would not choose to go back to the way things were under Saddam.
> ...



Iraq had all those things before Saddam brutally took power in 1979.   It was all downhill from there.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 29, 2010)

You are wrong.


----------



## Marc39 (Dec 29, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> You are wrong.



Iraq was a nice Christian country before the barbaric Muhammadan invaded and trashed it, like the Muhammadan has trashed every shithole he inhabits.

Deport Iraqi Muslim trash and repopulate it with Christians

Alexis de Toqueville...


> I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.



Winston Churchill...


> How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.
> 
> The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
> 
> ...



[ame=http://www.amazon.com/River-War-Sir-Winston-Churchill/dp/1598184253/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1288411221&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: The River War (9781598184259): Sir Winston S. Churchill: Books[/ame]


----------



## Marc39 (Dec 29, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > There are sins and righteousness to be said for all sides in this unfortunate conflict, but I am pretty sure that a large majority of Iraqis would not choose to go back to the way things were under Saddam.
> ...



What about the hundreds of thousands of Kurds gased, jihadi?

And, the rape rooms?

And, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait?

Are you insane or just clueless, Abu?


----------



## Marc39 (Dec 29, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > There are sins and righteousness to be said for all sides in this unfortunate conflict, but I am pretty sure that a large majority of Iraqis would not choose to go back to the way things were under Saddam.
> ...



The totalitarian Baath Party fashioned after the Nazi Party, Abu?

Not much political dissent or criticism was tolerated either by the Baath or Nazi parties

How many democracies exist in the Islamic craphole world?  Not one


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Since you're apparently too illiterate, and ignorant to read behind obvious lines. * THIS is apparently what you support and coddle:*













I can go on.......


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> ...



Sure please do.

And be aware all of that was fully supported by the United States..with my tax dollars.

I ain't so sure you pay taxes.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > There are sins and righteousness to be said for all sides in this unfortunate conflict, but I am pretty sure that a large majority of Iraqis would not choose to go back to the way things were under Saddam.
> ...



Sunni do you know what Saddams regime did to the Shites, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Iranians? it was not all peaches and cream under Saddam.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Sorry, but U.S. tax $ to Iraq to stop the far greater evil of Iran when we had little other choice does not U.S. support for genocide make.

*When you show me a receipt from Saddam, from us, that says "this is for you to gas, and murder your own innocent people" THEN you may have an argument.*

Ima ask again, why do you support and cherish genocidal, homicidal, dictators?


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 29, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > There are sins and righteousness to be said for all sides in this unfortunate conflict, but I am pretty sure that a large majority of Iraqis would not choose to go back to the way things were under Saddam.
> ...



Yes I have talked with Iraqi citizens.   And I have also talked with those working in the rural areas shortly after Saddam's army was initially defeated in 2003 until now.  If you lived in Baghdad or Falujah or other central cities, you did have some amenities--most specially in those areas Saddam or his henchmen liked to showcase as 'modern Iraq'.  But there was no electricity or running water or sewers etc. in many of the outlying rural areas.  And it was mostly in those areas that tens of thousands of Iraqis starved or died of medical neglect or malnutrition, many of those being children, during the twelve years of sanctions.  The U.S. military (and others) are building that from scratch.

They were safe in their homes UNLESS they displeased somebody in power.

Just to keep the record straight.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 29, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Sunni do you know what Saddams regime did to the Shites, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Iranians? it was not all peaches and cream under Saddam.



Saddam was No saint by any means.

But he lived in a tough neighborhood and these people were out to kill him and topple his government.

He just responded using weapons and money supplied by the U.S.

btw We didn't say jack when he gassed the Iranians.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni do you know what Saddams regime did to the Shites, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Iranians? it was not all peaches and cream under Saddam.
> ...



I know Saddam had to be tough in order to stay in power but the invasion of Kuwait and the gassing of the Kurds was just an unecessary use of brutality. He ultimately brought about his own demise.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> Sorry, but U.S. tax $ to Iraq to stop the far greater evil of Iran when we had little other choice does not U.S. support for genocide make.
> 
> *When you show me a receipt from Saddam, from us, that says "this is for you to gas, and murder your own innocent people" THEN you may have an argument.*
> 
> Ima ask again, why do you support and cherish genocidal, homicidal, dictators?



Again.

You have absolutely no idea what you are posting.

You contradict yourself in this very post. What the fuck do you think happened in the Iraq-Iran war?

The Iraqis GASSED Iranians..or as you posted "the greater evil". The tech for those weapons came from the United States.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



You know this how?

And where are you on Ataturk and Tito?


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 29, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni do you know what Saddams regime did to the Shites, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Iranians? it was not all peaches and cream under Saddam.
> ...



I don't know who you mean by 'we'.  I certainly have spoken out against wholesale slaughter or mistreatment of civilians by anybody for a very long time now.

Perhaps if Saddam had more noble attributes, so many people wouldn't have been out to kill him.

As for conditions in Iraq during Saddam's reign, this is a pretty good synopsis of the good and bad:

Handbook 11-03: Appendix B - National and Provincial Data for Iraq


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but U.S. tax $ to Iraq to stop the far greater evil of Iran when we had little other choice does not U.S. support for genocide make.
> ...



*AGAIN, unless you can prove THAT WE SENT THOSE WEAPONS OVER THERE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GASSING IRANIAN CIVILIANS, YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.*

We were right strategically in supporting Iraq @ that time, and, OBVIOUSLY had no idea Saddam was gonna use our $ and tech for that.

Stop tryna twist shit, stop with the smoke and mirrors, shit like this is why you're on my pwned belt.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> ...



I'm not "twisting" anything. The United States provided tech and weapons for a brutal dictator it helped put into power to attack a country which overthrew an American installed "Shah". Rumsfeld knew Saddam was a brutal person. The whole idea was "one nasty little arab dicatorship vs. another nasty little arab dictatorship..its a win-win". And this country wouldn't haven't given two shits for either country if they weren't sitting on oceans of oil.

You seriously don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You get your history from cliches and bubble gum wrappers.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



What the fuck are you talking about?


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Except Iranians are not Arabs, they are Persians. You have just shown you know less than zero about the subject.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> I don't know who you mean by 'we'.  I certainly have spoken out against wholesale slaughter or mistreatment of civilians by anybody for a very long time now.
> 
> Perhaps if Saddam had more noble attributes, so many people wouldn't have been out to kill him.
> 
> ...



You may have protested it at the time..but the Conservative mindset was hostile to people that spoke up against it. The big conservative tv program at the time "The Morton Downey Jr. Show" got downright hostile to an audience member that spoke up against it.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know who you mean by 'we'.  I certainly have spoken out against wholesale slaughter or mistreatment of civilians by anybody for a very long time now.
> ...



You can go ahead and close your cock holster, anyone who calls Iranians "Arabs" had no legs to stand on when it comes to dicussing the Iran/Iraq war.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> ...



Oh gosh.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Um..no.

You wanna play "neener neener" fine.

I was playing soccer with Iranians and Israelis when you were in diapers.. I know exactly what they consider themselves.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know who you mean by 'we'.  I certainly have spoken out against wholesale slaughter or mistreatment of civilians by anybody for a very long time now.
> ...



What High Gravity said.  You really don't know jack about it.  Nice radical left sound bite though.


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 29, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni do you know what Saddams regime did to the Shites, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Iranians? it was not all peaches and cream under Saddam.
> ...



Saddam invaded Iran.  Iran was not out to kill him.

By the time it became widely known he was using gas against Iranian troops he was being supplied by many compainies in the West thanks to Ronnie Raygun.  In fact Americans can say "And I helped"

How he US armed Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons | Green Left Weekly

On December 19-20, 1983, Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy  none other than Donald Rumsfeld  to Baghdad with a hand-written offer of a resumption of diplomatic relations, which had been severed during the 1967 Arab-Israel war. On March 24, 1984, Rumsfeld was again in Baghdad.

On that same day, the UPI wire service reported from the UN: "Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers ... a team of UN experts has concluded ... Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, US presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with foreign minister Tariq Aziz."

......

According to Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, in a December 15, 1986 article, the CIA began to secretly supply Iraq with intelligence in 1984 that was used to "calibrate" mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. Beginning in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive US satellite reconnaissance photography ... to assist Iraqi bombing raids".

But that doesn't mean Libertarians supported either Saddam or Raygun!  We didn't.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Exactly what I thought.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Tell us about those  "Arab" Iranians.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



^^Looks like someone's starting to get they sore *loser on*^^

Just as I thought, you can't prove that: *AGAIN, unless you can prove THAT WE SENT THOSE WEAPONS OVER THERE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GASSING IRANIAN CIVILIANS, YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.*
*
Our hands are quite obviously clean, dry of that, WE GAVE THAT SUPPORT TO DEFEAT THE WORSE, MORE BRUTAL, IRANIAN GOVERNMENT.  THAT WAS THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THAT SUPPORT.
*
Again, you just wanna twist, distort, and revise shit so it fits your wacko lefty agenda...............sad.

I see no further reason to continue this "debate" I've clearly made my point, with a case, set, MATCH.

HG and I are enjoying a good laugh privately tho from your "knowledge"


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




Yes because the Iranians are Arabs.

You know less than zero about Iranians or anything else being discussed here, you may know shut your cum dumpster.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 29, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



   None of our Iranian friends or colleagues or one Iranian boss I had considered themselves Arabs.  

The Iranians are delightful people though.  Never met one yet that I didn't find likable.  Of course I never met any of their radical leadership so that might have turned out differently.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Damn me and Righteous one are treating Sallow like Kobe Bryant treats white women in Colorado hotel rooms.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Sallow knows less than zero about Iranians, if he tried to call an actual Iranian an Arab they would knock out his fucking teeth, he lost all credibility when he said that and he didn't have that much to begin with.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Yes yes please tell us your knowledge about that Arab country Iran.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



3rded!  Awww damn!  Are we triple teaming this motherfucker?  LOL this is hardly necessary yall, clearly just 1 of us is more than enough to handle Sallow.

Teh street sweeper is gonna now go back to main and find "right"winger, I'm sure his dumb fake ass has made yet another attempt @ debate in that history thread by now.

I done made my point, my boy HG too, so Ima fall back, you got this if you want it FOX.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




I call shot gun on the mouth.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 29, 2010)

(R)IGHTeous 1 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> ...



Actually, a careful study of history shows that the USA didn't back either regime.  But a stronger, better (USSR) supplied Iran did threaten to overrun and absorb a weaker Iraq which we did not see as a healthy situation with a huge percentage of the world's oil supplies at stake.  So we supplied Saddam with enough weaponry to stave off iran.  It was a conflict between the USSR and USA as much as between Iran and iraq.  But Reagan figured if we kept Iran and Iraq busy beating each other up without either gaining a significant advantage, they would leave everybody else alone.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Saddam actually got his weapons and support from several sources Germany, France, England etc. not all of this was given to the Iraqis by the US like the moron Sallow is trying to imply.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Feel free to travel to Tehran. It's a lovely place. My friend went there 2 years ago.

Jean Shepard..and I am SURE you know who that guy is..describes Iran as one of the best skiing spots in the world.

Let me know how your trip went.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Iran overrun Iraq????

That takes the cake!


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Do you always miss the point or use non sequiturs to this extreme on every thread you post in?


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 29, 2010)

LOL ok guys, this has been glorious and all, but I gotta keep my cred. up, gotta go respond to threads I know lefties spazed on me bout by now.

This was teh fun tho, thanks again for that useful bit of info. Fox.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> ...



Yeah.  Those of us who actually read history books rather than get our education from Huff post or Daily Kos actually pick up on stuff like that.  Try it.  You might be really surprised.  And also understand why Iranians are not Arabs.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Anyone that thinks Iranians are Arabs has no right to make any comments on this subject.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



No one would knock out my teeth chief.

A. To late they've been knocked out.

B. They'd be flattened if they tried.

And losing "credibility" with you and your buddy is no great shakes.

You don't know jack.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Okay.

History question.

When was the last time Iran attacked another country?


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Iranians have been providing support for the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents for years clown.

They also shelled Kurdistan in Northern Iraq.

Iran shells Iraqi Kurdistan village | Reuters

Again, you know less than zero on this subject.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Not "provided support" which is dubious to begin with..

Actually attack.

And if you want to be anal retentive little shmuck about the whole thing..

Are you saying that there are NO arabs in Iran?

Iranian Arabs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 29, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




When Iran was about to overrun Iraq the USA most definantly backed Saddam.  The Russians boycotted military supplies to both Iran and Iraq.  The hope was to get Iran back in the fold because they needed spare parts for all the US made weapons they had.  Didn't work because Vietnam had plenty of spare US parts. Don't forget beside granting Iraq billions and allowing Western companies(from many nations) to supply Iraq, during the war, Raygun sold missiles to Iran as well.  It should be noted that soon after this news became public, Iraq attacked the USS STARK, killing 37 US sailors. Many have speculated that this was in response to Raygun dealings with Iran.  Iraq called it a mistake and quickly apologized.

Yeah Raygun figured it was Arab on Arab so the rest of the world really wouldn't care if over a million of them died.


----------



## Marc39 (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Iran's proxy, Hamas, attacks Israel on a daily basis.  Iran's other proxy, Hizballah, has attacked Israel numerous times and illegally occupies Lebanon, where it massacred 300 Marines in Beirut and terrorizes the Lebanese daily. 

Next question.  Make it smarter, this time


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Arabs are a minority in Iran idiot, and I put up the link where Iran did attack Kurdistan in Northern Iraq. Nice trying to save face but you fail yet again.


----------



## Marc39 (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Neither can anyone knock any sense into you, dummy


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

Marc39 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Yep.

First answer the first one.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...




Right because you have such big internet muscles.


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 29, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> ...



None of our allies (well companies in those countries) could have sold those supplies to him had Raygun not taken Iraq off the list of Countries that supported terrorist.  As far as I know we were the only ones to give him grant money.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...





Well here's what you are missing.

Iran hasn't initiated war in over a century. 

It has however..had it's democratically elected government knocked over by outside meddling from the United States.

And if you want to continue to make this about me personally..we are done here.

Cheers.


----------



## Marc39 (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Marc39 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Already did, champ.  You fail.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



You're the one who made the threat.

Just had to give you the reality of the situation.

Been in plenty of real life fights.


----------



## Marc39 (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Untrue.  Iran has initiated wars with Israel through its Hamas proxy and with the US through its Hizballah proxy.

Is proxy too complicated a word for you?  I can draw pictures with crayons, if that will help


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

Marc39 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Marc39 said:
> ...



No.."champ" you did not.

But then again..in your own mind..maybe you did.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Can you read? post where I threatened you. Your also a liar as well being misinformed.


----------



## Marc39 (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Shadow boxing yourself doesn't really count, tough guy.


----------



## Marc39 (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Marc39 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



For those with functioning brains, I already provided facts of Iranian-backed wars with Israel and acts of wars against the US.

You'll just have to opt out.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Marc39 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Neither does winning the Golden Globes in Mike Tysons punch out on Nintendo.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...





			
				High_Gravity said:
			
		

> Sallow knows less than zero about Iranians, if he tried to call an actual Iranian an Arab they would knock out his fucking teeth, he lost all credibility when he said that and he didn't have that much to begin with.


About there.

By the way..I have made that "mistake" in real life. That's not where I lost my teeth.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

Marc39 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Marc39 said:
> ...



Like I said chief..recruiters are looking for Muslim haters like yourself.

Feel free to join the US military.


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 29, 2010)

Marc39 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



So how many wars by proxy, have the USA initiated in Cuba, Central America, S. America, the ME, Eastern Europe.......

Do as I say, not as I do?


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

Marc39 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Marc39 said:
> ...



"Proxy" wars are real life declarations of war now? They count as invasions?

Is that what you are saying?

Really?


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Yes but when did you lose your brains?


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Marc39 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Still no comment on the Iranian strikes on Kurdistan clown face?


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

BlindBoo said:


> Marc39 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Or the Catholic Church for that matter?


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Marc39 said:
> ...



Clown face?

Is that like Poker face?

With a Clown face instead?

You a lady Gaga fan?


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Still nothing to say about the Iranian strike on Kurdistan?


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Just about when I started responding back to your assinine posts.

But..that can be remedied.

Unless you have some intelligent content to post..we are done.

Cheers.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



You said Iran never attacked another country, yet have nothing to say about the Iranian strikes on Iraqi Kurdistan, you are an idiot, you may now shut your cock holster and retreat from this thread.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



In modern times Iran generally has not been as directly aggressive as some of its neighbors but has funded terrorist organizations and others hellbent on aggression.  It is difficult to pinpoint 'blame' for the Iran/Iraq war that is generally dated from September 1980 to 1988 but there is sufficient blame to go around.  Probably technically Iraq struck the first blow but soon found itself outclassed by a USSR backed Iran.  Would Iran have attacked Iraq if Iraq had not fired first?  Hard to say.  Most historians think that was the plan though.  The conflict between Iran and Iraq spans centuries more recently with clashes between Iran's Shi-ite and Iraq's Sunni controlled governments.  Many if not most of the insurgents determined to scuttle plans for a free and independent Iraq have entered Iraq through Iran.

Iran has long been funding anit-Israeli groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah by shipping arms and missiles through Syria to such groups.

More recently in 2007 Iranian Revolutionary Guards invaded and seized most important control of the Masandam Peninsula in Oman.  That solidified Iran's complete control of the straight.  (Oman previously controlled the southern end.)


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Okay..an adult answer.

But the bottom line is Iran has not been an aggressor in a war for quite some time..and does have a list of legimate beefs.

And they did try to become more of a moderate state with the election of Khatami. Attempts to normalize relations were rebuffed by the Clinton adminstration and continued on through the Bush administration.

Which brings us to now. Iran watched two huge countries get rolled by the United States. They are nervous and should be.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



And that sir is undulturated poppycock.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Well feel free to expand on why..

If the situations were reversed and a Iranian secret service team backed a military overthrow of Eisenhower and put a decendent of King Charles on an "American Throne" then had an Iranian company start grabbing our oil..think we'd be a little miffed..

No?


----------



## Marc39 (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Iran has been involved in wars against Israel through its Hamas proxy and involved in acts of war against the US through its Hizballah proxy.

There are online dictionaries for you to look up the word "proxy," dumb dumb


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

Marc39 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Be all you can be..

Become a Marine - Contact a U.S. Marine Corps Recruiter Today


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



I'm not dealing with hypotheticals here.  If you want to play the 'what if' game, start a thread for that.  I am dealing with the actual history and the facts that we can verify from reliable sources.  You know, that history and those facts you have been ignoring or blowing off as you continue to demonstrate your ignorance on this particular subject.  Ignorance is not a sin nor a flaw.  Ignorance can be corrected by actually reading up from reliable history rather than cherry picked Wiki entries or leftwing propaganda sites.

Demanding that ignorance is truth is a flaw and sometimes a sin, however.

I also hate and quickly become bored with circular arguments.  If you wish to address or competently rebut criticisms of your posts here, go for it.  Otherwise, everything you have posted related to the actual topic has been adequately addressed.  I suggest that you review.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



You want the actual history?



> Kermit "Kim" Roosevelt, Jr. (February 16, 1916  June 8, 2000), was a Special Activities Division political action officer who coordinated the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Operation Ajax, which orchestrated the coup détat against Iran's democratically-elected prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddeq, and returned Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, to Iran's Peacock Throne in August 1953. He was also the grandson of US president Theodore Roosevelt.
> 
> Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.



My "hypothetical" is exactly what happened to Iran.


----------



## Marc39 (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Marc39 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Your FAIL duly noted.


----------



## Valerie (Dec 29, 2010)

BlackAsCoal said:


> BAGHDADPrime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ruled out the presence of any U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of 2011, saying his new government and the country's security forces were capable of confronting any remaining threats to Iraq's security, sovereignty and unity.
> 
> Mr. Maliki spoke with The Wall Street Journal in a two-hour interview, his first since Iraq ended nine months of stalemate and seated a new government after an inconclusive election, allowing Mr. Maliki to begin a second term as premier.
> 
> ...





 


The president announced that agreed upon plan in an address to the nation on August 30th...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/131090-the-presidents-speech.html








Valerie said:


> _
> "
> 
> *The Americans who have served in Iraq completed every mission they were given. *They defeated a regime that had terrorized its people. Together with Iraqis and coalition partners who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future. They shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people, trained Iraqi Security Forces, and took out terrorist leaders. Because of our troops and civilians -- and because of the resilience of the Iraqi people -- Iraq has the opportunity to embrace a new destiny, even though many challenges remain.
> ...




Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the End of Combat Operations in Iraq | The White House


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 29, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > (R)IGHTeous 1 said:
> ...



I missed this earlier, but you are absolutely correct.  The UN Security Council and many member nations had a strong interest in neither Iraq nor Iran 'winning' that war.

I remember in the aftermath of Desert Storm, President H.W. Bush's military advisors wincing when he returned from Iraq and said he was proud to see not a single piece of American weaponry among that destroyed or captured.  He might not have seen it, but they all new that there was a LOT of U.S. weaponry there.  One of those presidential gaffes for the history books.


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 29, 2010)

Sallow said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Because naive it is not, thanks.


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 29, 2010)

BlindBoo said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Your link contained not one meniton of the USA supplying or building chemical weapons for Iraq, at best the article states Rumsfeld held meetings with Iraqi's the same day they gassed Iranians.

Are you stating Rumsfeld passed gas?


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

mdn2000 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > mdn2000 said:
> ...



Okay..lets go piece by piece.

America's admitted less then 10K refugees..that's compared over 2 million displaced by the war.

And exactly what business does the United States have in the Middle East? America isn't enough for us?

The Gassing of Kurds and the Iran/Iraq war took place at the behest of the United States. The government provided them with plans on how to construct the chemical weapons and hardware. And you do know that the Kurds are considered terrorists by most nations in that region..and us.


----------



## Revere (Dec 29, 2010)

What business does China have with Africa?

Oh, I know.

Oil exploration contracts with any African nation with oil.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

Revere said:


> What business does China have with Africa?
> 
> Oh, I know.
> 
> Oil exploration contracts with any African nation with oil.



So China's your model for the United States.

Got it..comrade.


----------



## Revere (Dec 29, 2010)

Superpowers, or countries that want to be them, do these things.


----------



## Foxfyre (Dec 29, 2010)

Revere said:


> Superpowers, or countries that want to be them, do these things.



And tree huggers who don't want their own country to explore or produce or refine any more of its own oil put the government in the position of HAVING to do these things.  Which is why the Middle East is of interest to just about everybody and why it was of interest to free people everywhere that neither Iraq nor Iran control all or most of the oil in that region.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 29, 2010)

Oh gosh.

After a decades of braying "No..we are they're to help "free" the people". The truth is slowing seeping out?

Like oil from beneath the sands?

I saw a bumper sticker that read something like: "How did all our oil wind up in the Middle East".

Yep.

And Bob's your uncle.


----------



## Revere (Dec 29, 2010)

Will Africans crash jetliners into Chinese skyscrapers over oil?


----------



## Revere (Dec 29, 2010)

All superpowers negotiate commerce to their advantage.


----------



## Revere (Dec 29, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Superpowers, or countries that want to be them, do these things.
> ...



The people in the middle east who claim to be exploited, the Bin Laden family, to wit, are actually wealthy beyond the means of most Americans thanks to oil.


----------



## Revere (Dec 29, 2010)

Free people participate in free commerce, yes.


----------



## shintao (Dec 29, 2010)

Ok retards, you wasted 4000 US Troop lives, 10,000 disabled US Troops, 1/2 million dead civilians, and destroyed the infrastructure of a sovereign nation you have to repair, plus your out a trillion dollars you owe to the PRC.

*Was it worth it *now you know Iraq is kicking your ass out of there in 12 months?


----------



## Samir (Dec 29, 2010)

get out it is ours.

we take it soon.


----------



## Revere (Dec 29, 2010)

The destiny of Islam is medieval shit holes.


----------



## (R)IGHTeous 1 (Dec 30, 2010)

shintao said:


> Ok retards, you wasted 4000 US Troop lives, 10,000 disabled US Troops, 1/2 million dead civilians, and destroyed the infrastructure of a sovereign nation you have to repair, plus your out a trillion dollars you owe to the PRC.
> 
> *Was it worth it *now you know Iraq is kicking your ass out of there in 12 months?


----------



## Samir (Dec 30, 2010)

shia here knows we take it all.

first Lebanon they run like rats hehe 

now iraq they run like rats hehe

afganistan they have date to run like rats hehhehehehehehehehhe


----------



## Douger (Dec 30, 2010)

Not happening. 
Al_CIA_duh will make sure their is another "crisis" for their pimps at Halliburton.
Extended U.S. presence in Iraq? - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq - msnbc.com


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 30, 2010)

shintao said:


> Ok retards, you wasted 4000 US Troop lives, 10,000 disabled US Troops, 1/2 million dead civilians, and destroyed the infrastructure of a sovereign nation you have to repair, plus your out a trillion dollars you owe to the PRC.


Iraq is this generations Vietnam.

Same story; same outcome.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

Samir said:


> shia here knows we take it all.
> 
> first Lebanon they run like rats hehe
> 
> ...



You are a fucking idiot.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Marc39 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



"Be all you can be" was an old Army Quote that they no longer use. The Marines is the Few the proud, god your on a roll, first the Iranians are Arabs and now this.


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 30, 2010)

Sallow said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



10k refugees, sounds great to me, according to the 2000 census that is a 25% increase of Iraqi's in the USA.

Refugees, maybe you could explain why Iraqis should be relocated clearly to the other side of the globe? Funny thing about the Middle East and most other Countries is they restrict their citizens to the borders, in the USA I can move 2000 miles and still be in the USA, in the Middle East most people are restricted to areas or nations or states that are no more than a hundred miles by two hundred miles, in Iraq, without spending too much time on google I can say the Iraqi citizen cannot live in Damascus, Jordan, or Iran and the move or distance is tiny, Americans can enjoy a weekend trip which is a further distance than the dictators allow in there people to travel. 

So the problem is not the United States, its the lack of human rights in the Middle East, the problem is the culture, one family cannot move to another city in Iraq, for instance take blood feuds, at the core of a tribe is family, blood feuds between families or members of tribes prevent them from freely living within another tribes area. The history of cities in the Middle East is the history of tribes and blood feuds. The history of the states and nations is also the history of segregation based on ones religous beliefs. 

Who is addressing this and how does this effect the refugee problem. 

Of course without a detailed study of just how many people who are in refugee status at this moment this conversation is mute. If there is indeed a refugee problem why is the President not addressing this, where are the Liberals addressing the situation.

So now I have to investigate if there are refugees, what are the conditions they are living in, did they find family or allies to live with, was there any issue with blood feuds, did they have to reconcile past differences in which Arabia has always been divided. 

How much of this have you even thought of let alone investigated, I can admit I have not and a simple answer to this is not an answer at all.

If you really want to go "point to point", why are we not discussing one point and presenting as much information as possible, afterwards we can sift through it until we come to the truth.

There are Iraqi's that never left, I would question the 2,000,000 million refugees in other countries. If that is what you meant. You may of meant just displaced from there city or home. 

Of those 2,000,000, its obvious many have returned. After all, the end of violence and peace returned with Obama and the Liberals. I am sure Obama can talk away all the violence and there is no need to have refugees.

Of the 2,000,000 you claim, and I question the accuracy of the figure, what percentage left for no other reason than thier past economic situation was not good so they fled hoping for a new oppurtunity. 

Anyhow we have a terrible immigration policy, which ties directly to any refugee problem. Appeasing Islam is another terrible policy, how would these immigrants or refugees think of us if we did the right thing and destroyed all the dictators and monarchies and provided the people with Liberty and Freedom, that would destroy Islam, for Allah would be seen not to exist, if we were really men of principle we would free the Middle East from the backward thought, the primitive culture in which they live. Allah would be powerless to stop us from giving rights to women. The people of Iraq have literally seen the Christian Army destroy all that Allah supposedly built. So if we took that further and eliminated all the tyranny and denial of basic rights to man and woman, this act would show there is no Allah. This would show the Moslem world there is a superior power than their faith in Allah.

So if you were sincere or actually knew what the hell your talking about, you stated lets go point to point, to me that is having a detailed discussion on what you list first, refugees.



> America's admitted less then 10K refugees..that's compared over 2 million displaced by the war.



This is a pretty piss poor start on your part, you could of provided a lot more then this tiny bit of propaganda. 

I take this all back, I had an epiphany, sorry.

Obama has said he is pulling out the troops, you have identified a problem, the war is not over, we have not succeeded yet the Liberals are running and leaving 2,000,000 people displaced from their homes. Those people have a right to live in peace, in Iraq, where they were born. We cannot leave until basic human rights are recognized. This is not the case. 

Why is Obama running from a war that is not over, this has as much to do with people have a right to homes where they are born, they have a right to eat at Mcdonalds and drink Budwieser. They have no rights to kill forbid Christians to live in their land. As long as this is the culture or religion there is no place for Islam on earth. 

This is the exact appeasment of Islam that creates Saddam in the first place, this is the type of appeasement that creates over a dozen mass murderers that killed all those innocent people working at the World Trade Center.

The last thing we need now is to take our troops out of the Middle East. Mcdonalds and Budwieser. The freedom and liberty of Christians.

What right do we have to interfere with death and murder, the stoning of Christians, the stoning of Adulterers, what right do we have to stop the destruction of churches that are over a thousand years old. What right do we have to stop child rape and the culture the covers a woman in a bag and only allows her in public under escort of a man.

A better question is what right do you have forcing me to turn my back on humanity.

So step up, point by point, the refugees, your ignoring the problem.


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 30, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



You pile up questions faster than anyone can answer them, nice tactic, how about you step up and address some of the shit you through around.

Lets start by seeing if you can name Iran's beefs, no link please, your informed on the subject so just tell us what you know.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Marc39 said:
> ...



Are you this anal in real life? Gosh..I hope not.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 30, 2010)

mdn2000 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Go through the thread.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 30, 2010)

mdn2000 said:


> Refugees, maybe you could explain why Iraqis should be relocated clearly to the other side of the globe?



Because we invaded their country, knocked over their government, destoryed their infrastructure, disbanded their military and caused civil unrest...for a reason that amounts to a war crime.

That's why.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Don't be mad because all your posts are inaccurate.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



yeah, unless he was talking to an arabian iranian.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 30, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Wouldn't happen if you were talking to one either. Unlike the poster..I've interacted with both in real life. You make that mistake with an Iranian..they politely correct you. Either way.

This guy saw a wiki page or another post..and now he's an expert. I've really been in the Middle East. And heck..I don't claim to be an expert on any of it.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Trollin trollin trollin

Keep dem doggies trollin


----------



## L.K.Eder (Dec 30, 2010)

Sallow said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



yeah, i travelled iran. and saw arabs. and turks. and afghans. many many afghans.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 30, 2010)

Iranians are Persian and not Arab.

They speak Farsi and not Arabic.

And have a different history and culture.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

Sunni Man said:


> Iranians are Persian and not Arab.
> 
> They speak Farsi and not Arabic.
> 
> And have a different history and culture.



I tried telling these clowns that yesterday Sunni, they don't know what they are talking about. Next we will be hearing about how Pakistan is a majority Hindu country.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

Sallow said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Please, according to you Iran is an Arabian country so you have no credibility here, don't try and lie and claim you have been to the Middle East when you haven't even left the State that you live in.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Yeah and? there are Persians, Arabs and Afghans living here as well, they are minorities in Iran. There are black people living in Iran as well, doesn't mean it is a Black country.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


----------



## L.K.Eder (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



persians are a minority in iran?


----------



## Sallow (Dec 30, 2010)

Tell ya what High_Gravity. I am going to Mumbai in May 2011. If you are up for it..we can meet for a couple of brews in Leopold's Cafe..

Mumbai Hangouts - 6 Popular Mumbai Hangouts with Cheap Beer

Lemme know. Just don't get to belligerent when you get drunk...


----------



## Sallow (Dec 30, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



One poorly worded post..and poof..

There goes your cred.

To bad.

To bad.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Dec 30, 2010)

Sallow said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



one has to be very careful here.


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Tell ya what High_Gravity. I am going to Mumbai in May 2011. If you are up for it..we can meet for a couple of brews in Leopold's Cafe..
> 
> Mumbai Hangouts - 6 Popular Mumbai Hangouts with Cheap Beer
> 
> Lemme know. Just don't get to belligerent when you get drunk...



Do they sell malt liquor in Mumbai?


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

Sallow said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Shot myself in the foot, oh well. Now we are even.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Tell ya what High_Gravity. I am going to Mumbai in May 2011. If you are up for it..we can meet for a couple of brews in Leopold's Cafe..
> ...



Dunno..this is going to be a first for me. Never been to India. Check out the link..

And my girlfriend is getting a little nutty over it. No wimmen allowed..


----------



## Samson (Dec 30, 2010)

BlackAsCoal said:


> > "The last American soldier will leave Iraq" as agreed, he said, speaking at his office in a leafy section of Baghdad's protected Green Zone. "This agreement is not subject to extension, not subject to alteration. It is sealed."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



huh?

How does your ludacrous leap of logic go from US Troops leaving a pacified Iraq to Iraq becomming part of Iran?


----------



## High_Gravity (Dec 30, 2010)

Sallow said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Well I hear Mumbai is a good place but becareful they did have those terrorist attacks there years ago.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 30, 2010)

High_Gravity said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Yep. At the Taj Mahal Hotel. My Girlfriend stayed there a while back. It's supposed to be the most beautiful in India.

Real shame.


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 30, 2010)

mdn2000 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



From the link you complained about and obviously didn't read.

"A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a "witch's brew" of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.

The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialised computers, lasers, testing and analysing equipment. Among the better-known companies were Hewlett Packard, Unisys, Data General and Honeywell."


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 30, 2010)

Sallow said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



No, name the beefs, go back and quote yourself, its that simple, if you know what you speak of than its easily at the tip of your tongue, go ahead and post.

What is Iran's beef. You said it, I dont see it pointed out, you could easily provide a simplton one sentence answer, likely that is all you did in the first place, so go ahead, I wont go back in the thread to attempt and make sense of all your propaganda and rants.

You can either re-state if you already stated the beef or you can act like you really dont know. Either way, you serve my purpose, you refusal here is seen by a failure if anyone reads my post, I know casual readers of post will not take the time to dig your up your one comment in how many posts, people will simply see that I challenged Sallow and Sallow deflected and was unable to answer.

My point is when challenged, Sallow is hard pressed to provide an answer thus Sallow attacks the user and deflects from the topic.


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 30, 2010)

BlindBoo said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



And if I take a hour I will show how the "witch's brew" was far from a chemical weapon, how it was France, Germany, and Italy that provided what you contend in this article. The report briefly at best addresses this and when I get back to this I will go through the report piece by piece. I read the report and will get back to it, sorry no time, I off to the store to get some food.


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 30, 2010)

BlindBoo said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Quick note, you linked to an article, I took that a step further and read from the actual report, which do you wish to discuss, the article or the report.


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 30, 2010)

First the article is a litany of ugly propaganda not even presenting facts, just heresy. The article references other articles from the New York times and Los Angeles times. One thing comes to mind is the NY Times article written by one of those journalist that was fired. Not relevant but thrown in I ad my own doubt and propaganda. 

According to Norm, Iraq went to war with Iran at the command of Jimmy Carter in 1980. The author continues then to bring up the names of Haig, Rumsfeld, Reagan, and Bush. Where is the mention of Carter, if the author is correct in his propaganda than he must state Carter yet the author is attempting to blame the entire actions of Saddam Hussein on Conservatives. This is the kind of partisan crap that educates the ignorant and the fools. This one paragraph is entirely false, of course Chomsky's linguistic experts will correct me and point out that is not the intent.

Anyhow, the author is all over the place with quotes and accusations. I have easily discredited the author in about two minutes. The rest of the article will easily be proven false outside of checking the authors sources.

Blindboo, if you would narrow down what you think is the strongest point made in the article I will gladly take the time to see how well I can decimate the point.

How he US armed Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons | Green Left Weekly



> Washington immediately began to "cast about for ways to undermine or overthrow the Iranian revolution, or make up for the loss of the Shah. Hussein's regime put up its hand. On September 22, 1980, Iraq launched an invasion of Iran. Throughout the bloody eight-year-long war &#8212; which cost at least 1 million lives &#8212; Washington backed Iraq


----------



## American Horse (Dec 30, 2010)

BlackAsCoal said:


> BAGHDADPrime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ruled out the presence of any U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of 2011, saying his new government and the country's security forces were capable of confronting any remaining threats to Iraq's security, sovereignty and unity.
> 
> Mr. Maliki spoke with The Wall Street Journal in a two-hour interview, his first since Iraq ended nine months of stalemate and seated a new government after an inconclusive election, allowing Mr. Maliki to begin a second term as premier.
> 
> ...



"This agreement is not subject to extension, not subject to alteration. It is sealed."

" - He also said that even as Iraq bids farewell to U.S. troops, he wouldn't allow his nation to be pulled into alignment with Iran, despite voices supporting such an alliance within his government. 

"For Iraq to be dragged into an axis or an orbit, that's impossible, and we reject it whether this comes from Iran, Turkey or the Arabs," he said. 

He added that a kind of "paranoia" about a Tehran-Baghdad alliance in the U.S. is matched by a fear in Iran about U.S. influence: "An Iranian official visited me in the past and told me, 'I thought the Americans were standing at the door of your office,' " he said.

In an interview in Washington, Vice President Joe Biden also said Iran had failed to buy influence during the election or to co-opt Mr. Maliki, who was among the members of the current Iraqi government who briefly took refuge in Iran during the reign of Saddam Hussein. - "


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 30, 2010)

BlindBoo said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



I read the article, a lot of bull shit to address and to distract, so many tiny details. First, why call it just a, "1994 US Senate report". There is no reference to what report they speak. The only report I find searching on that year, the senate, Iraq, and chemical weapons is the "Riegle Report". In no way are we a 100% sure this is what Norm Dixon is referencing, Norm Dixon does not list sources, just propaganda.

Did you read the Riegle Report, is this what you wish to discuss, which page, you are aware that Democrat Senator Boxer and Democrat Senator Kerry participated in the report. Most likely why both Senators stated Saddam had WMD's and that was justification for the 2nd Gulf War.

So if its the Riegle report you wish to discuss that is fine with me. The article itself is not source, just propaganda.

How about this as the source, I am not sure but this may not be the full report. The report is proving Saddam's use of Chemical and Biological weapons against the US troops fighting the first gulf war. I think this is why the report is vaguely referred to only as the 1994 senate report.


----------



## mdn2000 (Dec 30, 2010)

Sallow said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Refugees, maybe you could explain why Iraqis should be relocated clearly to the other side of the globe?
> ...



Because we liberated their country, gave them government instead of dictatorship, are rebuilding infrastructure that never existed, disbanded the tyrants in the military, and restored much civility across the country. 

The state you describe never existed in Iraq unless you describe rule under Saddam. All you prove is there is a religious minority that has yet to be defeated.

The people can be refugees in the Arab world easier then adjusting to life here. Still it would be nice to know exactly who we speak of, the conditions they lived in before we restored Liberty, and the conditions after. I would stay out of Iraq if I could, I cannot blame the people there. Still its there land. They should join us and fight for it. But than again, you pretty much state Obama is running and leaving behind a mess, why stay. From now on Iraq is all Obama. Any refugee problem must be addressed by Obama.

Because we liberated a country is not reason to accept refugees, they have a home, a land, a country. If they are unwilling to fight we do not need them, if they are unable to fight and Iraq cannot protect them Obama is ignoring a problem that is Obama's problem.


----------



## trobinett (Dec 31, 2010)

Black As Coal:



> BAGHDADPrime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ruled out the presence of any U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of 2011, saying his new government and the country's security forces were capable of confronting any remaining threats to Iraq's security, sovereignty and unity.



I just love these dick heads, they can handle it, UNTIL, they CAN'T handle it, then its dial 911, and hope the United States sends the "Red, White, and Blue.  Well, FUCK you, were tired of bailing your sorry ass's out of trouble.  Get use to living on the edge, and if your family is dragged out of your house at 2:00 AM in the morning and your daughter is raped, well, I thought you could handle that.

Am I wrong?

.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 5, 2011)

trobinett said:


> Black As Coal:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Muslims in Iraq are killing Christians by the bushel full and they don't want any U.S. interference. This is happening everywhere in the Middle East. 

I figure it's time to leave. If they act up again...nuke the fuckers.


----------



## MOOE (Jan 6, 2011)

I think you can´t change the culture there with our "great western style". I feel sorry for the american soldiers and soldiers from other countries still falling for nothing in this illegal war.


----------



## hipeter924 (Jan 7, 2011)

mdn2000 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > mdn2000 said:
> ...


That is true but many leftists support Saddam Hussein and the genocide of the Kurds, regardless of the way they see it and the chaos that resulted and continues, it is far better than what would have been had Saddam and his cronies remained in power. 

They ignore how much people suffered under Saddam's rule (including state sponsored torture on random citizens and gangs of Saddam's street thugs), shrug it off and blame the USA for everything, the extent to which leftists worship Saddam Hussein as some kind of god or image of American 'reckless military action' is so ludicrous it makes left wing support of Communist dictators look like a casual business arrangement. 

That Iraqi's 'hate the US, and wanted Saddam to remain in power' is bizare as both Kurds, and many Shiite's and Sunni's are thankful that Saddam Hussein was removed from power, and would have 'suffered' the 'occupation' a million times over than still have him leading the country.

But that hardly matters, if everyone hates you and they want your head, why give a shit what they think, if they want the US to care about ethics so much the Muslim radicals can start with ending suicide bombings of their own mosques and places of worship, and leftists can stop holding hands with terrorists and demonizing Israel, and at last see their own hypocrisy of claiming they want peace and supporting war against Jews and the US.


----------



## FRIKSHUN (Jul 4, 2011)

Did you know listen and silent use the same letters?

 Do you know that the words race car spelled backwards still spells 
 race car?

 And that eat is the only word that if you take the first letter and 
 move it to the last, it spells its past
 tense ate?

 And have you noticed that if you rearrange the letters in illegal 
 immigrants, and add just a few more
 letters, it spells: Go home you free-loading, benefit-grabbing, 
 resource-sucking, baby-making,
 non-English-speaking jackasses and take those other hairy-faced, 
 rag-headed, sandal-wearing, bomb-making,
 camel-riding, goat-loving, raggedy-ass bastards with you.

 How weird is that?


----------

