What Did You Do In The War On Terror, Daddy

[red states rule]

keep running away from the debate..... your cowardice is overwhelming.

You are the one running away - all that is left is the vapor trail from your yellow streak

 

[maineman]

you have never provided anything that states that Iran would fund Al Qaeda...and the mere fact that you continue to suggest such idiocy is proof of your total lack of understanding about the various factions in this conflict.

Will you answer my question about Britain, please?

did Britain surrender, or give up or submit to any enemy power when they left Palestine in the spring of 1948?

no tapdancing.... no posturing...no ridiculous victory claims.... just answer the questions or shut the fuck up. I really grow tired of your complete refusal to back up your own statements.

 

[red states rule]

Iran's Secret Plan For Mayhem
By ELI LAKE
Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 3, 2007


WASHINGTON — Iran is supporting both Sunni and Shiite terrorists in the Iraqi civil war, according to secret Iranian documents captured by Americans in Iraq.

The news that American forces had captured Iranians in Iraq was widely reported last month, but less well known is that the Iranians were carrying documents that offered Americans insight into Iranian activities in Iraq.

An American intelligence official said the new material, which has been authenticated within the intelligence community, confirms "that Iran is working closely with both the Shiite militias and Sunni Jihadist groups." The source was careful to stress that the Iranian plans do not extend to cooperation with Baathist groups fighting the government in Baghdad, and said the documents rather show how the Quds Force — the arm of Iran's revolutionary guard that supports Shiite Hezbollah, Sunni Hamas, and Shiite death squads — is working with individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunna.

Another American official who has seen the summaries of the reporting affiliated with the arrests said it comprised a "smoking gun." "We found plans for attacks, phone numbers affiliated with Sunni bad guys, a lot of things that filled in the blanks on what these guys are up to," the official said.

One of the documents captured in the raids, according to two American officials and one Iraqi official, is an assessment of the Iraq civil war and new strategy from the Quds Force. According to the Iraqi source, that assessment is the equivalent of " Iran's Iraq Study Group," a reference to the bipartisan American commission that released war strategy recommendations after the November 7 elections. The document concludes, according to these sources, that Iraq's Sunni neighbors will step up their efforts to aid insurgent groups and that it is imperative for Iran to redouble efforts to retain influence with them, as well as with Shiite militias.

http://www.nysun.com/article/46032

 

[maineman]

this makes four, I believe.

 

[red states rule]

this makes four, I believe.

still have a phobia with the truth I see

 

[maineman]

I searched the web,and the only place such a bizarre claim was made was in the New York SUN. Do you consider that PROOF? If so, let me ask you a question: if I posted an article written by a New York Times staff writer and tried to suggest that the article was proof of anything, what would be your response?

 

[red states rule]

I searched the web,and the only place such a bizarre claim was made was in the New York SUN. Do you consider that PROOF? If so, let me ask you a question: if I posted an article written by a New York Times staff writer and tried to suggest that the article was proof of anything, what would be your response?

You asked for a credible source. It lists names, dates, and are give the details

Keep thinking there is no threat from Iran

I have a thread on the case for bombing Iran - jump in if you like

 

[maineman]

You asked for a credible source. It lists names, dates, and are give the details

Keep thinking there is no threat from Iran

I have a thread on the case for bombing Iran - jump in if you like

I do not consider the NY Sun to be a credible source anymore than you consider the NY Times to be a credible source. And why do you purposely misstate my position? I have never said there is no threat from Iran. I know that the Iranian support for the Madhi militia and Sadr's efforts are bad for stability in Iraq. I have NEVER said otherwise.

 

[red states rule]

I do not consider the NY Sun to be a credible source anymore than you consider the NY Times to be a credible source. And why do you purposely misstate my position? I have never said there is no threat from Iran. I know that the Iranian support for the Madhi militia and Sadr's efforts are bad for stability in Iraq. I have NEVER said otherwise.

Little Adolf in Iran is a big a threat as the other Adolf was in Germany

 

[maineman]

Little Adolf in Iran is a big a threat as the other Adolf was in Germany

I have NEVER said he wasn't a threat. I have only questioned why a shiite nation would provide support to a sunni group that was engaged in killing shiites in Iraq.

 

[red states rule]

I have NEVER said he wasn't a threat. I have only questioned why a shiite nation would provide support to a sunni group that was engaged in killing shiites in Iraq.

Iran is funding them and sending weapons to defeat the US

 

[maineman]

why would Iran fund a group of people who were killing shiites in Iraq?

 

[red states rule]

why would Iran fund a group of people who were killing shiites in Iraq?

As the article stated, iran is trying to start a civil war knowing the yellow Dems will push harder for surrender

Then Iran move in and takes over with the terrorists

 

[maineman]

As the article stated, iran is trying to start a civil war knowing the yellow Dems will push harder for surrender

Then Iran move in and takes over with the terrorists

so persian shiite Iran is going to move in and take over Iraq with a group of sunni arabs? is that right? how do you think that will work out for them?

 

[Gunny]

Are you saying Bush should continue receiving a blank check with no oversight into what he's doing with the money?

Here's the deal. Congress is willing to give Bush the $ he wants but there are conditions on it. That's not unusual. Nobody is "usurping" his authority. Congress has the authority to fund and monitor that funding. It's called "checks and balances" on government. Bush doesn't like it because he's a spoiled brat and he's not used to being held accountable.

Wrong. It's called trying to dicate foreign policy and the conduct of the war to the President. While it may not be unusual, I categorically stand against ANY and ALL riders attached to bills, and 100% FOR reform of how legislature is proposed.

My stance on this issue really has little to do with this particular funding bill, and my belief that ALL proposed legislation should stand alone, on its own merit. Want to see some of the more ridiculous "pork barrel" spending go away? Shine a light on it.


Remember when Bush proposed this assinine "surge" in troop levels?

We were told that we should know whether or not it was going to work within six months. Congress has given Bush plenty of time for his surge to work or not.

What's the problem? If the deadline comes and goes something different needs to be done anyway.

On the specific issue of funding the troops, I don't think it should be tied to any partisan games.

I'm ALL FOR some non-partisan, objective people sitting down and assessing the situation and coming to the most feasible plan. The Dems are NOT the group to do that because partisanship comes first with them.

 

[maineman]

I'm ALL FOR some non-partisan, objective people sitting down and assessing the situation and coming to the most feasible plan. The Dems are NOT the group to do that because partisanship comes first with them.

Isn't that EXACTLY who the Iraq Study Group was and what they did? Bush told them to go fuck off!

 

[Gunny]

surrendering the field to whom? to sunni and shiite militias at war with one another? Whenever we leave we will do that. Are you suggesting that America annex Iraq and just stay there forever?

If we leave Iraq before the government can stand on its own and provide physical security for its Nation, we are surrendering Iraq to militant Islamic fundamentalists from BOTH sides.

If we leave there having gradually replaced our troops with theirs, we at least leave them no worse off without us.

I will also point out that since Congress proposed this bill with attached rider, the government of Iraq has voted to do just as I suggest, setting their own timeline. IMO, it is THEIR place to do that, not US Congressional Democrats, and it provides the most hope on this issue there is.

And I would think you liberal-types would be all for it, because if Bush refuses to support the Iraqi government's timeline for taking over the physical security of their own nation, he's going to find himself REAL short of support. I for one, will not support his refusing them, as circmustances stand now.

 

[maineman]

If we leave Iraq before the government can stand on its own and provide physical security for its Nation, we are surrendering Iraq to militant Islamic fundamentalists from BOTH sides.

If we leave there having gradually replaced our troops with theirs, we at least leave them no worse off without us.

I will also point out that since Congress proposed this bill with attached rider, the government of Iraq has voted to do just as I suggest, setting their own timeline. IMO, it is THEIR place to do that, not US Congressional Democrats, and it provides the most hope on this issue there is.

And I would think you liberal-types would be all for it, because if Bush refuses to support the Iraqi government's timeline for taking over the physical security of their own nation, he's going to find himself REAL short of support. I for one, will not support his refusing them, as circmustances stand now.

The Iraqi government can't decide on squat....do you really expect them to ever get their act together before the conflagration and actually stop it?

 

[TheStripey1]

I am not pushing for surrender

no, by supporting it, you are pushing for americans to be killed in Iraq fighting FOR you... FOR YOU because you aren't brave enough to enlist and help out with it...

so rsr? why do you hate american troops?

 

[red states rule]

no, by supporting it, you are pushing for americans to be killed in Iraq fighting FOR you... FOR YOU because you aren't brave enough to enlist and help out with it...

so rsr? why do you hate american troops?

I see another proud member of the angry left has joined the discussion

Dems are pushing for surrender and defeat