Why Am I Not Surprised?


Winnie G
 Share

Recommended Posts

Report raises spectre of U.S. attack on Iran

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Report raises spectre of U.S. attack on Iran

CTV.ca News Staff

Days after a published report that U.S. special forces are already conducting covert military operations in Iran, Tehran and Washington are in a growing war of words over the middle eastern nation's disputed nuclear capability.

In an article published in Sunday's New Yorker magazine, American journalist Seymour Hersh reports that U.S. commandos are already operating in Iran.

"The American task force, aided by the information from Pakistan, has been penetrating eastern Iran from Afghanistan in a hunt for underground installations," he wrote in the article outlining the U.S. President George Bush's second-term security priorities.

Keen to avoid the embarrassment that followed the Americans' inability to locate supposed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Hersh says the covert missions in Iran -- and as many as nine other nations throughout Asia and the Middle East -- are paving the way for future attacks.

In response, the Pentagon said his article was plagued by fundamental mistakes.

The New Yorker article was "so riddled with errors of fundamental fact that the credibility of his entire piece is destroyed," Pentagon spokesperson Lawrence DiRita told reporters on Monday.

D.C., Tehran trade barbs

In his 2002 State of the Union address, U.S. President George W. Bush listed Iran as one of the so-called "axis of evil" alongside North Korea and pre-war Iraq. And on Monday, in an interview with NBC News, Bush said he can't rule out military action if Tehran doesn't come entirely clean on the extent of its disputed nuclear capacity.

"I hope we can solve it diplomatically, but I will never take any option off the table," Bush said.

Washington followed its ramped-up rhetoric on Tuesday, with word of U.S. sanctions against nine companies from China, Taiwan and North Korea.

A State Department notice published in the latest issue of the U.S. Federal Register said the companies are being subject to a two-year embargo for transferring "equipment and technology controlled under multilateral export control lists" to Iran.

The same day, Russia spoke up in Tehran's defense -- with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov dismissing concerns that Iran was using its nuclear know-how to do anything other than develop energy-producing capabilities.

"I have no grounds to believe that the situation will get out of control and that the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme will be changed," he told the Interfax news agency.

"Russia and Iran have a specific dialogue going on to make sure Iran's nuclear programme stays entirely peaceful and raises no questions," he said.

Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani told the Mehr news agency that he is unmoved by the American threat of force.

"We are able to say that we have strength such that no country can attack us because they do not have precise information about our military capabilities due to our ability to implement flexible strategies," Shamkhani was quoted saying Tuesday.

"We can claim that we have rapidly produced equipment that has resulted in the greatest deterrent," he added, without clarification.

At the heart of the dispute is Iran's refusal to completely dismantle its nuclear program. While the U.S. holds firm its conviction Tehran is secretly developing a nuclear weapons capability, Iran and its allies maintain the program is entirely peaceful.

The United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, is currently investigating U.S. claims that covert nuclear programs discovered in Iran more than two years ago were aimed at producing weapons, not energy.

So far, IAEA chief inspector Mohamed ElBaradei has refused to declare Iran in breach of international nuclear nonproliferation treaties.

Iran has consistently denied having nuclear weapons, but did announce last October that it had conducted successful tests of its Shahab-3 ballistic missile, which is capable of launching a warhead more than 2,000 kilometres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheProudDuck

Originally posted by pushka@Jan 18 2005, 08:15 PM

Roll on WW3...which country do you think Georgy Boy will choose to invade next? :D

World War IV, actually.

And I'd prefer a less ground-troop-extensive strategy against Iran and Syria. Maybe a naval blockade, coupled with air strikes and special-forces raids.

Or we could use the CIA to help dissidents overthrow the mullahs and Boy Assad, if the CIA were worth a dang anymore instead of being a nest of emasculated clock-watchers with less news savvy than CNN.

Seems to me that any country that supports anti-American terrorists in any way makes itself fair game. If you don't want the Army to pay you a visit, don't give a war -- even a small one using terrorists instead of conventional forces. We're not inclined to fine distinctions after 9/11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope it is just a scare tactic I think we have had enough Vietnam type warfare.

By the way the remark, that I believe every thing I read. :rolleyes:

Come on People it was on CBC CTV BBC CNN………. And so on.

Remarks like that show paranoia for news agency’s other then the all American right or left wing. I feel Im better informed by reading and seeing all the newscast available to my family. We have cable in Canada you know and all the affiliates Canadian American and British.

I am sorry to see some of you; (not pointing elbows) would rather be less informed then some of us. After all it is not like I left out the web address so you could read it your self????? That’s Sarcasm by the way. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheProudDuck

Originally posted by Winnie G@Jan 19 2005, 09:28 AM

I hope it is just a scare tactic I think we have had enough Vietnam type warfare.

By the way the remark, that I believe every thing I read. :rolleyes:

Come on People it was on CBC CTV BBC CNN………. And so on.

Remarks like that show paranoia for news agency’s other then the all American right or left wing. I feel Im better informed by reading and seeing all the newscast available to my family. We have cable in Canada you know and all the affiliates Canadian American and British.

I am sorry to see some of you; (not pointing elbows) would rather be less informed then some of us. After all it is not like I left out the web address so you could read it your self????? That’s Sarcasm by the way. :rolleyes:

Winnie,

All the reports on CBC, CTV, BBC, and CNN are based on the reporting of one man, Seymour Hersh, who cites "anonymous sources" for his story. Hersh has a history of making spectacular claims and being spectacularly wrong. That's not paranoia, it's just the facts. Take anything coming from him with two grains of salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I would have gone after Iran before Iraq anyways. But I am not a politician hopeful... oops, I mean a general.

Well you know, somebody has to make an attempt to rid the world of terrorism and people who kill in the name of God. Lord knows nobody other than the US has even attempted to do so on their own. Must be nice to live in a world that is brought to you by the kind folks in the USA. It must be nice to know that Canadian peice of mind is bought with American blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winnie,

All the reports on CBC, CTV, BBC, and CNN are based on the reporting of one man, Seymour Hersh, who cites "anonymous sources" for his story. Hersh has a history of making spectacular claims and being spectacularly wrong. That's not paranoia, it's just the facts. Take anything coming from him with two grains of salt.

I’m sorry to say your wrong there, at lest the CBC BBC CTV.

All three have Canadian correspondence. The BBC is a dead ringer, he is a Brit you can’t miss it.

The CTV correspondent I have meet him he use to live near me in Nova Scotia. The local news went down hill from there. He is good at what he dose that’s why he is a national.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheProudDuck

Originally posted by Winnie G@Jan 21 2005, 01:28 PM

Winnie,

All the reports on CBC, CTV, BBC, and CNN are based on the reporting of one man, Seymour Hersh, who cites "anonymous sources" for his story. Hersh has a history of making spectacular claims and being spectacularly wrong. That's not paranoia, it's just the facts. Take anything coming from him with two grains of salt.

I’m sorry to say your wrong there, at lest the CBC BBC CTV.

All three have Canadian correspondence. The BBC is a dead ringer, he is a Brit you can’t miss it.

The CTV correspondent I have meet him he use to live near me in Nova Scotia. The local news went down hill from there. He is good at what he dose that’s why he is a national.

Winnie:

Yes, the CTV has its own correspondents, but in this particular case, its source is Sy Hersh. From the CTV story you quoted above:

In an article published in Sunday's New Yorker magazine, American journalist Seymour Hersh reports that U.S. commandos are already operating in Iran.

Interestingly enough, if Hersh's story were true, there's a strong case to be made that he's committed a crime -- publishing information pertaining to troop movements in a time of war. Funny that all the liberals who screamed and yelled about the "blowing" of Valerie Plame's "cover" haven't said a thing about this potentially far more serious breach of secrecy and risk of soldiers' lives. Could there be some ... partisanship at play here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's take a poll: Let's say the Bush adminsitration tells us it has information that Iran is an immediate threat to the United State.Anyone here going to believe them?

My position: It seems to me this administration's cash of credibility on the subject of who we should make war against is spent, and going into debt with every humvie unloaded in Bagdad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheProudDuck

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 22 2005, 02:44 PM

Let's take a poll: Let's say the Bush adminsitration tells us it has information that Iran is an immediate threat to the United State.Anyone here going to believe them?

My position: It seems to me this administration's cash of credibility on the subject of who we should make war against is spent, and going into debt with every humvie unloaded in Bagdad.

Me, but only because there is plenty of independent information demonstrating the threat from Iran. Just because you think someone is a liar (still waiting for evidence on an intentional lie re: Iraq, by the way) doesn't mean that he's wrong.

After all, the third time the boy cried "wolf", there really was one, and it ate up all the village sheep. The villagers should have just kicked the crap out of the boy the first time he fibbed, and presumed that he wouldn't play the same joke again and that another warning must be real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Jan 22 2005, 02:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Jan 22 2005, 02:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 22 2005, 02:44 PM

Let's take a poll: Let's say the Bush adminsitration tells us it has information that Iran is an immediate threat to the United State.Anyone here going to believe them?

My position: It seems to me this administration's cash of credibility on the subject of who we should make war against is spent, and going into debt with every humvie unloaded in Bagdad.

Me, but only because there is plenty of independent information demonstrating the threat from Iran. Just because you think someone is a liar (still waiting for evidence on an intentional lie re: Iraq, by the way) doesn't mean that he's wrong.

After all, the third time the boy cried "wolf", there really was one, and it ate up all the village sheep. The villagers should have just kicked the crap out of the boy the first time he fibbed, and presumed that he wouldn't play the same joke again and that another warning must be real.

There is a reason for the story! Liars lose their credibility. I think that is why we have elections every four years--so that we can avoid being stuck with liars forever. Unfortuanately, liars aren't bound by any rules of conduct and so can spin what ever excuse sounds convincing to schmooze that 5% of voters that is up for grabs in recent presidential elections.

On Iran, there was supposedly independent intelligence on Iraq's WMD's, according to Bush. Bottomline: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me again, shame on me". (Even I can get that one straight--I wish we had a president that could).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 22 2005, 02:15 PM

On Iran, there was supposedly independent intelligence on Iraq's WMD's, according to Bush. Bottomline: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me again, shame on me". (Even I can get that one straight--I wish we had a president that could).

Cal,

That doesn't jive with the way you represent yourself to think. Now you are trying to tell us that the reason you supported (or accepted) the Iraq invasion was cuz Bush said their were WMDs. Pardon me but since when did you depend upon an appeal to authority to decide what to believe.

Personally I kinda like Bush but my support of the invasion had not so much to do with Bush's belief that there were WMDs and more to do with what I know about Iraq from having read the news and commentaries over the past 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 22 2005, 04:15 PM

there was supposedly independent intelligence on Iraq's WMD's, according to Bush.

Both the CIA and British Intelligence put out reports on that in 2002. Links to both reports on my web site. ;)

Most world intelligence experts believed Iraq had wmd.

http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/res...intell/home.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Outshined@Jan 22 2005, 03:38 PM

Most world intelligence experts believed Iraq had wmd.

http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/res...intell/home.htm

Maybe they were all lying like the liberals charge that Bush lied (not mistaken, but lying). But why? Maybe so they could trick Bush and then later point their fingers and say "liar."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 22 2005, 04:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jan 22 2005, 04:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 22 2005, 02:15 PM

On Iran, there was supposedly independent intelligence on Iraq's WMD's, according to Bush. Bottomline: Fool me once, shame on you, fool me again, shame on me". (Even I can get that one straight--I wish we had a president that could).

Cal,

That doesn't jive with the way you represent yourself to think. Now you are trying to tell us that the reason you supported (or accepted) the Iraq invasion was cuz Bush said their were WMDs. Pardon me but since when did you depend upon an appeal to authority to decide what to believe.

Personally I kinda like Bush but my support of the invasion had not so much to do with Bush's belief that there were WMDs and more to do with what I know about Iraq from having read the news and commentaries over the past 10 years.

I don't recall appealing to any authority as to MY beliefs. My post simply pointed out that a lot of people relied on Bush's representation that Iraq posed an immediate threat due to WMD's.

None of us common folk, you included I would guess, was in any position to know whether Saddam did or didn't have WMD's. We had to rely on reports we got from the president and his cronies, and the media--actually, if we had simply believed the word of the inspectors on the ground in Iraq, we would have known the truth. Bush's analysis of the data turned out to be faulty, and there is decent evidence that he knew it or should have know it.

Sure, IF Saddam had massive suppies of WMD's, that would have made a huge difference as to the immediacy of our committing troops to do something about it. Now what we have is nothing but an interference with the internal affairs of a nation that needs to solve its own problems---and we seem to be doing nothing more than stirring up a hornets nest of anti-american sentiment. At least in Vietnam, we were enforcing a treaty we had agreed to. However, we made the same mistake in Vietnam that we are making in Iraq. We went in before we really understood the nature of the threat. Shame on us.

Before I knew there were no serious WMD's in Iraq, my position was....Saddam is not presently threatening to use them on us, lets continue to use diplomatic pressure and military containment, and see if we can't either help topple his regime from within or wait him out until he either dies, or his own people do away with him.....in any case, there was NO reason for us to proceed on the timeline we did... and without the lies told by Bush about WMD's, the american people would likely not supported an invasion on Bush's timeline. It is almost unprecedented on our part, as a matter of national values and priorities to invade a country that 1) has not ASKED us to invade and 2) poses no immediate threat to us. Bush has betrayed those values, and should be IMPEACHED for it, not re-elected....unfortunately, he is STILL a good liar, and managed to swing that undecided 5% to his side....mainly by snowing the american people into thinking that he could protect us against terrorism better than Kerry. The real joke being that he has probably created more terrorists than ever existed before.... it remains to be seen whether that will translate into more terrorism OUTSIDE Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheProudDuck

At least in Vietnam, we were enforcing a treaty we had agreed to.

Same deal in Iraq. Saddam violated the 1991 cease fire (see UN Resolution 1441). Time in.

Were you calling for President Clinton's impeachment when he invaded the Serbian province of Kosovo without so much as a by-your-leave either from Slobo or the UN? There was even less of an immediate threat to us from the Serbs than from Iraq, whose dictator was our acknowledged enemy. My thinking is that after 9/11, any regime that supported any anti-American terrorist group (as did Iraq; see Salman Pak) had better get on the side of the angels toute de suite.

The real joke being that he has probably created more terrorists than ever existed before

The idea that fighting terrorists creates more terrorists has always struck me as remarkably like the attitude of a victim of abuse: Don't fight back; it'll just make the bully madder. If masses of Arabs are so barbaric so as to be turned to bona fide terrorism (referring to killing civilians, not soldiers) by the Iraq campaign, then better that they be pushed over the edge sooner rather than later, so they can be identified and chewed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 24 2005, 05:39 PM

At least in Vietnam, we were enforcing a treaty we had agreed to.

Same deal in Iraq. Saddam violated the 1991 cease fire (see UN Resolution 1441). Time in.

Were you calling for President Clinton's impeachment when he invaded the Serbian province of Kosovo without so much as a by-your-leave either from Slobo or the UN? There was even less of an immediate threat to us from the Serbs than from Iraq, whose dictator was our acknowledged enemy. My thinking is that after 9/11, any regime that supported any anti-American terrorist group (as did Iraq; see Salman Pak) had better get on the side of the angels toute de suite.

The real joke being that he has probably created more terrorists than ever existed before

The idea that fighting terrorists creates more terrorists has always struck me as remarkably like the attitude of a victim of abuse: Don't fight back; it'll just make the bully madder. If masses of Arabs are so barbaric so as to be turned to bona fide terrorism (referring to killing civilians, not soldiers) by the Iraq campaign, then better that they be pushed over the edge sooner rather than later, so they can be identified and chewed up.

Bottom line is, as long as we have soldiers on the ground in Iraq, insurgents or other radical Muslims will have an excuse to terrorize us along with the other innocent "stand bys". At some point, we are going to have to find a good excuse to get out. Look at it this way, if we had an arab armed force occupying this country, don't you think every red neck, shot gun-toting, pickup truck driving Bubba would be taking pot shots at them everytime they got the chance. (I might even buy a pickup!)

Well, the insurgents are the Iraq version of Bubba!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cal+Jan 25 2005, 06:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jan 25 2005, 06:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Jan 24 2005, 05:39 PM

At least in Vietnam, we were enforcing a treaty we had agreed to.

Same deal in Iraq. Saddam violated the 1991 cease fire (see UN Resolution 1441). Time in.

Were you calling for President Clinton's impeachment when he invaded the Serbian province of Kosovo without so much as a by-your-leave either from Slobo or the UN? There was even less of an immediate threat to us from the Serbs than from Iraq, whose dictator was our acknowledged enemy. My thinking is that after 9/11, any regime that supported any anti-American terrorist group (as did Iraq; see Salman Pak) had better get on the side of the angels toute de suite.

The real joke being that he has probably created more terrorists than ever existed before

The idea that fighting terrorists creates more terrorists has always struck me as remarkably like the attitude of a victim of abuse: Don't fight back; it'll just make the bully madder. If masses of Arabs are so barbaric so as to be turned to bona fide terrorism (referring to killing civilians, not soldiers) by the Iraq campaign, then better that they be pushed over the edge sooner rather than later, so they can be identified and chewed up.

Bottom line is, as long as we have soldiers on the ground in Iraq, insurgents or other radical Muslims will have an excuse to terrorize us along with the other innocent "stand bys". At some point, we are going to have to find a good excuse to get out. Look at it this way, if we had an arab armed force occupying this country, don't you think every red neck, shot gun-toting, pickup truck driving Bubba would be taking pot shots at them everytime they got the chance. (I might even buy a pickup!)

Well, the insurgents are the Iraq version of Bubba!

I don't disagree with your analogy, Cal, as far as it goes, but you don't carry it far enough.

Sure, every gun-toting redneck would take pot-shots at every passing arab whenever they got the chance, but the minute they were gone, it would be over. The rednecks would go on to bigger and better things. The difference being that it doesn't matter whether we are there or not. The fact that the western, capitalistic world is corrupting (or seen by them to be corrupting) their ways, we are a threat and they will not stop attacking till we are no longer a threat.

That's a heck of a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jenda+Jan 25 2005, 06:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Jan 25 2005, 06:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 25 2005, 06:51 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Jan 24 2005, 05:39 PM

At least in Vietnam, we were enforcing a treaty we had agreed to.

Same deal in Iraq. Saddam violated the 1991 cease fire (see UN Resolution 1441). Time in.

Were you calling for President Clinton's impeachment when he invaded the Serbian province of Kosovo without so much as a by-your-leave either from Slobo or the UN? There was even less of an immediate threat to us from the Serbs than from Iraq, whose dictator was our acknowledged enemy. My thinking is that after 9/11, any regime that supported any anti-American terrorist group (as did Iraq; see Salman Pak) had better get on the side of the angels toute de suite.

The real joke being that he has probably created more terrorists than ever existed before

The idea that fighting terrorists creates more terrorists has always struck me as remarkably like the attitude of a victim of abuse: Don't fight back; it'll just make the bully madder. If masses of Arabs are so barbaric so as to be turned to bona fide terrorism (referring to killing civilians, not soldiers) by the Iraq campaign, then better that they be pushed over the edge sooner rather than later, so they can be identified and chewed up.

Bottom line is, as long as we have soldiers on the ground in Iraq, insurgents or other radical Muslims will have an excuse to terrorize us along with the other innocent "stand bys". At some point, we are going to have to find a good excuse to get out. Look at it this way, if we had an arab armed force occupying this country, don't you think every red neck, shot gun-toting, pickup truck driving Bubba would be taking pot shots at them everytime they got the chance. (I might even buy a pickup!)

Well, the insurgents are the Iraq version of Bubba!

I don't disagree with your analogy, Cal, as far as it goes, but you don't carry it far enough.

Sure, every gun-toting redneck would take pot-shots at every passing arab whenever they got the chance, but the minute they were gone, it would be over. The rednecks would go on to bigger and better things. The difference being that it doesn't matter whether we are there or not. The fact that the western, capitalistic world is corrupting (or seen by them to be corrupting) their ways, we are a threat and they will not stop attacking till we are no longer a threat.

That's a heck of a difference.

I never said the would stop attacking just because we leave Iraq, but they WILL stop attacking our soldiers---and that is what I am concerned about. Our guys are dying for NOTHING.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheProudDuck

Well, the insurgents are the Iraq version of Bubba!

Insurgents, schminsurgents. Why doesn't the media call them death squads, or paramilitaries, or any of those disapproving names that similar murderers in the service of right-wing tyrants get called?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cal+Jan 25 2005, 07:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jan 25 2005, 07:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Jenda@Jan 25 2005, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 25 2005, 06:51 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Jan 24 2005, 05:39 PM

At least in Vietnam, we were enforcing a treaty we had agreed to.

Same deal in Iraq. Saddam violated the 1991 cease fire (see UN Resolution 1441). Time in.

Were you calling for President Clinton's impeachment when he invaded the Serbian province of Kosovo without so much as a by-your-leave either from Slobo or the UN? There was even less of an immediate threat to us from the Serbs than from Iraq, whose dictator was our acknowledged enemy. My thinking is that after 9/11, any regime that supported any anti-American terrorist group (as did Iraq; see Salman Pak) had better get on the side of the angels toute de suite.

The real joke being that he has probably created more terrorists than ever existed before

The idea that fighting terrorists creates more terrorists has always struck me as remarkably like the attitude of a victim of abuse: Don't fight back; it'll just make the bully madder. If masses of Arabs are so barbaric so as to be turned to bona fide terrorism (referring to killing civilians, not soldiers) by the Iraq campaign, then better that they be pushed over the edge sooner rather than later, so they can be identified and chewed up.

Bottom line is, as long as we have soldiers on the ground in Iraq, insurgents or other radical Muslims will have an excuse to terrorize us along with the other innocent "stand bys". At some point, we are going to have to find a good excuse to get out. Look at it this way, if we had an arab armed force occupying this country, don't you think every red neck, shot gun-toting, pickup truck driving Bubba would be taking pot shots at them everytime they got the chance. (I might even buy a pickup!)

Well, the insurgents are the Iraq version of Bubba!

I don't disagree with your analogy, Cal, as far as it goes, but you don't carry it far enough.

Sure, every gun-toting redneck would take pot-shots at every passing arab whenever they got the chance, but the minute they were gone, it would be over. The rednecks would go on to bigger and better things. The difference being that it doesn't matter whether we are there or not. The fact that the western, capitalistic world is corrupting (or seen by them to be corrupting) their ways, we are a threat and they will not stop attacking till we are no longer a threat.

That's a heck of a difference.

I never said the would stop attacking just because we leave Iraq, but they WILL stop attacking our soldiers---and that is what I am concerned about. Our guys are dying for NOTHING.

OH. So you would rather them attack the (unarmed) US citizens on US soil than the trained soldiers, who are really trained to keep killing to a minimum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 25 2005, 09:58 PM

Well, the insurgents are the Iraq version of Bubba!

Insurgents, schminsurgents. Why doesn't the media call them death squads, or paramilitaries, or any of those disapproving names that similar murderers in the service of right-wing tyrants get called?

A rose by any other name..... I think we all know what they are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share