Iran--puppet master? US has 'proof' of Irans help in the insurgent community

[CaffeineKid1988]

it demonizes half of the political spectrum, and that is no way to effectively run a democracy

Yeah, well, neither is a government the size of Rosie O'Donnell's ass, you LIBERAL.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Yeah, well, neither is a government the size of Rosie O'Donnell's ass, you LIBERAL.

Why don't you come back when you're not so wet behind the ears? Or, maybe when you don't need your parent's permission to use the computer? Your puerile comment adds nothing of value to the thread, on which no one supporting the administration has presented substantive evidence to support claims which even the Chimpy and Co have backed away from.

And while we're at it, why hasn't anyone in the Administration commented on Saudi support for the Sunni insurgents in Iraq? After all, they're the ones shooting down our choppers.

 

[red states rule]

Why don't you come back when you're not so wet behind the ears? Or, maybe when you don't need your parent's permission to use the computer? Your puerile comment adds nothing of value to the thread, on which no one supporting the administration has presented substantive evidence to support claims which even the Chimpy and Co have backed away from.

And while we're at it, why hasn't anyone in the Administration commented on Saudi support for the Sunni insurgents in Iraq? After all, they're the ones shooting down our choppers.

Actually nothing is as big as Rosie's ass - except maybe perhaps, Hillary's

To liberal pinheads, the only terrorists in the world is Pres Bush and anyone who supports him

 

[Gurdari]

So the United States talks to Iran and Syria and says what? We will help you guys wipe the State of Israel off the face of the Earth.

No the US says
"We'll stop vetoing resolutions that allow Israel to break international law. And we'll move our military further from your borders. And we won't threaten attacking you, which is also illegal, as a show of our high morals."

 

[maineman]

Actually nothing is as big as Rosie's ass - except maybe perhaps, Hillary's

To liberal pinheads, the only terrorists in the world is Pres Bush and anyone who supports him

that is a ridiculous statement. Of course there are terrorists in the world...the point was, Iraq was not where their base of operations was...Iraq was doing a pretty good job at keeping the kinds of terrorists that attacked us from gaining any substantial foothold within its borders. Iraq was a horrible mistake. and it was Bush's mistake.

 

[bush lover]

Our President long ago identified the Axis of Evil. We have done Iraq. Now we have to do Iran and North Korea. We have the forces in place to do Iran, with a pincer attack on both sides, via Iraq and Afghanistan. We have superior air force assets and vessels to finish the job. Once the government of the terrorists there is overthrown and a democratic regime is put in place, our President will still have time to do North Korea, which should be a piece of cake because they lack food, ammo and gasoline. Then our President can engineer a takeover by South Korea. Axis of Evil done.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

are you suggesting that an arab sunni baathist secular regime takes its marching orders from a shiite persian theocracy?

please explain.

I fully understand why you liberals cant get anything right. Somehow you convert "linked to" into "taking marching orders from "

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Weapons from US manufacturers as well as NATO countries have also been found in the hands of insurgents. But more importantly, there has been no word from the Pentagon, the CIA, the DIA the NSA or any other US security/intel organization to support the claim that Iran supplied the displayed weapons. Just today General Peter Pace stated that there was no certainty that these weapons had been provided by the Iranian government.

Also of note, funds and support for the Sunni insurgents are coming from Saudi Arabia(1, 2). This is noteworthy in that 19 of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, but no US troops currently occupy Riyadh. Given that far more evidence exists supporting the charges of Saudi support for Sunni insurgents in Iraq that for the Iranian government supplying weapons, one can only wonder why Chimpy and Co aren't agitating for the invasion of Saudi Arabia.

Interestingly the most recent spate of chopper crashes occurred over Sunni controlled segments of Iraq soon after Sunni insurgents claimed that "..."God has granted new ways" to threaten U.S. aircraft.."(3). So how why do we hear nothing but the crickets on the lawn from Chimpy and Co when it comes to Saudi Arabia and the financing and arming of the Sunni insurgents in Iraq?

And, of course, given that the rhetoric being used in an attempt to gin up the nation for a war against Iran is almost identical to that used in the run up to the invasion of Iraq as to be indistinguishable. And, as we all now know, there were no WMD's in Iraq. No reconstituted nuclear weapons program. No RPV's to carry bio/chem agents across the ocean. No biological agent factories hidden in tractor trailers. No centrifuges, let alone tubes, for refining uranium. No yellow-cake uranium, from anywhere, that could have been refined even if they had the centrifuges. In short, Chimpy and Co have little credibility at home and none abroad when it comes to trying to justify military action against Iran as a result of their confabulating, cherry-picking, overstating and out right lying about the "intelligence" used to justify the invasion of Iraq.


1. <a href= http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235407,00.html>FOX News</a>

2. <a href= http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=2708253>ABC News</a>

3. <a href=http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/04/iraq.helicopter.ap/index.html>CNN</a>

WHat a bonehead. You are either very ignorant, or purposely deceiving others and yourself.

It has been repeated over and over why the saudi in the 9/11 attack no longer had affiliation with the current saudi govt, yet you continue to use the boneheaded, deceptive information.

So, timothy mcveigh was a us citizen and a military vet. So, after the bombing he did, our govt should attack our govt? same illogical logic you imply.

The rest of your post is also full of nothing but bullshit BONEHEADED statements from you.
Only the truly stupid would consider anything you stated as remotely logical.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Exactly. I actually believe Saudi Arabia is more of a supporter of insurgents/terrorists than Iran is. Iran might be helping out the terrorists, might, but as I said before. They are already on thin ice and dont want to lose their nuclear capibilities. But I'm not saying we shouldnt keep a sharp eye on them because their leader is pretty crazy, and his people even think so (so our media says).

Infact, I actually think Saudi Arabia and Pakistan actually has the most terrorists. I think we should be having some 'special talks' with them.

we already have special talks with them.
while there may be more terrorists in and coming from Pakistan and Saudi, both those govt's supply us with a lot of information and other ammunition to fight terrorism, and they are officially working towards helping us more and more. the same cannot be said of Iran.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

In Chimpy's press conference today, he stated that he was "certain" Iran was supplying Iraqi insurgents with weapons. Oddly, General Peter Pace seems far less certain, in fact he stated that he "has no evidence" of any such link.

But we must remember that Chimpy and Co was "certain" that WMD's, the heart of the Administration's whole <i>causus belli</i> were present in Iraq. But, as we have since seen, there were no WMD's in Iraq...None...Zero...Zip...Nada. Since there seems to be little agreement, and no independently documented evidence, to support the Administration's claims against Iran, it seems likely that those claims are as credible as the WMD claims made prior to the invasion of Iraq. As in lacking any credibility.

Listen bonehead, a leading general in saddams military stated more than once, unequivacably that he saw the weapons being move to Syria. So you are simply lying. That makes you a liar.

ANd ;you choose to ignore, as you do in all your other posistions, other factors involved. Yea, we had bad intell on WMDs to some extent. Does that mean we just stop using intell altogether? what a fucking idiotic idea.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The liberals are now questioning our President's intentions toward Iran. They say he wants to invade Iran. He should! We have to stop the terrorists over there. What's so hard for the liberals to understand about that?

They are braindead.

Get this, first they bitch about invading Iraq,,,, It is an illegal war, iraq is a sovereign nation, there were not WMD's, we have no business being in the middle east

Then out of the other side of their mouths they say,,,"oh, we should have attacked saudi arabia instead, or North Korea"

Anybody see a braindead disconnect there?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So the United States talks to Iran and Syria and says what? We will help you guys wipe the State of Israel off the face of the Earth.

You know the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and over again, and expecting different results.

I think we been "talking" in the middle east for decades now, with no results, in fact, if anything, its worse.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

they aren't being 'used" anymore or less than they are 'using" Iran. Every piece of weaponry that Iran funnels to Lebanon is one less that Syria needs to provide..... and have no doubt...if Hezbollah begins to gain too much of an advantage in Lebanon besides being a disruptive influence, Syria will start dumping arms into sunni militias within Lebanon

so they are using each other, thats what is being said.

 

[red states rule]

that is a ridiculous statement. Of course there are terrorists in the world...the point was, Iraq was not where their base of operations was...Iraq was doing a pretty good job at keeping the kinds of terrorists that attacked us from gaining any substantial foothold within its borders. Iraq was a horrible mistake. and it was Bush's mistake.

You are truely a pompus ass. For anyone to say Iraq was not a terrorist state BEFORE the liberation, is nuts

Saddam was a terrorist. There were direct links to Saddam's Secert Police and al Qaeda. There were terrorists camps in Northern Iraq.

The Dems said Saddam was a threat, had weapons, and had to be removed. Now, when the road is rough, libs want to change their tune and cut and run from the terrorists

Libs are the biggest cowards I have ever seen. The terrorists thank you for your continued support

 

[maineman]

You are truely a pompus ass. For anyone to say Iraq was not a terrorist state BEFORE the liberation, is nuts

Saddam was a terrorist. There were direct links to Saddam's Secert Police and al Qaeda. There were terrorists camps in Northern Iraq.

The Dems said Saddam was a threat, had weapons, and had to be removed. Now, when the road is rough, libs want to change their tune and cut and run from the terrorists

Libs are the biggest cowards I have ever seen. The terrorists thank you for your continued support

Iraq was not a state that sponsored the sort of terrorists that are after us. The world is full of states that harbor terrorists..... From Northern Ireland to Tibet to Sri Lanka...there are terrorists everywhere. GIven the fact that we clearly do not have the ability to go after all of them, we ought to go after the ones that have attacked us, don't you think?

There is NO reason for Saddam to have been aligned in any substantive way with AQ...there was clearly evidence of his assistance to palestinian national terror groups, but those are not the guys who came after us.

And, once and for all.... I am not the voice of ALL democrats. I am an independent being...an intelligent human being with my own thoughts. I NEVER said that Saddam was a threat...I NEVER said that he had weapons of mass destruction... I NEVER said he had fuckall to do with 9/11. I have been vehemently opposed to this war from the very beginning.

But I DO know this: no democrat said that we needed to invade Iraq prior to the UN inspectors finishing their inspections...and if we HAD waited, we would have found out what we NOW all know: that disarming Saddam had happened before we even began to shock and awe them.

 

[maineman]

and again...I am all for going after the guys who attacked us. Even though I had been retired for eight years on 9/11/01, I volunteered to go BACK on active duty to help George Bush in any way that I could. I was completely supportive of his actions against AQ in Afghanistan....but he lost me at Tora Bora and he hasn't done anything right since then, as far as I am concerned.

 

[red states rule]

Iraq was not a state that sponsored the sort of terrorists that are after us. The world is full of states that harbor terrorists..... From Northern Ireland to Tibet to Sri Lanka...there are terrorists everywhere. GIven the fact that we clearly do not have the ability to go after all of them, we ought to go after the ones that have attacked us, don't you think?

There is NO reason for Saddam to have been aligned in any substantive way with AQ...there was clearly evidence of his assistance to palestinian national terror groups, but those are not the guys who came after us.

And, once and for all.... I am not the voice of ALL democrats. I am an independent being...an intelligent human being with my own thoughts. I NEVER said that Saddam was a threat...I NEVER said that he had weapons of mass destruction... I NEVER said he had fuckall to do with 9/11. I have been vehemently opposed to this war from the very beginning.

But I DO know this: no democrat said that we needed to invade Iraq prior to the UN inspectors finishing their inspections...and if we HAD waited, we would have found out what we NOW all know: that disarming Saddam had happened before we even began to shock and awe them.

So that is why the Dems voted to give Pres Bush the OK to go to war? The Dems all said he had WMD's , he was a threat, and needed to be taken out

Now the cowards are trying to get back in the good graces of the kook left base (like you) and are willing to sacrifice the US military and the war in Iraq for political power

 

[red states rule]

and again...I am all for going after the guys who attacked us. Even though I had been retired for eight years on 9/11/01, I volunteered to go BACK on active duty to help George Bush in any way that I could. I was completely supportive of his actions against AQ in Afghanistan....but he lost me at Tora Bora and he hasn't done anything right since then, as far as I am concerned.

You wanted to serve? On whose side?

 

[maineman]

please...stop with the silly insults ...they really don't make much point, do they?

 

[maineman]

So that is why the Dems voted to give Pres Bush the OK to go to war? The Dems all said he had WMD's , he was a threat, and needed to be taken out

Now the cowards are trying to get back in the good graces of the kook left base (like you) and are willing to sacrifice the US military and the war in Iraq for political power

a majority of congressional democrats voted to NOT give the president the power to use force in Iraq. Quit lying...please.