Idiot American Commander in Iraq Almost Starts War w/ Iran

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus

More like Israel is going to get it if they don't listen to the UN and abandon their weapons of mass destruction program, LoLZ Rite?

P.s. HuRRR it's really smart to attack Iran HURRRRR Yes let's get a 100,000+ army attacking our soldiers while insurrgents attack them in the back buttocks.

---

1. Nobodys gonna punish Israel, unfortunately.

2. If the US wanted to end Insurgency at all costs they would have done so already, but Human Rights Laws and other morality issues get in the way. So dont think for one sec that we cant fight Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, and win. All it would take was a draft. (*Not saying that the casualties wouldnt be outstanding or that we would want to just that we could if we had to.*)

But thats not the issue the point is Iran has a clear view of what WE find the borders to be and so they know if they cross into OUR terrortory then WE reserve the right to drive them back. Like if India moved up its border on Pakistan a mile, you better beileve that it would be on!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

Iran got its first nukes from the US... I don't think it's all that fair for the US to sell weapons to Iran and Iraq and then prompt them into a war, then say "omg! Iran has WMD and was in a war! They are obviously evil!" *teh invade*

---

I'm still baffled about how our leaders can continue justifying rhetoric like this; more so, how the many flaws of Saudi Arabia continue escaping national attention. There's just as many things to question with Saudi Arabia as with Iran, but because Bush is all buddy-buddy with them it apparently makes sense for people to ignore the many things going on wrong there. Especially since the main reason presented for having gone to war with Iraq these days is "to free the Iraqis from a repressive dictatorship," I'm sure you'll excuse me if I fail to see how this makes any sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocFrance

Did anything bad come of this? No, so what's the point in complaining about it?

I swear, some people just love nitpicking at every tiny little thing they think the US does wrong.

---

Yeah, I agree.

This all reminds me of a little song I know... (warning, some profanity)

OOC:

I was down in Southern Watch Flyin' my F-16 When lead called for a picture And AWACS came back clean But I saw a contact on my scope And it was runnin' hot And although I wasn't targetted I went ahead and shot Well I never even noticed That my nose was pointed east And that Iranian fighter pilot Was suprised to say the least I tried to take it back But by then it was too late And a million angry Arabs Started headin' for Kuwait Well, you know the ****in' French Would have to get into the mess American audacity Just had to be adressed The sent their fighters to the sky But it was all in vain As they sought asylum in The American Commonwealth of Spain Well, the English crossed the channel And it was a sight to see When the Queen dropped down her trousers And she **** on Normandy And if you think we were happy When we drank all of their wine Well, you should have seen the Polish When they got to cross the Rhine Well, the Chinese threatened action When we overran Saigon And a thousand drunken fratboys Had to moon them from Taiwan But the bombing of the embassy In Moscow broke the ice Well, that was just an accident And it happened only twice So the launched their MiGs two by two Never to return And no matter how much we shot them down They never seemed to learn Their suicidal bravery Made us feel bad for them So on Tuesdays it was "heaters" And on Wednesday BFMs So here's to you fighter pilots Victors of the war That got us all this real estate That's backed up to the shore And now China's just a word That you read in history 'Cause I'm the mother****er Who started World War Three

What song is that?

And this is the first I've heard about this. Kinda sad. I suppose i should watch the news more.

Hehe, when we're not getting picked off by friendly fire, being killed by the people we've been left behind to peace keep we're being sent into definate death traps, and now we're decomissioning all our tanks and fighter planes, why not eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Captain

Eventually, if the war on terror ever makes news again, Iran AND Saudi Arabia must be dealt with. How many decades will that take though?

Take care all.

---

4 years.

after Iran and Saudi, who next? North korea? oh whoops, i forgot, USA wont attack anyone that DOES have nukes incase they r used against them.

sorry, that was bad taste. seriously, who else would be on the USA attack list? do you think usa r looking 4 an excuse to attack Iran etc? i dont think the liberation or wmd crap will wash again, so who else???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aeris2001x2

after Iran and Saudi, who next? North korea? oh whoops, i forgot, USA wont attack anyone that DOES have nukes incase they r used against them.

sorry, that was bad taste. seriously, who else would be on the USA attack list? do you think usa r looking 4 an excuse to attack Iran etc? i dont think the liberation or wmd crap will wash again, so who else???

---

i know a littel bit about the bush administration. and i happen to know for a fact that they would LOVE to invade both north korea and iran. they dont hide it. it states so clearly in the project for the new american century. i suggest everyone check this out, becuase it is exactly the thing the bush administration is following. (it was written by many of his officials, and senior bush officials) but yes, they do for sure want to attack iran and north korea. whether or not they will, i dont know, but they certainly would if they had a good excuse.

Haha you guys are fools if you think America has to attack Saudi Arabia. You DO KNOW that the Saudi Monarch is only alive because of American backup right? If it were up to their people the Royal Family would be getting dragged through the streets of Riyadh on horses right now. All America would have to do is fund money for a rebel faction and sit back and watch.

America sends all the aid in the world to autocratic regimes in the mideast, as long as they do oil trade with them. You don't think it's weird that Saudis pay more than twice as much for oil in their own country than the Americans do in the US? Yeah because the royal family there lets American companies do the drilling cuz they're lapdogs. Hell even Saddam and his Baath Party took power through a CIA backed coup. America doesn't give a trout about democracy. If Arabs and Latinos had real democracies where the hell would America get its lion's share of the oil from? They'd have to pay for it just like the rest of the world :(

Look at Latin America, the American backyard, trouthole. Mideast, trouthole. Central Asia (the "stans"), trouthole. Africa, trouthole. Anywhere the US gets involved in regime changes, becomes a trouthole, but as long as that new regime does what they say. North Korea doesn't matter to the US as much because they have nukes of course, and they got no oil!! But tell me, who was the bigger threat? Some backwards Arab country with barely enough capability to attack a neighbor or an extremely hostile nuclear communist power developing nuclear warheads that can reach the American west coast? Just remember that you can't be fair and just and still be the most powerful country in the world. Oil is the key to being #1, and to get that oil you have to be a major :love::love::love::love:ing asshole.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/atrios...eld-saddam.jpg

Thats a very strong opinion you have there...

Quote:

---

Anywhere the US gets involved in regime changes, becomes a trouthole

---

I don't like it very mooch, but Europe isn't a trouthole.

Anyway, generally, you're right. However, that still doesn't mean Iraq should've been left alone. The way I see, LOTS of other countries have it coming. So, yeah, they brought down Iraq before they did anything (and probably never will, either) to Saudi Arabia, or North Korea. But, not doing the best thing, still doesn't mean you shouldn't do other things, as well. Taking over Iraq doesn't come at the expense of anything.

Though, I am seriously begining to question to futileness of this entire war. Surely, it has to be fought, regardless of the odds... but really, what are they going to do in Iraq, or Afghanistan, afterwards? America would leave, and those countries will go exactly to where they were before, because that's the way things are like over there. And then, what have we done? Practically, nothing. I guess we'll just have to live with the nuisance that is terrorism, and lay a few blows every now and then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Angel

I don't like it very mooch, but Europe isn't a trouthole.


Anyway, generally, you're right. However, that still doesn't mean Iraq should've been left alone. The way I see, LOTS of other countries have it coming. So, yeah, they brought down Iraq before they did anything (and probably never will, either) to Saudi Arabia, or North Korea. But, not doing the best thing, still doesn't mean you shouldn't do other things, as well. Taking over Iraq doesn't come at the expense of anything.

---

no, of course not. not at all. not the ten thousand civilian casualties or the hundreds upon hundred of american casualties.
I won't even bother to mention the countless iraqi soldiers who have been slaughtered defending their country. no i wont mention them because nobody gives a trout about them. everyone who has died, and who will die, in this war, will forever remain another faceless, nameless casualty. but your right, taking over Iraq didnt come at the expense of anything. after all, it is perfectly ok to murder people for power...

Quote:

---

no, of course not. not at all. not the ten thousand civilian casualties or the hundreds upon hundred of american casualties.
I won't even bother to mention the countless iraqi soldiers who have been slaughtered defending their country. no i wont mention them because nobody gives a trout about them. everyone who has died, and who will die, in this war, will forever remain another faceless, nameless casualty. but your right, taking over Iraq didnt come at the expense of anything. after all, it is perfectly ok to murder people for power...

---

I'm sorry, I did not mean the lives of people are not an expense. Rather, I meant that taking down Iraq, before going after the bigger fish, didn't really change anything. The USA is still capable of bringing down any nation the disrupts the peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Angel

I'm sorry, I did not mean the lives of people are not an expense. Rather, I meant that taking down Iraq, before going after the bigger fish, didn't really change anything. The USA is still capable of bringing down any nation the disrupts the peace.

---

I see... sorry for that misconception.