Fine. Let me fix it. People die in wars. Isn't that how you excuse our killing Iraq citizens? How many Iranians died because of our support of Iraq in their war? How is that any better? That is the thing you jingoistic blowhards can not get. Iran is in the wrong but so is the US.
Fine. Let me fix it. People die in wars. Isn't that how you excuse our killing Iraq citizens? How many Iranians died because of our support of Iraq in their war? How is that any better? That is the thing you jingoistic blowhards can not get. Iran is in the wrong but so is the US.
The case of Iraqis financed, trained, and supplied by the Iranian to kill US soldiers is not as clear cut as secterian violence. The former is mostly about politics, while the latter is more fundamental and would've happened somewhere down the line regradless of US intervention.
I guess you pine for the good old days, when Sunni and Shiia lived in harmony under Saddam's benevolent rule.
dahunan
Lifer
- Jan 10, 2002
- 18,191
- 3
- 0
How much money did we provide to people in Iran so they would kill Iraqi's
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/Iran_Contra_Affair.html
Did we do the same thing with people in Iraq? Give them money to kill Iranians.
^^ if you warhawks weren't so dangerous you would be great comedy
They lived in much greater peace and largely didn't care about "sunni" or "shi'te", and amazingly if anyone benefited the most from Saddam's policies it WAS Shi'ite Muslims because they made a bigger percentage of the Iraqi population (and Saddam did not discriminate on religion, rather he discriminated all equally), but of course we like to ignore that and think that Saddam went on sick rampages not because people tried to a) kill him or b) led a revolt in a geographic part of the country, but because it was "religion" or a sense of "superiority" that made Saddam kill others.
What I find sad is that the people over there are now beginning to BELIEVE that they are either "sunni" or " shi'ite" because we are the ones that INCITED this sectarian ideology that they don't even say they are "Muslims" anymore...Hell it worked in many parts of the work including the partition of greater India, the way sectarian stances rule politics in Lebanon (You are "sunni", "shi'ite" or "christian"...never mind the fact that sunni and shiites are simply Muslims, and the fact that the country is an Arab one. The "prime minister", "president" and leader of the armies must have a specific religious affiliation) and other parts of the world because it keeps countries fragmented and small...and its easier for us to "manage" with smaller fragmented countries, and promoting sectarian ideas is one that is simply.
For those who really doubt that we encourage sectarian splits in Iraq - look no further than the government. We encouraged that the prime minister must be Shi'ite, the President a Kurd and whatnot. The cabinets are split based on these fabricated gaps with the people that we want to emphasize. We say the country is Sunni, shi'ite and Kurd. We ignore the fact that Sunnis and Shi'ites are both Muslims, and as far as Iraqi society was concerned, were integrated with each other very well because they saw themselves as MUSLIMS. On top of it, Kurds get their own category --> they aren't even considered Sunni or shi'ite! Does that even make sense? You have a country that ethnically is 75-80% Arab and 15-20% Kurdish, and religiously is well over 95% Muslim...and we manage to split them based on a mixture of religion AND race in order to fracture it as much as possible.
Remember - a country that is strong and united is one that is harder to deal with...so breaking it down and causing sectarian rifts to rise, whether through the fabric of the government, or the fabric of society is one of the sickest tactics that a person could use, yet it is also one of the smartest ones
We learned from the British that Iraq will unite to fight and fight to kick out the invaders....so we made a few adjustments to ensure that as much as they fight us, they will be fighting each other at the same time. Any Iraqi resistance effort will be hampered if a couple of guys can look at the other and in any way shape or form, distinguish himself and say that they are "different"
===
That said, I agree with you...only an idiot think that Iran isn't intimately involved in Iraq. They want political power, as well as the fact that the longer we are bogged down in Iraq - the more problematic it becomes for us. Basically they saw how we fell and can't get up, and now they are kicking us while we are down.
What they should have done is plant a gun on them after shooting them up. Than claimed to the world that they killed Iran officers who were caught setting roadside bombs with Iraq's.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Yes, we would. However, if our "agents" were caught taking action to kill or harm the Iranians in Mexico, it would be considered an act of war.
The same is true of the Iranian agents involved in the attacks on American soldiers in Iraq. It is an act of war against the U.S.
Now, it may not be serious enough for you and your little checklist of "What Justifies a War - The Homegame Edition," but I'm sure the families of those killed by Iranian-built IED's will beg to differ.
You really need to stop coming up with excuses for the Iranians actions against our soldiers and start remembering whose side you're on.
Ya see, its this thing called WAR!!!!
When you hear that word "WAR" and you are not a combatant, get the ****** out the way.
After all, it is WAR, meaning kill your enemy, yes I said KILL.
I noticed that nobody has answered your little question at the end. You want to know why? Because it's stupid. The only time someone asks an obviously loaded question and refuses to let anyone answer anything but yes or no is when they know that their question is bull$hit.
What's strange is that I have never heard anyone propose arresting someone in that situation that you mentioned. This may be your problem... that you attribute positions to people that they don't hold.
Oh, and on another note..that quote about the soldier praying for peace is a load of crap. Before the war half the people on my ship, and a lot of the dumbass marines that I know were just itching to "kick some ass". The whole "reluctant warrior" thing might be true now... but that's only after the war didn't go how we wanted it to.
They were invited by the President of Iraq
so ... the President of Iraq is now a terrorist
arrest him and murder him.
The agents didnt sneak over to Iraq. They had permisssion to be there by the leader of Iraq.
Iraq is not our country. Deal with it.
so ... the President of Iraq is now a terrorist
arrest him and murder him.
The agents didnt sneak over to Iraq. They had permisssion to be there by the leader of Iraq.
Iraq is not our country. Deal with it.
I wonder if they were really invited by the president, or whether it was a retroactive invitation issued under pressure from the almighty al-Sadr.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
they were operating using fake passports and fake names... so tell me again just how "legit" their presence was in Iraq...?!
I have never seen you criticize Iran Aimster... ever. Why is that? Why are you so quick to defend everything they do even when they are proven to be aiding in the murder of American soldiers?
How can you look past that? That is an act of war, and Iran is walking a very fine line...
From Craig234-
"I'd like to see the Iranian president say they're fighting the US in Iraq so that they don't have to fight them in Iran. At least he'd have a point."
You're killin' me, with laughter... apparently that's a little deeper water than the usual fanbois care to swim in...
And from palehorse74-
"No amount of proof will ever convince the tinfoil-wearing far-left fanatics here at P&N that Iran is directly responsible for the murder of American soldiers in Iraq."
You might have a valid point, if there were some rationality behind our presence in Iraq in the first place... GWB and pals put American troops in harm's way, not anybody else...
Not to mention that the whole premise and source of information smells a lot like that non-existent rationale for the invasion of Iraq, anyway... according to un-named American and Iraqi officials, they really need to implicate Iran in this whole thing to serve their own purposes... On that level, we're dealing with proven liars- why believe them now, or ever, for that matter? One of those faith based initiatives?
And, of course, the US wouldn't engage in any meddling of their own-
http://electroniciraq.net/news/2080.shtml
http://www.slate.com/id/2080513
If you think the Iranians have a significant hand in the current insurgency, just wait until after some damned fools bomb 'em...
"I'd like to see the Iranian president say they're fighting the US in Iraq so that they don't have to fight them in Iran. At least he'd have a point."
You're killin' me, with laughter... apparently that's a little deeper water than the usual fanbois care to swim in...
And from palehorse74-
"No amount of proof will ever convince the tinfoil-wearing far-left fanatics here at P&N that Iran is directly responsible for the murder of American soldiers in Iraq."
You might have a valid point, if there were some rationality behind our presence in Iraq in the first place... GWB and pals put American troops in harm's way, not anybody else...
Not to mention that the whole premise and source of information smells a lot like that non-existent rationale for the invasion of Iraq, anyway... according to un-named American and Iraqi officials, they really need to implicate Iran in this whole thing to serve their own purposes... On that level, we're dealing with proven liars- why believe them now, or ever, for that matter? One of those faith based initiatives?
And, of course, the US wouldn't engage in any meddling of their own-
http://electroniciraq.net/news/2080.shtml
http://www.slate.com/id/2080513
If you think the Iranians have a significant hand in the current insurgency, just wait until after some damned fools bomb 'em...
Act of war?
They were inside Iraq invited.
Act of war against who? Iraq is not part of the U.S.
If Iraq said they are allowed to be there then they were allowed to be there.
They are secret service agents... hmm I wonder why they had fake passports and fake names.
& there is no smoking gun evidence to suggest Iran is arming anyone inside Iraq.
Hezbollah who is armed by Iran has more advanced weapons than the insurgents inside Iraq. So you are telling me Iran arms the insurgents inside Iraq with 20+ year old weapon technology and rusted crap while arming Hezbollah with 90s technology?
Makes ZERO SENSE to me.
No weapons have been seized coming from Iran inside Iraq. They do monitor the roads you know. There are only a certain number of roads. It is mountains and desert over there.
So unless you can provide one smoking gun evidence that Iran is arming insurgents inside Iraq, all the posts that claim so are nothing more than BS rambling.
Hezbollah who is armed by Iran has more advanced weapons than the insurgents inside Iraq. So you are telling me Iran arms the insurgents inside Iraq with 20+ year old weapon technology and rusted crap while arming Hezbollah with 90s technology?
Makes ZERO SENSE to me.
No weapons have been seized coming from Iran inside Iraq. They do monitor the roads you know. There are only a certain number of roads. It is mountains and desert over there.
So unless you can provide one smoking gun evidence that Iran is arming insurgents inside Iraq, all the posts that claim so are nothing more than BS rambling.
Just put your head in the sand while iranian Hezbolah take over Lebanon and Iran, and build about 10 Nuclear Weapons and destroy Isreal.
Interesting world you choose to live in.
Interesting world you choose to live in.
You also claimed during the Israel/Lebannon war that Iran was not arming Hezbollah until they admitted to it. I remember this because I had a 3 page argument with you and others over it. The smoking gun evidence people always want always comes after it is too late. I am not sure how your world works, but sometimes people want to prevent events from occurring rather than let the occur and go "oh, they were right, theres the smoking gun evidence".
It's funny how quick you are to point the problems with the rationality behind the US's presence in Iraq, but when it comes to Iran's intention in regards to Israel (in another thread), well, you are ready to swallow anything Ahmdinejad shoots your way; I suppose this is just part of your policy of questioning anything that Bush says, while having full confidence in the good intentions of the illustrious leaders of Iran.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter