When did the West get inhabited by a bunch of Pussies?

[101A]

Drudge headlines this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6498611.stm) as an ominous warning from Blair. After reading it, however, it is OBVIOUS that England is far more worried about not escalating anything, and not offending anyone, to be issuing any type of warning that the Iranians give a damn about.

I am afraid that in this still young Islamic revolution to take over the world (that is their stated objective after-all), we (collectively the West) have brought turtle doves to a gun fight.

What part of "Act of War" am I missing here?




PM warns Iran over Navy captives

The 15 are based on HMS Cornwall, which patrols Iraqi territorial waters
Efforts to secure the release of 15 Royal Navy personnel held by Iran will enter a "different phase" if diplomatic moves fail, Tony Blair has said.

Downing Street said the UK could end up releasing evidence proving the group had not ventured into Iranian waters.

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has called for their "speedy return".

Meanwhile, the family of the only woman detained, Faye Turney from Shrewsbury, Shropshire, has said this is a "very distressing time" for them.

The BBC has been told the group are being held at an Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps base in Tehran.

Iran says they were trespassing in Iranian waters when they were seized on Friday - but the prime minister said the group were in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate.

Mr Blair was said the most important thing was the welfare of the eight sailors and seven marines from HMS Cornwall and securing their release.

The prime minister's official spokesman said Mr Blair's remarks about a "different phase" did not refer to any extreme diplomatic action, such as expelling Iranian diplomats from Britain or military action.

"We have been clearly stating that we are utterly certain that the personnel were in Iraqi waters.

"We so far have not made explicit why we know that, because we don't want to escalate this."

Britain's former ambassador to Iran, Sir Richard Dalton, said "different phase" could mean generating pressure on Iran from the international community.

"I expect he means that we shall have to step up criticism and generate additional international pressures on Iran," he said.

"It could be that they think that by dramatising the fact that these people were taken on an international mission while in Iraqi waters even further, will give Iran pause and give them a chance to rethink."

"These people have to be released," the prime minister told GMTV.

"What we are trying to do at the moment is to pursue this through the diplomatic channels and make the Iranian government understand these people have to be released and that there is absolutely no justification whatever for holding them.

"I hope we manage to get them to realise they have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase."

There is speculation that the capture was linked to the seizure of five Iranians by US forces in Iraq.

Mr Blair said the situations were "completely distinct" as any Iranian forces inside Iraq were breaching a UN mandate.

"In the end, it is a question really for the Iranian government as to whether they want to abide by international law or not," he said.

In a statement issued via the Ministry of Defence, sailor Ms Turney's family said they were grateful for the support they had received from everyone.

"While we understand the media interest in the ongoing incident involving Faye, this remains a very distressing time for us.

"We are grateful for the support shown to us by all personnel involved and appreciate it, but would request that our privacy is respected."

On Tuesday, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman quoted by AP said those held were in good health, being treated in a humane fashion and Ms Turney had been given privacy.

The British foreign secretary said the UK was still pressing for consular access to the service personnel.

"If indeed they are being detained in reasonable circumstances then we can see no reason why they should not have contact with people from the British government," Mrs Beckett said.

An Iranian source has told BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner the Britons are being interrogated to find out if their mission was intelligence-gathering.

The source said the investigation involved examining tracking equipment to determine exactly where the crew was captured.

In order for the Britons to be released "every vested interest in Iran would need to be satisfied they had not deliberately entered Iranian waters, nor were they spying", the source added.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't see that phrase used anywhere in the article.

What, did you think they were going to launch a full-scale invasion or something?

Get real.

What exactly would be the point of escalating anything at this moment?

[101A]

I didn't see that phrase used anywhere in the article.

What, did you think they were going to launch a full-scale invasion or something?

Get real.

What exactly would be the point of escalating anything at this moment?


Exactly my point. If you are completely incapable of recognizing when we need to appear strong, unequivocal, and willing to punish rogue regimes; and feel that a measured, prudent, non-threatening response is the only appropriate course of action....you've answered my question. Thanks.

[ChumpDumper]

You didn't answer my question.

What exactly would be the point of escalating anything at this moment?

What did you expect Britain to do?

[ggoose25]

i dont see how they can do anything but saber rattle, when their bigget ally is in the middle of a fucking pointless surge in Iraq and unable to aid them whatsoever if WWIII breaks out.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2007/03/20/military_not_ready_for_other_wars/ (link)

its no secret that America has its pants around its ankles right now, with lube shoved up its ass ready to be fucked

[101A]

You didn't answer my question.

What exactly would be the point of escalating anything at this moment?

What did you expect Britain to do?


What is the point?

The Iranian Military took British sailors and Marines AT GUN-POINT - in waters that the British team were in ligitimately!

I would expect Britain to THREATEN to bomb the living shit out of Iran if their servicemen (and woman) were not returned IMMEDIATELY.

THE POINT is that a country needs to potray an attitude of "Don't fuck with me"; otherwise that country is destined to get fucked with.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Exactly my point. If you are completely incapable of recognizing when we need to appear strong, unequivocal, and willing to punish rogue regimes; and feel that a measured, prudent, non-threatening response is the only appropriate course of action....you've answered my question. Thanks.


what the hell let's just run into iran guns a blazing!!..YAHOO!!

[ChumpDumper]

I would expect Britain to THREATEN to bomb the living shit out of Iran if their servicemen (and woman) were not returned IMMEDIATELY.And when they didn't return them? What would they do then?

Start another war when they're already fighting two?

Invade Iran?

What would they bomb?

Do you think it may have a tiny effect on the situation in Iraq -- where the UK is doing its damndest to pull out as much as possible before the next elections?

[101A]

i dont see how they can do anything but saber rattle, when their bigget ally is in the middle of a fucking pointless surge in Iraq and unable to aid them whatsoever if WWIII breaks out.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2007/03/20/military_not_ready_for_other_wars/ (link)

its no secret that America has its pants around its ankles right now, with lube shoved up its ass ready to be fucked

If all the US military capability amounted to what is currently deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq, how the hell did we ever win the Cold War; or WWII???

If Britain started shit, we'd have their back; it might just mean (heaven forbid) the rest of us might have to be affected by the war our country is involved in.

[ChumpDumper]

If all the US military capability amounted to what is currently deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq, how the hell did we ever win the Cold War; or WWII???Nukes. If you want to nuke Iran over 15 soldiers, you are clearly insane.
If Britain started shit, we'd have their backBritain is smarter than you, thank God.

[George Gervin's Afro]

If all the US military capability amounted to what is currently deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq, how the hell did we ever win the Cold War; or WWII???

If Britain started shit, we'd have their back; it might just mean (heaven forbid) the rest of us might have to be affected by the war our country is involved in.


We had allies during the cold war..

[101A]

And when they didn't return them? What would they do then?

Start another war when they're already fighting two?

Invade Iran?

What would they bomb?

Do you think it may have a tiny effect on the situation in Iraq -- where the UK is doing its damndest to pull out as much as possible before the next elections?


What would they do then? Do what they threatened to do. Idle threats would be worse than this pussying around, no doubt.

How many soldiers does Iran have to capture before any kind of serious response is justified, in your opinion?

[ggoose25]

If all the US military capability amounted to what is currently deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq, how the hell did we ever win the Cold War; or WWII???

If Britain started shit, we'd have their back; it might just mean (heaven forbid) the rest of us might have to be affected by the war our country is involved in.

obviously you are not from SA. Every few years people here fear BASE CLOSURES. its called demilitarization from the cold war. Its been going on for about twenty years.

And heaven forbid that someone reasonable try diplomacy before racing into a war. Even FDR didnt rush into WWII. He knew we had to build up our military first before going. He didnt go to war with the army he wished he had. He fucking built one before our boys left shore.

[ChumpDumper]

What would they do then? Do what they threatened to do.Which would be what?
How many soldiers does Iran have to capture before any kind of serious response is justified, in your opinion?You are aware this isn't the first time Iran has captured British troops, aren't you?

Apparently not.

[101A]

Nukes. If you want to nuke Iran over 15 soldiers, you are clearly insane.Britain is smarter than you, thank God.


I didn't say anything about Nukes. The US put over a million GI's on the ground in WWII, we currently have fewer than 200K in Afghanistan and Iraq; with a much larger population now than 70 years ago; we, as a nation, are not stretched thin AT ALL; which was the argument posed.

Again, how many soldiers should Iran be able to capture before it's enough?

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't say anything about Nukes. The US put over a million GI's on the ground in WWII, we currently have fewer than 200K in Afghanistan and Iraq; with a much larger population now than 70 years ago; we, as a nation, are not stretched thin AT ALL; which was the argument posed.So you're calling for a draft now.
Again, how many soldiers should Iran be able to capture before it's enough?Again, it's happened before. Do you even know what happened then?

[101A]

obviously you are not from SA. Every few years people here fear BASE CLOSURES. its called demilitarization from the cold war. Its been going on for about twenty years.

And heaven forbid that someone reasonable try diplomacy before racing into a war. Even FDR didnt rush into WWII. He knew we had to build up our military first before going. He didnt go to war with the army he wished he had. He fucking built one before our boys left shore.


WTF?

12/7/1941 - Pearl Harbor

12/7/1941 - Declaration of War.

Have you seen the defense budget?

[ggoose25]

I didn't say anything about Nukes. The US put over a million GI's on the ground in WWII, we currently have fewer than 200K in Afghanistan and Iraq; with a much larger population now than 70 years ago; we, as a nation, are not stretched thin AT ALL; which was the argument posed.

Again, how many soldiers should Iran be able to capture before it's enough?

and you know the military's capabilities how? because you are a general? you work in the pentagon?

i would much rather take the opinion of a GENERAL over an armchair warrior such as yourself as to whether this nation can wage an effective war or not.

[101A]

Which would be what?

Invasion.


You are aware this isn't the first time Iran has captured British troops, aren't you?

Exactly my point. Thank you.

[cheguevara]

this ain't rambo kid. this is real life.

[ChumpDumper]

Invasion.With what?
Exactly my point. Thank you.You obviously are completely ignorant of that incident, thank you for proving that.

[101A]

So you're calling for a draft now.Again, it's happened before. Do you even know what happened then?


I've posed the question twice.

Answer it.

[101A]

With what?You obviously are completely ignorant of that incident, thank you for proving that.

8 taken

Released three days later, after being paraded blindfolded.

Answer the question

[ChumpDumper]

Many, many more than 15. And they would have to do something other than parade them around.

I've already said you are clearly insane.

[ggoose25]

WTF?

12/7/1941 - Pearl Harbor

12/7/1941 - Declaration of War.

Have you seen the defense budget?

you really are a George W. Bush realist.

And why are you living in the 1940s?

Perhaps, wars cost more now? Due to inflation, and technology?

And FDR wasnt stupid:World War II (abbreviated WWII), or the Second World War, was a worldwide conflict fought between the Allied Powers and the Axis Powers, from 1939 until 1945.

TWO years to build a strong military. TWO.

[101A]

How many then?

100? 1000?

How many can the Iranians play around with until you are pissed enough to do something about it?

[ChumpDumper]

Gee, why didn't we invade North Korea in 1968?

They killed one US sailor and captured 82 others. The DPRK still gives tours of their ship in Pyongyang.

[ChumpDumper]

How many then?

100? 1000?

How many can the Iranians play around with until you are pissed enough to do something about it?They won't take that many.

They don't need to.

[101A]

you really are a George W. Bush realist.

And why are you living in the 1940s?

Perhaps, wars cost more now? Due to inflation, and technology?

And FDR wasnt stupid:World War II (abbreviated WWII), or the Second World War, was a worldwide conflict fought between the Allied Powers and the Axis Powers, from 1939 until 1945.

TWO years to build a strong military. TWO.

Read your history books. We tooled up production AFTER we were invaded. We didn't have serious designs on going all in prior to that.

[ggoose25]

Read your history books. We tooled up production AFTER we were invaded. We didn't have serious designs on going all in prior to that.

Look, sir. Just because you read the 9th grade version of US history isnt my fault:

------------
The U.S. mobilization pace picked up in the wake of German military successes in the spring of 1940. This phase, usually called the defense period) represented a transitional stage similar to the one envisioned by the abandoned industrial mobilization plan. In May 1940 Roosevelt called for 50,000 new aircraft and a supplemental defense appropriation. He also set up an Office of Emergency Management in his executive office to coordinate the effort, and he revived the Advisory Commission of National Defense to assess problems of mobilizing resources and to prepare comprehensive plans for various stages of mobilization. But the commission itself did not last the year, and its successor, the Office of Production Management, was also soon abolished. The political climate was still not receptive to a full-scale industrial mobilization.

Although full-scale mobilization remained politically impossible, the government started the financial transition from parsimony to abundance. Appropriations came faster than the Army could absorb them, over $8 billion in 1940 and $26 billion in 1941, dwarfing the half billion dollars that had been allotted for expansion early in 1939. By the time of Pearl Harbor, Congress had spent more for Army procurement than it had for the Army and the Navy during all of World War I.

-------
Please. stay in school. go to college. join the military. just dont try to get elected into office.

[boutons_]

After Repug total pussy Reagan got the embasssy hostages back, he didn't absolutely to retaliate for the invasion of US territory by the Iranians, other than supporting his proxy warrior, Saddam. St. Ronnie the Sacred Repug, the biggest pussy ever.

The US and UK simply can't win in Iraq, so they won't win.
They won't win a war on Iran, either.

Why start a war you can't win? For a moral fucking imperative? For pride and honor? Just because we can? To kill 1000s of Iranians and our own military for 15 military?

I note that the cretinous assholes who love wars aren't enlisting to fight wars. They don't even pay for the wars.

[ChumpDumper]

After Repug total pussy Reagan got the embasssy hostages back, he didn't absolutely to retaliate for the invasion of US territory by the Iranians, other than supporting his proxy warrior, Saddam.To be fair, Reagan retaliated by selling the Islamic fundamentalist Iranians one thousand missles.

He didn't retaliate against anyone when the Marine barracks in Beirut was bombed.

[gtownspur]

To be fair, Reagan retaliated by selling the Islamic fundamentalist Iranians one thousand missles.

He didn't retaliate against anyone when the Marine barracks in Beirut was bombed.


Then for sure that makes bill clinton a pussy.

[ChumpDumper]

Did Clinton sell Iranian Islamic fundamentalists 1000 missiles?

Clinton actually took several actions against Islamic fundamentalists during his administration. Clinton was far from perfect, but he certainly took their threat more seriously than Bush did his first eight months in office.

[ChumpDumper]

The bottom line in the current situation is that it's ludicrous for anyone to threaten war over the capture of a few soldiers or officials. The big news this week that you don't seem to understand is that Russia and China are starting to tell Iran to quick fucking around on the nuclear issue. I would expect the prisoner situation to be resolved when the parties return to the negotiating table, if not before.

[gtownspur]

Did Clinton sell Iranian Islamic fundamentalists 1000 missiles?

Clinton actually took several actions against Islamic fundamentalists during his administration. Clinton was far from perfect, but he certainly took their threat more seriously than Bush did his first eight months in office.


You're right. This country was atacked by Muslims before 911 while bush was in office.

[johnsmith]

After Repug total pussy Reagan got the embasssy hostages back, he didn't absolutely to retaliate for the invasion of US territory by the Iranians, other than supporting his proxy warrior, Saddam. St. Ronnie the Sacred Repug, the biggest pussy ever.

The US and UK simply can't win in Iraq, so they won't win.
They won't win a war on Iran, either.

Why start a war you can't win? For a moral fucking imperative? For pride and honor? Just because we can? To kill 1000s of Iranians and our own military for 15 military?

I note that the cretinous assholes who love wars aren't enlisting to fight wars. They don't even pay for the wars.


If Reagan was the "biggest pussy ever", what does that make Jimmy Carter.........or you for that matter?

[ChumpDumper]

You're right. This country was atacked by Muslims before 911 while bush was in office.So you're defending the fact that Bush didn't take Al Qaeda as seriously as Clinton did?

That's damned funny.

[clambake]

I guess the lesson from Israel didn't take.

[gtownspur]

So you're defending the fact that Bush didn't take Al Qaeda as seriously as Clinton did?

That's damned funny.

No more than you consider Clinton bombing aspirin factories and camels as acts of retaliation.

Or pulling out of Mogadishu, for which Osama coined us a a "paper tiger".

[clambake]

He meant paper thin. Running on treadmill in Afghanistan. Mogadishu is ancient history. Catch up. You want to start another "project" and abandon the two in progress? Are you desperately searching for a win?

[ChumpDumper]

No more than you consider Clinton bombing aspirin factories and camels as acts of retaliation.He bombed much more than that, with varying levels of effectiveness.
Or pulling out of MogadishuThat was certainly a bad situation after we accidentally killed killed all those clan elders; and it certainly led to Clinton's reluctance to commit ground forces in subsequent operations. I never said he was perfect -- just that he took Al Qaeda more seriously than Bush. That is something you can't refute no matter how much you try to change the subject.

[boutons_]

It was not clear where the US should retaliate for the Beirut bombing,
unlike the Tehran embassy invasion.

[ChumpDumper]

True enough, even though Islamic Jihad made some claims to the bombing. It's funny that the only country to retaliate against anyone for that attack was France.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Didn't Regan cut and run after the Beruit Embassy bombing? According to our military historians/bush apologists that would make him a pussy.. showing that we would not stay and fight..

[whottt]

i

its no secret that America has its pants around its ankles right now, with lube shoved up its ass ready to be fucked


You're a fucking idiot...


We're the murdering rapists masacaring the Iraqi people remembeR?


Goddamn liberals are fucking stupid. And anti-American.

[whottt]

101a...notice how the libs switch back and fourth between us being a pussy and us being a bully?

That's all they fucking do...

Switch back and fourth between us being oppressive occupiers...or getting our asses kicked.

Did you see the cocksucker talking about Israel's lesson? Lebanon's back in the stone age and he acts like they won.


Idiots...when you have to drink your own piss, you have not won shit.

[ChumpDumper]

Didn't Regan cut and run after the Beruit Embassy bombing? According to our military historians/bush apologists that would make him a pussy.. showing that we would not stay and fight..Reagan kept troops there about five more months, about as long as Clinton kept our troops in Somalia after the battle of Mogadishu.

[whottt]

Reagan didn't have a war on terror against Muslim fundamentalists...Reagan's focus was the Soviet Union. At that point in time most of the guys we are fighting now were our allies.


Next you fucking douchbags are going to talk about how we were allied with Usama in Afghanistan...

God damn it's like ya'll are missing a chromosome.



Idiots...things change.

[ggoose25]

You're a fucking idiot...


We're the murdering rapists masacaring the Iraqi people remembeR?


Goddamn liberals are fucking stupid. And anti-American.

I never said that. I said that America is in a vulnerable position due to fucking dumbasses like you and W. that continue to push troops into a stupid war.

We are weak. Because of people like you.

[whottt]

I never said that. I said that America is in a vulnerable position due to fucking dumbasses like you and W. that continue to push troops into a stupid war.

We are weak. Because of people like you.



No, we're weak because we a bunch of anti-war idiots that think this is Vietnam....

That protest our own soldiers...our volunteer soldiers, that are still volunteering...



Oh I agree the admin has weakened...but their weakness was giving a shit what Americans like you think...over the ones that put him back in office.

Just goes to show, the biggest whining bitch always gets the most attention.

[whottt]

And by the way...

Strap yourselves in...because if you don't think we are going into conflict with Iran...you are an idiot.

It's always been planned to take Iran down...


The alliances they've made...the political pressure they've created. The strategic infrastructure they have created...


How many friends do you think Iran has?

I guess they've got Syria...


Idiots...no one thought we'd just waltz into Iran...


Well...I take that back, our liberal idiots that kept asking why we didn't go into Iran first thought that.


They can't seem to decide if they think Bush is a whimpering pussy or an apocalypic madman aspiring to Hitlerism.


Fucking morons.



Go protest our volunteer military(that is still volunteering), and draw Vietnam parallels(just let me know when you find a fucking jungle)...it's what you do best.

[ggoose25]

No, we're weak because we a bunch of anti-war idiots that think this is Vietnam....

That protest our own soldiers...our volunteer soldiers, that are still volunteering...



Oh I agree the admin has weakened...but their weakness was giving a shit what Americans like you think...over the ones that put him back in office.

Just goes to show, the biggest whining bitch always gets the most attention.

Bush gives a shit about protesters? since when?


And you're right. I think if you created one of those polls you love you'd find that you are the ultimate whining bitch of STand therefore receive the most attention.

[ggoose25]

And by the way...

Strap yourselves in...because if you don't think we are going into conflict with Iran...you are an idiot.

It's always been planned to take Iran down...


The alliances they've made...the political pressure they've created.


How many friends do you think Iran has?

I guess they've got Syria...

we shouldve gone to war with iran in the first place. instead of fucking around in iraq for nonexistant WMD. Yet again, another Bush fuck up

[whottt]

Notice how on the one hand we're weak and getting ass fucked...

Then when the nuke card gets pulled all of a sudden we're brutal madmen again.


In case you can't tell 101A...they're only happy when they think America is going to lose or is getting beaten....they celebrate it and talk about how weak we are and laugh about us getting our ass kicked...then when we take off the gloves they talk about how brutal and murderous we are.


They are fucking hysterical morons, who time and time again prove their bias...

[George Gervin's Afro]

Notice how on the one hand we're weak and getting ass fucked...

Then when the nuke card gets pulled all of a sudden we're brutal madmen again.


In case you can't tell 101A...they're only happy when they think America is going to lose or is getting beaten....they celebrate it and talk about how weak we are and laugh about us getting our ass kicked...then when we take off the gloves they talk about how brutal and murderous we are.


They are fucking hysterical morons, who time and time again prove their bias...



In case you can't tell 101A...they're only happy when they think America is going to lose or is getting beaten....

Can you provide anything that remotely backs this claim up? Anything that states dems cheer when we lose etc.?

[whottt]

we shouldve gone to war with iran in the first place. instead of fucking around in iraq for nonexistant WMD. Yet again, another Bush fuck up


First of all idiot...Iran violated no cease fire agreement with us...like Iraq did.

Saddam = violated cease fire...

Iran = did not






SO tell me idiot...

Do you honestly think we are in a worse position for war with Iran now than we were prior to invading Iraq?

Is that what you think...idiot?

[ggoose25]

Dont pigeonhole me into anything. America needs to be strong. theres nothing wrong with going to war if its necessary. Iraq was just the least necessary war of all time. It has done nothing to strengthen our country, and everything to weaken it.

For you its cut and dry: liberals hate a strong america, hate war, are tree huggers and conservatives love america, fight everyone, and pollute whenever they goddamn please.

Dont you fucking lump me into anything with your sweeping generalizations. Just because I say Iraq is an ultimate fuck up, doesnt mean I'm against war, and that I recycle all day.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Dont pigeonhole me into anything. America needs to be strong. theres nothing wrong with going to war if its necessary. Iraq was just the least necessary war of all time. It has done nothing to strengthen our country, and everything to weaken it.

For you its cut and dry: liberals hate a strong america, hate war, are tree huggers and conservatives love america, fight everyone, and pollute whenever they goddamn please.

Dont you fucking lump me into anything with your sweeping generalizations. Just because I say Iraq is an ultimate fuck up, doesnt mean I'm against war, and that I recycle all day.


Hey Goose people like whott have to make broad, blanket generalizations because that is the only way they can justify any disagreement with Bush.. ie. 'Dems are happy when we lose', 'libs think the USA is evil..' etc..

[smeagol]

Looks like all shit is about to break loose in the ME.

[whottt]

Iran only has an army of 8 million people or so...

I'm sure they just figured they'd charge right in there through the Persian Gulf or something.


WHy do you guys expect anyone with intelligence to full on announce their plan?



I look at the Mid-East Map and if there is one country I would least like to be...it's Iran.


The Saudis hate them.
The Israelis hate them.
The USA hates them.
And Europe is about fed up with them.




One day...a liberal is going to look at a map of the middle east...see where our military and logistical support is now, in relation to Iran, compared to where it wasn't prior to Iraq....

Lebanon has no infrastructure for Iran to attack Israel though. The pulled out of the settlement that weakened their defensive ability.

Iraq and Afghanistan have no military infrastructure other than what is controlled by the US or Nato.




I am asking you guys...what can Iran do?


They can't get to Israel...

If they go into Iraq....well, it'll all be over quick then...everyone will allign against them. Particularly the other mid-eastern countries.

They can go into Afghanistan all they want...all that's there is the UN and Nato..


There's just no place for them to go.

Every means of outside support they have can be cut off by the US via air in a matter of hours...add in Israel's might Airforce.


I mean you guys are idiots if you don't see the position Iran is in....they better have nukes...that's all I got to say for them.


Put it this way...at the very least, the US is in positin to enforce the mother of all sanctions against them.


Iran is fucked...you gotta be a huge pussy to consider them the favorite here. Air Warfare rules.

[whottt]

Can you provide anything that remotely backs this claim up? Anything that states dems cheer when we lose etc.?


Sure, do a search in this forum...type in Iraq. Read.


Period...you guys hate Bush more than you like America. You are owned.



And just plain old sellouts.

Sold
Out

To the court of world opinion....well, world government opinion, and their useful idiots(your international siblings).

[whottt]

Looks like all shit is about to break loose in the ME.



If by Middle East you mean Iran...it probably won't be that big of a deal.


They'll go down faster than a Spurstalk Lib on Usama.



They've got no allies to support them in a war and I mean you want to talk about the potential for some crippling sanctions...they aren't even popular in their own country...much less the other mid-eastern countries like Saudi and Jordan.


They just don't have a very bright future....they better have nukes, that's all I am saying.

[Oh, Gee!!]

they better have nukes, that's all I am saying.

Uh-oh, tough guy alert.

[DarkReign]

I own you because I said so....proof, intelligence, decency be damned.

I dont think I have met a person to declare himself the winner more than whott. Most things of either winning or losing are either a) guided by rules or b) judged objectively by people outside the participants.

Not so in whotts world, Spurs would win every game just because he said they did. Youre an amusement at best, whott.

[whottt]

I own you because I said so....proof, intelligence, decency be damned.

Link to where I said I owned you in this thread? Or are you just hijacking on general principles?

Mr. Proof, Intelligence and Decency?

By the way...now, I do own you. The proof is your tripping over your own reading INcomprehension.

And yes I know what you meant...you just can't read.


I dont think I have met a person to declare himself the winner more than whott.


I agree....it gets tedious. But the simple fact is most liberals have weak historical knowledge and tend to rely on newsblurbs and propaganda as their backing.

It's not hard to win...nor is it particularly rewarding....you can't cure stupidity.





Most things of either winning or losing are either a) guided by rules or b) judged objectively by people outside the participants.

Who died and left you god?




Not so in whotts world, Spurs would win every game just because he said they did. Youre an amusement at best, whott.


And you are clueless at best.

[whottt]

Uh-oh, tough guy alert.


Idiot alert

[101A]

Damn Whott, just damn.

And anybody who doesn't think there are plenty on the left in this country who have MUCH riding on the U,S. pulling out (and therefore losing) in Iraq, are simply deluding themselves.

When have you ever had a politician say, "Boy, I'm damn glad I was wrong about that!" Well, just about never. There are SO MANY pundits, celebs, politicians, etc...who are ON RECORD as having said that Iraq is "impossible", "unwinnable", etc...that if it DOES turn, and that democratic government becomes capable of defending itself and its constitution, there is going to be MUCH backtracking and equivocation - and politicians HATE that. Trust me, they'd rather we just lose.

[clambake]

Israel is paying for reconstruction of lebanon while Hezbollah is stronger and more popular than ever. They were looking for an out more than Hezbollah. All the rubble in the world couldn't buy them a victory. They were more than happy to pull back. A powerful military stuck in a stalemate equals failure. Mental cripple.

[smeagol]

Why were the 15 soldiers abducted in the first place?

I'm not advocating for a full scale attack on Iran, but these Iranians are damn idiots.

Don't they realize their actions will have consequences?

And what if somehing happens to the British soldiers during their "stay" in Iran?

Man, foreign policy is complicated . . .

[spurster]

Is Iran keeping hostages to avoid getting their nuclear facilities bombed? Is this a coincidence just after Russia is starting to get tough on Iran>

[whottt]

Why were the 15 soldiers abducted in the first place?

Either to try and get info or in retalliation for their key personnel that have been mysteriously disappearing.


And because thier President is good at taking hostages...




I'm not advocating for a full scale attack on Iran, but these Iranians are damn idiots.

Don't they realize their actions will have consequences?

Oh they already realize it...this is an act of desperation...hostage taking always is.

They don't like those sanctions about to be imposed, they don't like that they suddenly have no allies and are surrounded by the most powerful military in the world on just about all sides.




And what if somehing happens to the British soldiers during their "stay" in Iran?

Man, foreign policy is complicated . . .


I don't know why suddenly everyone seems to think the British are wimps...

You can question their bloodthirst all you want...but they aren't wimps, they are tremendously prideful.
(and BTW, these comments aren't directed at you smeagol)

If push comes to shove the British will take action for no other reason than to not do so would erode their status as a world leader, and a potential EU leader, something very important to them, in fact it was so important to them that they helped us in Iraq priamarily for that reason. And now people think they'll let that go because some of their own soldiers were taken hostage?

You can alway count on the British to do just about anything to confirm their own belief that they are one of the most important and powerful countries in the world.

[whottt]

Israel is paying for reconstruction of lebanon while Hezbollah is stronger and more popular than ever. They were looking for an out more than Hezbollah. All the rubble in the world couldn't buy them a victory. They were more than happy to pull back. A powerful military stuck in a stalemate equals failure. Mental cripple.


Where would you rather live?

Choose your answer wisely...cocksucker.


We already know that you consider Iraq victorious in their war with the US....which makes you an idiot.

[ggoose25]

First of all idiot...Iran violated no cease fire agreement with us...like Iraq did.

Saddam = violated cease fire...

Iran = did not

SO tell me idiot...

Do you honestly think we are in a worse position for war with Iran now than we were prior to invading Iraq?

Is that what you think...idiot?

Who cares about a cease fire agreement? does a cease fire agreement = WMD present? cause that is sure how bush sold the war to everyone.

And you fucking idiot... Iran has been and continues to be the #1 financier of terrorism across the globe. Its been that way even before 9/11. But do we go after the $$$, the thing that is ultimately responsible for terrorism. NO. We invent intelligence to go after Iraq, when we shouldve been finding a way to cut the money that finances the global jihad against us.

and yes we are in a worse position. less money, less equipment, less military reserve to wage a full out war with Iran. and less public support. who gives the fuck about geographical position. you really are fucking useless at life. and you are responsible for making this country weak

[ChumpDumper]

Looks like all shit is about to break loose in the ME.Actually it kinda looks like both sides are doing some last-minute posturing before coming back to the negotiating table. Iran really doesn't have a choice now that Russia and China are turning on it.

[whottt]

who gives the fuck about geographical position.



DarkReign...do I have your permission to claim ownership here? And this was the smartest statement he made...

[smeagol]

Actually it kinda looks like both sides are doing some last-minute posturing before coming back to the negotiating table. Iran really doesn't have a choice now that Russia and China are turning on it.
I hope you are right.

Did you lose a bet or did you put the Hawks as your team simply for kicks?

[whottt]

If by Middle East you mean Iran...it probably won't be that big of a deal.


They'll go down faster than a Spurstalk Lib on Usama.


I'm pretty proud of this comment...should I sig it?

[whottt]

Did you lose a bet or did you put the Hawks as your team simply for kicks?


That was Chump's response to TimVP's call for avataring something Spurs related that you have been critical of in the past...early in htis season as a sign of team support.

See Finley in mine? Elson in TimVPs?

Chump isn't a team player...he's above changing his avatar as a Spurs rallying cry like hte rest of us. He's too good for us.


Either that or he couldn't find a Manu avatar he liked.

[boutons_]

Whott goes down faster on dubya than 101, clanny, aggie, and yoni gang-bang Whott in the rear.

When do you enlist for the Iran war, Macho Men?

[smeagol]

Either that or he couldn't find a Manu avatar he liked.

Would a Hedo avatar make any sense?

Probably not . . .

[101A]

Whott goes down faster on dubya than 101, clanny, aggie, and yoni gang-bang Whott in the rear.

When do you enlist for the Iran war, Macho Men?


My son's accepted into the AF academy.

I am prepared to make a much more dear sacrifice than my own life.

[ChumpDumper]

I have avatars turned off, so I don't even remember I have one most of the time. I just changed my team to the Hawks for the hell of it. I like when people talk smack about them because of it.

[mikejones99]

About 1972, when feminism started getting crazy

[ChumpDumper]

Also "Austin Toros" isn't a choice for teams so I chose the closet thing available.

[DarkReign]

Link to where I said I owned you in this thread? Or are you just hijacking on general principles?

Mr. Proof, Intelligence and Decency?

By the way...now, I do own you. The proof is your tripping over your own reading INcomprehension.

And yes I know what you meant...you just can't read.

I agree....it gets tedious. But the simple fact is most liberals have weak historical knowledge and tend to rely on newsblurbs and propaganda as their backing.

It's not hard to win...nor is it particularly rewarding....you can't cure stupidity.

Who died and left you god?

And you are clueless at best.

:lmao

Youd make a good rabble-rousing political lobbyist at best or a good roadside attraction at worst.

Kepp going...please.

[xrayzebra]

Well the dimm-o-craps have proven one thing, they are as
Rush says the party of defeat. They say March of next year is
our day of surrender in no uncertain terms. Why, well to save
the lives of our young soldiers, who they support. If that be the
case, how come they don't just defund the war NOW. Could it
be they really don't care about supporting the troops and saving
lives. Or just that they as Pelosi says: "have a new Congress in
Washington". Where is all the support for this cut off date, other
than boutons, on the board.

Obviously, dimm-o-craps cant afford for us to win in Iraq. So
they use any method they can to bring us down, hence Bush
fails.

[clambake]

Monetary support for the troops is in the bill. Why would bush want to veto a bill that supports our troops. The inclusion for withdrawal is because bush lacks the competence to wage and win a war, Afghanistan included. He claims the money for war runs dry in April. Are you shitting me? He's a terrible manager, already gambling with next months rent money. Any other fool would find himself in the street.

[101A]

Monetary support for the troops is in the bill. Why would bush want to veto a bill that supports our troops. The inclusion for withdrawal is because bush lacks the competence to wage and win a war, Afghanistan included. He claims the money for war runs dry in April. Are you shitting me? He's a terrible manager, already gambling with next months rent money. Any other fool would find himself in the street.


The date of defeat in the bill is a compromise, and bought with pork. Is that your view of a "competent" method of waging a war?

[xrayzebra]

Monetary support for the troops is in the bill. Why would bush want to veto a bill that supports our troops. The inclusion for withdrawal is because bush lacks the competence to wage and win a war, Afghanistan included. He claims the money for war runs dry in April. Are you shitting me? He's a terrible manager, already gambling with next months rent money. Any other fool would find himself in the street.

Horse hockey. You are wrong as two left feet and you
know it.

[clambake]

The date of defeat is in the bill? Where did you get that from? Rush the dope head?

[xrayzebra]

No, the dimm-o-craps. You know the whore Pelosi and Reid,
the real estate agent.

[101A]

The date of defeat is in the bill? Where did you get that from? Rush the dope head?


One loses a war by surrendering first.

Leaving Iraq = Surrender

Therefore, a premature pullout (one before the government of Iraq is capable of defending itself from insurgents) = defeat.

(and you didn't answer the question)

[clambake]

Is there an answer to waging a corruptive war? I guess you might find an answer from all the people bush dumped because they didn't agree with his MO. Bush's past experience with war was how to avoid it, not conduct it. Do you think this is something that can be learned on the fly? It's not just him. McCain has made some outragous claims of his own. He should base his experience on war from inside a cell.

[boutons_]

It's pretty clear that the US military's attempt to:

1) provide security to Iraq, even just to Bagdad, has been thoroughly DEFEATED.

2) hand over responsibility for (non) security to the Iraqis has been thoroughly DEFEATED.

3) to achieve ANY of the objectives of the war has been thoroughly DEFEATED.

WHAT THE FUCK IS THE POINT of staying in Iraq and bleeding to death, with regress, not progress, accelerating after 4 years? WTF is the point?

Like in VN, it's not the military's fault they have failed. It's 100% the fault of the civilians who sent them to do an impossible task.

[Oh, Gee!!]

One loses a war by surrendering first.

Leaving Iraq = Surrender

Therefore, a premature pullout (one before the government of Iraq is capable of defending itself from insurgents) = defeat.

(and you didn't answer the question)


actually, we've already won the war.

[smeagol]

You know the whore Pelosi

You are being a little harsh

[xrayzebra]

^^Am I, she sold her soul to put our nation down in everyway
possible. No I am not being harsh. She would do anything to
have her way.

[101A]

It's pretty clear that the US military's attempt to:

1) provide security to Iraq, even just to Bagdad, has been thoroughly DEFEATED.

2) hand over responsibility for (non) security to the Iraqis has been thoroughly DEFEATED.

3) to achieve ANY of the objectives of the war has been thoroughly DEFEATED.

WHAT THE FUCK IS THE POINT of staying in Iraq and bleeding to death, with regress, not progress, accelerating after 4 years? WTF is the point?

Like in VN, it's not the military's fault they have failed. It's 100% the fault of the civilians who sent them to do an impossible task.


Are the insurgents currently celebrating in the streets of Baghdad? Are they claiming victory, or they still forced to kill us in small numbers ONLY through suicide attacks, and otherwise hide in fear that we will find them, and kill them? The latter is what will happen if the Dems (and you) get there way - looks alot like defeat. The former is what is happening now - looks alot like we're the more powerful force, slowly hacking away at an insurgency that I imagine gets most of its encouragement and motivation from THIS country.

[101A]

Is there an answer to waging a corruptive war? I guess you might find an answer from all the people bush dumped because they didn't agree with his MO. Bush's past experience with war was how to avoid it, not conduct it. Do you think this is something that can be learned on the fly? It's not just him. McCain has made some outragous claims of his own. He should base his experience on war from inside a cell.


I still don't see an answer in your statement. Do you think Congress the method Pelosi is using to "manage" this war is the correct way to go about it; through accomodation and bribery?

[clambake]

Why not give it a shot? When you're in a hole, stop digging.

I don't think the insurgency has a "mission accomplished" banner to celebrate with. They'll just continue to use their sticks and stones to stalemate a so called superpower. All the weapons in the world will not replace competent planning. It's not a military failure the congress is claiming, it's a leadership failure that deserves the boot.

[ChumpDumper]

The problem with this occupation is that we never sent in enough troops to actually secure the country, and never will. xray is so quick to bring up WWII -- well we sent 350,000 troops to occupy a Japan that had already surrendered to us unconditionally. The Bush administration never had any coherent plan for the occupation and failed miserably at implementing any half-assed plan they actually came up with. It's been an inarguable disgrace.

[George Gervin's Afro]

What is the most ironic aspect about this Iraq mess is that the people who are complaing about the involvement of Congress have been wrong about everything since day one. Wrong, wrong,wrong.. yet they are the one's who are calling it a surrendar plan, pulling out defeat from the jaws of victory, we have turned the corner, we are making progress..etc.. we have heard all of this before. yet now we are supposed toi just shut up and let the folks who have been wrong continue to dig a larger whole..

[George Gervin's Afro]

Are the insurgents currently celebrating in the streets of Baghdad? Are they claiming victory, or they still forced to kill us in small numbers ONLY through suicide attacks, and otherwise hide in fear that we will find them, and kill them? The latter is what will happen if the Dems (and you) get there way - looks alot like defeat. The former is what is happening now - looks alot like we're the more powerful force, slowly hacking away at an insurgency that I imagine gets most of its encouragement and motivation from THIS country.


You and your ilk have been wrong about everything up until this point so pardon us for IGNORING you and the war whores..

[101A]

You and your ilk have been wrong about everything up until this point so pardon us for IGNORING you and the war whores..


What have I been wrong about?

Who is "my ilk"?

Most of the DEMOCRATIC presidential candidates were for the invasion when it happened, and were still in support during the last presidential election cycle.

Are we wrong when we point out that the insurgents are emboldened by anti-war activity in this country? Are we wrong when we point out that leaving at a specific time in the future GUARANTEES the insurgency a victory? If attacks against the coalition forces are indeed lessening with the surge, does that mean anything, or should it be ignored?

If YOUR ILK are so damned right about this why don't you call for, demand and support an IMMEDIATE de-funding of the war? THAT is what the constitution says ought to be done on the matter!!!

The Democrats control Congress RIGHT NOW, and are saying in not so many words that the boys in Iraqs' lives are being wasted, yet they are willing to let them continue to waste for a year.

Don't try to take some kind of high-ground when that is the stance, apparently, YOU support. We are losing this war, and are going to continue to lose this war for another year, until we quit....but it's only BUSH's fault that boys lives are being wasted. Hypocritical political pansy-assed bastards.

[boutons_]

"yet they are willing to let them continue to waste for a year"

No, they give time to meet milestones, and if not met, time for a reasonable withdrawal. Nothing abrupt and calamitous.

US military lives, bodies, and minds WASTED are 100% the responsibility of dickkead, his ignorant stooge dubya, and NPAC/AEI/neo-cunts who wanted this war for oil. From now on, any losses are still due the tremendous REpug-initiated momentum of a ground war with 150K+ plus troops, NOT due to anything the Dems do.

Iraq is lost. Congress is saying one last chance, one last set of milestones, then there will be period of withdrawal to minimize the invevitable risk and damage.

[ChumpDumper]

What have I been wrong about?What have you been right about?

If we're going to stay, we should go the McCain route and not fuck around with this surge shell game that simply moves the problem away from TV cameras for awhile. I have a certain amount of faith in Petraeus but I think it ridiculous that it took four years to apply his approach to counterinsurgency on a large scale and fear that it might be too little too late. Bush didn't fully understand the consequences of invading Iraq, and handled the occupation horribly. Even if you want to cling to the belief that regime change in 2003 was the right thing to do, you have to admit that the aftermath has been a disaster so far.

[xrayzebra]

No boutons, the lives "wasted" as you put it is rest entirely upon
the shoulders of people like you: liberals and dimm-o-craps.
Nothing more or less. You think you have all the answers ever
since VN. You didn't learn then and you wont learn now.

You are the people of "defeat" of our country and our people.
Yeah I said it, "our people". The American people. Americans
have nothing to be ashamed of, although, you would never
know it to listen to people like you. We built the greatest
country in the world, with more for everyone, but to listen to
you and others like you, you would think we have done nothing
but exploit the world. Which is the biggest lie every told. We
have done nothing but give our blood and resources to
help others.

You damn people are sickening. Absolute and without any
doubt: sickening. You have no common sense or reason about
your thinking process. You are the absolute cesspool of the
earth and if your way of thinking is ever allowed to really
take hold all people will live in absolute poverty and the rule
of law will be in absolute shambles.

My God, does anyone, anyone of your kind ever look at what
the Socialist have brought to countries where it has been tried?

No I thought not!

[xrayzebra]

What have you been right about?

If we're going to stay, we should go the McCain route and not fuck around with this surge shell game that simply moves the problem away from TV cameras for awhile. I have a certain amount of faith in Petraeus but I think it ridiculous that it took four years to apply his approach to counterinsurgency on a large scale and fear that it might be too little too late. Bush didn't fully understand the consequences of invading Iraq, and handled the occupation horribly. Even if you want to cling to the belief that regime change in 2003 was the right thing to do, you have to admit that the aftermath has been a disaster so far.

You blather and blather and say nothing. Occupation,
you don't even understand the word.

You don't even understand they had an election,
drafted a constitution. If we occupied them like we
have other countries, my God, things would have been
completely different. But who are you to know. You
know nothing, absolutely nothing. Just spit out the
same old dimm-o-crap propaganda.

[clambake]

Good God Ray, you're such a dinosaur. Listen.....my kids class will be taking a field trip to the tarpits. Is there any chance we'll see you IN an exhibit?

[ChumpDumper]

If we occupied them like we
have other countries, my God, things would have been
completely different.That's exactly what i said. Thanks for agreeing with me.
But who are you to know. You
know nothing, absolutely nothing. Just spit out the
same old dimm-o-crap propaganda.If the occupation has been such a fucking success, why can't we leave now?

[xrayzebra]

You kids would do well to talk to me. At least I have
the knowledge to tell them what the world is about. Not what you
think it should be.

Like folks of your age say: Been there, done that. And I have.

[xrayzebra]

Chump, and you truely are one. We have not occupied Iraq.
We have not even came close to occupation. Do you really
understand occupation? Read what I posted.

[ChumpDumper]

Been there, done that. And I have. You refereed a multiparty civil war in the middle east?

[clambake]

hahahaha

[ChumpDumper]

Chump, and you truely are one. We have not occupied Iraq.
We have not even came close to occupation. Do you really
understand occupation? Read what I posted.The fact you can't bring yourself to call it an occupation says it all.

What do you call the last four years of 100,000+ troops in Iraq, x?

Loitering?

[ChumpDumper]

Iran to release Britons. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_britain)

Thank God we launched that full scale invasion....

[johnsmith]

Iran to release Britons. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_britain)

Thank God we launched that full scale invasion....

Chump, did you already forget? Your brother Dan said the invasion won't start until Friday.

[George Gervin's Afro]

But ray wanted to bomb them into submission? There's still hope that cowboy diplomacy isn't dead yet ray..!! Keep the faith

[Drive Like Jehu]

Chump, did you already forget? Your brother Dan said the invasion won't start until Friday.


Certain flavors of kool-aid don't mix....

[101A]

Iran to release Britons. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_britain)

Thank God we launched that full scale invasion....


Thank god Blair finally ratcheted up the tough talk so that Iran sensed that somebody might actually DO something about this illegal act.

[Extra Stout]

Thank god Blair finally ratcheted up the tough talk so that Iran sensed that somebody might actually DO something about this illegal act.
That's not what happened. Does anybody actually read the news?

Iran captured the 15 sailors in retaliation for the U.S.'s detaining 5 officials at the Iranian consulate in Kirkuk.

The 5 Iranians were released; therefore, Iran released the 15 Britons.

So much for the "tough talk."

[ChumpDumper]

That's not what happened. Does anybody actually read the news?

Iran captured the 15 sailors in retaliation for the U.S.'s detaining 5 officials at the Iranian consulate in Kirkuk.

The 5 Iranians were released; therefore, Iran released the 15 Britons.

So much for the "tough talk."All you had to do was read my post a week ago.
Prisoner exchange to follow.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1531416&postcount=2

[johnsmith]

All you had to do was read my post a week ago.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1531416&postcount=2

Good call, who do you like for the Masters this weekend?

[ChumpDumper]

I got nothing.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Poor Shawn Whannity.. he's been ratcheting up the tough talk about Iran asking "what more do they need to do before we intervene militarily.." this is why people like cheney, whannity etc.. are dangerous.. first sign of trouble? let's invade!!

[101A]

That's not what happened. Does anybody actually read the news?

Iran captured the 15 sailors in retaliation for the U.S.'s detaining 5 officials at the Iranian consulate in Kirkuk.

The 5 Iranians were released; therefore, Iran released the 15 Britons.

So much for the "tough talk."

In fact haven't read the news today; my post was off the cuff and referred to a story I read yesterday about Blair issuing a 48 hour deadline before "something more" would be done.

That said, we sure taught Iran not to take hostages! Giving them EXACTLY what they wanted from this event. I'm sure they won't try THAT again.

[101A]

That's not what happened. Does anybody actually read the news?

Iran captured the 15 sailors in retaliation for the U.S.'s detaining 5 officials at the Iranian consulate in Kirkuk.

The 5 Iranians were released; therefore, Iran released the 15 Britons.

So much for the "tough talk."


I don't have time to search EVERYWHERE, but from a cursory glance, and a couple of "Googles" I can't find the story indicating we had released the 5 Iranians; I saw that a SINGLE Iranian had been let go, but not all. A link would be most helpful.

[boutons_]

Iranians are still captives

===============

April 4, 2007

U.S. Weighs Iran Request to Visit Prisoners in Iraq

By EDWARD WONG

BAGHDAD, April 4 — An American military spokesman said today that the Americans were reviewing an informal request from the Iranian government for an envoy to visit five Iranians imprisoned following an American raid in northern Iraq in January.

The spokesman, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, said at a news conference that the request was “being assessed at this time.” He added that the Americans had conducted the raid to go after people suspected of carrying out “illegal operations” in Iraq. The general did not say when the Americans might approve or reject the request.

The general also said the International Committee of the Red Cross had recently been allowed to visit a group of prisoners that included one of the five Iranians.

The general’s comments came in response to a reporter’s question about a report on Wednesday from the Iranian state news agency that said an envoy from the Iranian embassy in Iraq will meet with the five detainees.

Ali al-Dabbagh, a spokesman for the Iraqi government, said the five Iranians were a subject of discussion at a regional conference held last month in Baghdad that was attended by American and Iranian diplomats.

Talk of the five detainees came on the same day that the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said his country would free 15 British marines and sailors who had been held for nearly two weeks. The British detainees were seized by the Iranian military in the northern Persian Gulf on March 23 and accused of having trespassed into Iran’s territorial waters.

General Caldwell did not say whether there was any connection between talks over the five Iranians and negotiations over the 15 British prisoners.

The five Iranians imprisoned by the Americans were among six people detained in a raid on Jan. 11 in Erbil, the capital of the autonomous Kurdistan region. American attack helicopters and armored vehicles backed up the soldiers doing the raid, and 200 Kurdish soldiers surrounded the Americans in a tense standoff before letting the Americans leave with their prisoners. One of the detainees was released that day.

The Bush administration has long accused Iran of giving weapons and money to Shiite militias in Iraq, but has escalated its accusations against Iran in recent months. Military officials say they have evidence that Iran has given technology for deadly bombs called explosively formed penetrators to Shiite militias here. The number of American soldiers being killed by such bombs has risen sharply, the officials say.

The White House has also been pushing the United Nations to impose harsh sanctions on Iran to try and get the country to curb its nuclear program. American officials say Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon.

On Tuesday, an Iranian diplomat who was kidnapped more than eight weeks ago by men wearing uniforms from the Iraqi security forces was released to the Iranian embassy. The Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, said he had pushed hard to get captors to free the diplomat, Jalal Sharafi, and he was still working on the issue of the five Iranians held by the Americans.

Mr. Zebari said the liberation of Mr. Sharafi, the second secretary of the Iranian embassy here, had nothing to do with the standoff over the 15 British marines and sailors.

In other political wrangling, two members of Parliament who answer to Moktada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric, were fired by Mr. Sadr for meeting with the Americans, a third legislator, Saleh al-Ajili, said on Wednesday. American military officials say Mr. Sadr is in Iran, while Mr. Sadr’s supporters say he is still in Iraq.

Mr. Ajili declined to give details of the meetings that the two fired legislators, Salam al-Maliki and Qusay Abdul Wahab, had with the Americans. Mr. Maliki is a former transportation minister. “We have an order not to meet with anyone from the occupation authorities,” Mr. Ajili said.

The Sadr organization holds at least 30 of the 275 seats in Parliament. Mr. Ajili did not say who would replace the two fired legislators.

Five employees of a power station were shot dead on Wednesday in an ambush west of the oil-city of Kirkuk, police officials said. In the Kut area, a concealed bomb killed two Iraqi soldiers. A former Iraqi Army colonel was shot dead in a restaurant in Falluja.

Four Iraqi policemen were killed in an ambush in restive Diyala province on Tuesday night, a police official said on Wednesday. A civilian was killed and seven wounded in an attack the same day in the town of Khalis. Four bodies, including one of a policeman, were found Wednesday in Baquba, the capital of Diyala.

At least 22 shepherds and their sheep were abducted on Wednesday west of the holy Shiite city of Karbala by men in police uniforms. Police officials in Karbala denied any involvement.

Qais Mizher contributed reporting for this article from Baghdad and NYT employees contributed reporting from other cities in Iraq.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, that's all I had read. The US denies any linkage, of course.

[whottt]

In fact haven't read the news today; my post was off the cuff and referred to a story I read yesterday about Blair issuing a 48 hour deadline before "something more" would be done.

That said, we sure taught Iran not to take hostages! Giving them EXACTLY what they wanted from this event. I'm sure they won't try THAT again.



We didn't give them what they wanted...


Trini just tried to punk the UK (and us by proxy) and realized as I said...Jimmy Carter isn't in office anymore.


The troop buildup alongside the Iranian border...the total lack of support from China, Russia and even the biggest commies in the EU...


He's just trying to save face and appear as if he stood up to big bad USA and UK...


He's still going to be up shit creek once the sanctions kick in....something his stunt guranteed, shit creek with his own people...

Sanctions that would be pretty much unenforcable without our military surroundhing his ass on all sides.


And what a surprise...50% of UK citizens favored military action against Iran if necessary to gaint he release of their soldiers.



Don't listen to these idiots...they actually think this guy Trini is a reasonable man...that's tells you the degree of idiot they are.

Gervin's Afro being idiot #1 of course.

[101A]

That's not what happened. Does anybody actually read the news?

Iran captured the 15 sailors in retaliation for the U.S.'s detaining 5 officials at the Iranian consulate in Kirkuk.

The 5 Iranians were released; therefore, Iran released the 15 Britons.

So much for the "tough talk."

WTF?

[George Gervin's Afro]

We didn't give them what they wanted...


Trini just tried to punk the UK (and us by proxy) and realized as I said...Jimmy Carter isn't in office anymore.


The troop buildup alongside the Iranian border...the total lack of support from China, Russia and even the biggest commies in the EU...


He's just trying to save face and appear as if he stood up to big bad USA and UK...


He's still going to be up shit creek once the sanctions kick in....something his stunt guranteed, shit creek with his own people...

Sanctions that would be pretty much unenforcable without our military surroundhing his ass on all sides.


And what a surprise...50% of UK citizens favored military action against Iran if necessary to gaint he release of their soldiers.



Don't listen to these idiots...they actually think this guy Trini is a reasonable man...that's tells you the degree of idiot they are.

Gervin's Afro being idiot #1 of course.


So let me get this straight. Did Iran do this to save face? Or to stand up to the US/UK? In the end no military action was needed and your upset?

You talk of sanctions? I thought you were against sanctions.They actually worked in Iraq before Bush decided to play war..Not a peep from you.. so do you support sanctions or not?


Whott as far as me being an idiot your side has been wrong on everything since day one so if I'm an idiot what does that make you? :lol

[101A]

According to Drudge, this was an Easter present, and in celebration of Mohammed's birthday.

They're basically just really nice people.

[ChumpDumper]

It was one long ass press conference. Lots of stuff like that was said.

[Extra Stout]

WTF?
My bad; I'd read online that the Iranians had been released. I guess not.

[gtownspur]

My bad; I'd read online that the Iranians had been released. I guess not.


Less Irish beer for you.

[whottt]

So let me get this straight. Did Iran do this to save face? Or to stand up to the US/UK?

I think he did it to rally support in his own country...typical shitty politician trick to try to ride some good old anti-americanism to a respite from criticism on the home front...


Jaques Chirac did it last time he got elected...was the only thing that got him elected.

To try and use them as a bagaining chip to avoid sanctions - didn't work.

To see how Britain and America would respond - found that out - Britain was about 2 seconds away from going to war on this...with popular support of the people.


Look...put yourself in his shoes...you are a President of a country...and the military of your greatest enemy surrounds you on all sides...you are a fucking terrorist thug whose only known skill is in hostage taking...

What would you do?






Then he saw that we weren't fucking around...

I notice no one posted the articles about the US Troop buildup along the Iranian border...




In the end no military action was needed and your upset?

Kinda...we still have problems.


I know you are one of the idiots that thinks this guy just wants to live in Peace...but you are fucking wrong, that's not what he wants.


You talk of sanctions? I thought you were against sanctions.They actually worked in Iraq before Bush decided to play war..Not a peep from you.. so do you support sanctions or not?


Those sanctions didn't do much in Iraq idiot...are you, or are you not aware of Saddam building palaces with gold toilet seats while his people starved?

And it's not like the UN sanctions worked anyway..due to the UN corruption.

I am in favor of these because the US military is in position to totally enforce them...they'll make Trini lose popularity...

But no, fool, they are not the ultimate solutuon, they'll stop working eventually...like, after 15 years or so. Mostly sanctions only hurt the people...


Iranians are particularly pissed right now at the prospect of sanctions...will definitely work short term...




But after 15 years or so of Americans LIKE YOURSELF not caring about the people suffering under the sanctions while the leaders live like kings, they'll hate us just as much


Those Iraqi sanctions are a big reason why we weren't as popular in Iraq this time around as we were during the Persian Gulf War...that, and of course, letting them get slaughtered by Saddam after their uprising last time(call this the Powell Doctrine, or the UN's idea of war).



Whott as far as me being an idiot your side has been wrong on everything since day one so if I'm an idiot what does that make you? :lol


I am not wrong on anything, you like all the libs on this board, don't know shit about the history of these conflicts...all you know is, Bush bad - everyone else good.


You don't understand the mindset of the religious fascists we are squared off against, you seem to think they're just a bunch of misunderstood hippies or something...you're wrong.

That's all the left can do now...is oppose Bush, even if it means they support some seriously fucked up people in the process...

That's all you cazn do, that's all your political brain can do, that's all NbaDan can do, that's all boutons can do...hate Bush.

That is your politics, that is the politics of hte lefties on this board. Bush = Bad

That's it.


You'd guys would shoot a baby in the head if it would get rid of Bush...admit it. That is your only political view.

You don't know shit about international politics either...because you guys fucking think Angels fly out of the ass of Europe or something...

[ChumpDumper]

I notice no one posted the articles about the US Troop buildup along the Iranian border...Why don't you do that? I simply didn't see any.

[whottt]

You sh look harder....

In fact...you should pay a lot more attention to minute details like that....

You sh also seriously consider looking into the Presidents powers as the Commander in Chief...seriously...I am wondering if you were drunk or sick or something when you made the comments about what Bush is limited too...he's not just limited to cruise missles...not even close....add in the fact that there is a lot of grey areas as to just what powers the President does have...and it's his Supreme Court....and well, that was just a very unChumplike comment, usually when you don't know what you are talking about your are vague....I reccomend you go back to that approach if this was some kind of new strategy.

[ChumpDumper]

Quit stalling and just link it. I read about some naval exercises but we do that all the time.

And provide a link that proves Bush can launch a full scale invasion of Iran with no congressional approval or appropriations while you're at it.

[velik_m]

Sanctions never work, ask Castro.

[TDMVPDPOY]

This iran scene, looks like israel/lebanon war last year conflict....

israel is surrounded, but has the backup of USA and UK, but we all know the idiots who are the smaller player always start/stir shit, and when things dont go there way, they come running to NATO/EU for help...thats how it is....had the surrounding arab countries retaliated, good bye israel.

same shit with iran, with all coalition forces gaurding the border, but the other concern is the neighboring arab countries like lebanon, syria, palestine.....

did sanctions work? to a degree it did, untill they start to increase there fuckn demands....

[ChumpDumper]

The only excuse I see Bush being able use to strike Iran is the 9/14 joint resolution of congress -- but that begs the question why he needed further authorization to invade Iraq the following year?

And there's also the small problem of Bush's not currently having any continued funding for the two wars he has already started but hasn't finished. Where exactly is the funding for the third, and by far the largest war coming from? To say nothing of the troops -- where are all the troops for the full-scale invasion of Iran coming from?

[whottt]

Quit stalling and just link it. I read about some naval exercises but we do that all the time.

Chuckle. What are you, Lazy?

That's okay...you'll hear about it again.





And provide a link that proves Bush can launch a full scale invasion of Iran with no congressional approval or appropriations while you're at it.

Yawn...provide the link that says all he can do is launch a few cruise missles...

You need to read it more than I do...

Trust me on this one....Chump......hmmm now that I think about it, I like the go out on a limb/unvague Chump, better....so don't do it.

[ChumpDumper]

What's the hold up?

Why are you stalling so much?

Just give me those links.
Yawn...provide the link that says all he can do is launch a few cruise missles...You want a link to the authorization to use force in Iraq that you say he didn't need?

You want every appropriation bill for Iraq and Afghanistan made since 2002?

You need to take junior high school civics again.

Here's a link that might be more your speed;

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

[whottt]

The only excuse I see Bush being able use to strike Iran is the 9/14 joint resolution of congress -- but that begs the question why he needed further authorization to invade Iraq the following year?

Damn...that's bad, do you have mental block on this one issue or something?





And there's also the small problem of Bush's not currently having any continued funding for the two wars he has already started but hasn't finished.


So if we go to War with Iran you think Congress won't fund it? That will be a first.




Where exactly is the funding for the third, and by far the largest war coming from?

He has the power to incite a war with Iran, he has the power to kick the shit out of IRan's infrastructure and cut off all outside logistical support, and take out IRan's nuclear facilities





To say nothing of the troops -- where are all the troops for the full-scale invasion of Iran coming from?


You're drunk aren't you?





Damn you must be drunk or something.

Come back when you are sober...I enjoy bitchslapping you, but I don't get much out of it when you are doing it to yourself.




I want you to tell me something...what can Iran do?


If our military is sitting in Iraq and Afghanistan, two soverign nations on non hostile terms with Iran...which incidentally border Iran...and we launch attacks from the Persian Gulf...

What can Iran do?

You tell me Chump...


Go into Afghanistan and Iraq?

LMAO. Die in the Persian Gulf?

What they can do is sit there and hole up while all outside aid and resources are cut off...

LMAO, those fuckers can't even produce enough fuel on their own to survive that kind of isolation.



As I have been saying...oh since the day we went into Iraq with regards to Iran...

How can anyone think Iran is better off now than they were prior to us going into Iraq.

How can anyone think that.

They are in a worse position than Iraq was, they also don't have nearly as experienced of a hardened military as we do, or as Iraq did.

And there elements within the country that seek to overthrow it's govt...large elements...they just need some help.

When Trini gets them bombed because of a being a pompous ass, they'll go cut off his head themselves...


What's going to replace them? A hostile ISlamic Theocracy sworn to our destruction? Oh shit.




But anyway...all of this is moot, all he's got to do is take out their nuclear facilities...problem solved. That's the minimalist scenario....

He just needs an excuse. A good one.


Personally I am pissed at the current admin for cowtowing to our anti-wars...


We sent Bush in for the max term and voted in his congress...

That was America saying...go fucking do it...do it now. You are home free.


That's what America said four years ago...and it seems as if he's let the anti-wars get to him...that's his bad and to his detriment, he let liberals hear them roar get to him...well done commies.

[whottt]

What's the hold up?

Why are you stalling so much?


Bitch...is my name google?

And who's fucking stalling...I was making a long quality post.



Link is not forthcoming...no stall to it. I don't want to link it...I want you to link it.



Just give me those links.You want a link to the authorization to use force in Iraq that you say he didn't need?




You want every appropriation bill for Iraq and Afghanistan made since 2002?

No...I want a list of every war declaration by Congress since oh say...1900 or so.


And a link that says all he can do is launch cruise missles...



You need to take junior high school civics again.

Here's a link that might be more your speed;

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ


Damn...

[whottt]

And a link to why you think cruise missles can't start a war...


It's like...not only are you striking out...

Well shit there's a good metaphor in there, but it will take some time to come up with something to describe just how bad your arguments are right now...

Seriously Chump. What's wrong with you?

This is definitely not the Chump I am used to arguing with...is this some kind of ploy to get backhanded praise or something?

[ChumpDumper]

Damn...that's bad, do you have mental block on this one issue or something?
Since you can't even argue anything different, I win that argument by default. Thanks for your unspoken stipulation of this point you won't even try to counter.
So if we go to War with Iran you think Congress won't fund it? That will be a first.It's almost happening with Iraq now. You need to pay attention.
He has the power to incite a war with Iran, he has the power to kick the shit out of IRan's infrastructure and cut off all outside logistical support, and take out IRan's nuclear facilitiesSo you are agreeing that he's just going to lob some cruise missiles and drop a couple of bombs in there? Damn, you need to make up your mind for once.
You're drunk aren't you?





Damn you must be drunk or something.Why can't you just answer these questions when they are put to you?

All you can do is stall. That's competely weak.
As I have been saying...oh since the day we went into Iraq with regards to Iran...Yeah, we've all heard your grand theory of mideast conquest. The great thing about making shit up is you can cite yourself as a source.
That was America saying...go fucking do it...do it now. That's what America said four years ago.What is America saying now after it voted Bush's party out of office because of the fiasco in Iraq? Why are you in denial about that?

A new poll shows that declining American public support for the war in Iraq is leading to an increasingly negative public opinion of resorting to military force to settle global conflicts. The findings come in the fourth survey conducted jointly by the non-profit organization Public Agenda and Foreign Affairs, one of America's most influential publications on foreign policy....

"For example, 84 percent are worried about the way things are going for the United States in world affairs. Eighty-two percent say the world is becoming more dangerous for the United States, 73 percent say the United States is not doing a good job as a leader in creating a more peaceful, prosperous world, and 68 percent believe the rest of the world sees the United States negatively. Actually, one third, 34 percent, say very negatively. And 67 percent, two out of three, say that U.S. relations with the rest of world are on the wrong track," he said.

She called the current anxiety indicator "very high" at 137 points, out of a total possible 200 points.

An overwhelming number of the people polled linked the U.S. image around the world to global security. They urged the United States to improve its reputation by taking a more positive leadership role in issues like reducing global warming and controlling diseases.

Wooden says the survey specifically shows that Americans are strongly opposed to using military force around the world.

As an example of this, she said only eight percent of the respondents supported possible military action against Iran. At the same time, 70 percent of the respondents favor a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq within 12 months.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-04-03-voa62.cfm

That's from VoA yesterday, not September 12, 2001.

I'm sorry Bush squandered all the goodwill that the US was given after the 9/11 attacks. I'm sorry he never finished the job of killing the real terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I'm sorry he neatly fulfilled Osama's propoganda by invading and occupying Iraq in the first place, and I'm really sorry he didn't take it seriously enough to send enough troops to do it right and I'm sorry he sent a bunch of inexperienced political hacks to rebuild the country in three month shifts. The problem is he's not sorry and can't even admit to the most obvious of his fuckups. Neither can you.

Bush continually fucked up on a monumental scale after 9/11 and lost his popular support, yet you think he still enjoys a mandate from the people. You are in severe denial just because there is a slowdown in the killing of muslims. It's quite sad to see. You used to come close to making sense in your arguments.

[whottt]

Since you can't even argue anything different, I win that argument by default. Thanks for your unspoken stipulation of this point you won't even try to counter.


What?



It's almost happening with Iraq now. You need to pay attention.So you are agreeing that he's just going to lob some cruise missiles and drop a couple of bombs in there? Damn, you need to make up your mind for once.Why can't you just answer these questions when they are put to you?

It's being attempted...it won't succeed.

Um...

#1. You underestimate the cruise missle power that we have...as well as the ability to coordinate and survey Iran for the purpose these attacks.

2. You also seem to have not paid much attention to the Previous Two Iraq conflicts, and what those, "few cruise missles and bombs" did to Iraq.

You are even more clueless to the fact that Iran is more vulnerable than Iraq was to airstrikes, and that our airforce and air power capabilities are even more powerful and experienced than they were at the time of both IRaq Wars.


AND FINALLY, YOU ARE COMPLETELY FUCKING CLUESS AS TO WHAT ISRAEL HAS BEEN ABLE TO DO TO EVERY COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST WITH JUST A FEW BOMBS AND CRUISE MISSLES, FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS.

In summary...

1. You're wrong about the level of attacks the President can launch upon Iran without Jack Shit approval from Congress.

2. You're wrong about what those cruise missles would be capable of even if if your statement were accurate.

3. You're wrong if you don't think Iran would make the decision about whether or not we are going to war for US, over just a few cruise missles...then again, I realize Trini is an idiot and you don't.







All you can do is stall. That's competely weak.Yeah, we've all heard your grand theory of mideast conquest. The great thing about making shit up is you can cite yourself as a source.


I don't want to conquer the middle east, I like the Middle East culture, I like what they have contributed to society, I am paticularly fond of the Pre Mohammed Mid Eastern Culture and the history of Egypt was one of the things that inspired me in my choice of education. I have been studying this stuff my entire life and I didn't form my opinions on it because of Keith Olberman's latest blogging.


I want to rid it of it's oppressive and unelightened ruling class that is breeding a growing apocalyptic threat, and causing mass emmigration of it's indigenous and long time inhabitants...that was breeding it before Bush was even out of college, that continued to breed it...


The threat is so great, is so entrenched in the mid-east culture, that I am willing to endorse the USE nukes to end it...and I am damn sure willing to endorse the threat of using nukes.







What is America saying now after it voted Bush's party out of office because of the fiasco in Iraq? Why are you in denial about that?

It's saying that it's time to return to business as usual, and that it's a moderate country that isn't comfortable to throwing that much power to one political party for longer than 4 years under anything but extreme circumstances.


What does it tell you about the out of touchness of your stance that the most you can cite in terms of victory is a return to the basically traditional opposition congress and Presidency structure.

I don't want a fucking one side structure...except for the purpose of executing this war.


I am pro stem cell research...I am pro choice, I want alternative fuel sources and for us to continue to pursue techonogical advancement.

It's just you guys offered complete shit as alternatives...

I don't care how bad you think Bush has been...your guy wanted to cut and run, and suck the dicks of European leaders that aren't even in power any more, and a UN body that is now facing criminal investation.



Just because the Anti-Americans have all the no life protestors, doesn't mean they are they majority...

Not here...

No in the UK

Not in Australia

Not even in Germany....





Poll lol




I'm sorry Bush squandered all the goodwill that the US was given after the 9/11 attacks.


Good will of whom? The American People...

Well it's not like he's the greatest President ever...but thanks to the abject failure of the party of Rosie and Moore...he was the best we could do.




I'm sorry he never finished the job of killing the real terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.


So you're saying you expected this problem to be solved in 4 or 5 years:?

You think the mindset that we face was limited to Pakistan and Afghanistan?


The major exporters are Saudi, Pakistan and Egypt...none of whom we can take out, for various reasons...but what we can do is isolate them and expose them for the crappy governments they are....well Pak is trying.






I'm sorry he neatly fulfilled Osama's propoganda by invading and occupying Iraq in the first place, and I'm really sorry he didn't take it seriously enough to send enough troops to do it right and I'm sorry he sent a bunch of inexperienced political hacks to rebuild the country in three month shifts. The problem is he's not sorry and can't even admit to the most obvious of his fuckups. Neither can you.


So you expected this to be over in like...2 months?


I say if everything had gone perfect, from the day this began...we'll be lucky if it's over in our lifetimes...

This is not a shorterm thing...you don't erase what was has been happening to the mid-east for the last 100 years, in 2 months Chump.

It's going to take decades.


Unless you want a nuclear cleansing...which I favor if we get nuked. Damn straight I do.



Bush continually fucked up on a monumental scale after 9/11 and lost his popular support, yet you think he still enjoys a mandate from the people.

Um.....he got a rare mandate to begin with...those aren't common in thise country.


I think 06 was just a market correction...

I didn't want us going to totally conservative...do you? Were you comfortable with that? I wasn't. Especially since they seemed more concerned with the party that didn't put them in power than the party that did, as far as their public statements.




You are in severe denial just because there is a slowdown in the killing of muslims. It's quite sad to see. You used to come close to making sense in your arguments.


Yawn...

[ChumpDumper]

What? Another stall.
It's being attempted...it won't succeed.It will if Bushy starts another war.
#1. You underestimate the cruise missle power that we have...as well as the ability to coordinate and survey Iran for the purpose these attacks. I know exactly what cruise missiles can and can't do.
2. You also seem to have not paid much attention to the Previous Two Iraq conflicts, and what those, "few cruise missles and bombs" did to Iraq.You seem to ignore the fact that ground forces were used both times. It's entirely true that Desert Fox almost took out Saddam with cruise missiles alone, but that was thanks to the fact that his military power had been reduced by two thirds already. You were in denial about that little fact as well -- to say nothing of the fact that Iran is in no such state.
You are even more clueless to the fact that Iran is more vulnerable than Iraq was to airstrikes, and that our airforce and air power capabilities are even more powerful and experienced than they were at the time of both IRaq Wars.Yeah, thanks General. We're all impressed. Where are your links to this?
AND FINALLY, YOU ARE COMPLETELY FUCKING CLUESS AS TO WHAT ISRAEL HAS BEEN ABLE TO DO TO EVERY COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST WITH JUST A FEW BOMBS AND CRUISE MISSLES, FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS.So now you are calling for a limited conflict with Iran? What exactly are you asking for? You've been all over the map these past four years -- kill everyone, only kill the leaders, nuke Mecca, just lob some cruise missiles, invade Iran? Why don't you just sticky your manifesto to the top of this forum so you won't be able to change your position every thread.
1. You're wrong about the level of attacks the President can launch upon Iran without Jack Shit approval from Congress.Thanks for telling me why Bush got congressional appoval to invade Iraq.
2. You're wrong about what those cruise missles would be capable ofNah, i know what they can do and more importantly, what they can't.
3. You're wrong if you don't think Iran would make the decision about whether or not we are going to war for US, over just a few cruise missles...then again, I realize Trini is an idiot and you don't. Actually, you said we were going to war over the British hostages. You were stunningly wrong about that. You say the Iranian president is suicidal and wants to die in a conflict with the US which he will do anything to bring about -- except when you say he is afraid of having his ass kicked by the US and gave up the hostages out of fear. Once again, make up your fucking mind.
It's saying that it's time to return to business as usual, and that it's a moderate country that isn't comfortable to throwing that much power to one political party for longer than 4 years under anything but extreme circumstances.But you just said that Bush had a mandate to finish it by any means he chose. Which is it?
What does it tell you about the out of touchness of your stance that the most you can cite in terms of victory is a return to the basically traditional opposition congress and Presidency structure.Um, it completely proves what I have said all along. I didn't even have to change my argument in every thread like you have.
I don't want a fucking one side structure...except for the purpose of executing this war.Too bad Bush has proven almost completely incompetent in his one-sided execution of this war.
I don't care how bad you think Bush has been...your guy wanted to cut and run, and suck the dicks of European leaders that aren't even in power any more, and a UN body that is now facing criminal investation. Kerry wasn't my guy. I said he wouldn't win and I am on record as saying we have to stay in Iraq for awhile.
Just because the Anti-Americans have all the no life protestors, doesn't mean they are they majority...Nor do the majority share your misguided bloodlust. They simply see that Bush fucked up. You don't.
Good will of whom? The American People...Not only the American people, the international community as well. Bush had a unique historical opportunity and he blew it horribly.
So you're saying you expected this problem to be solved in 4 or 5 years:?No straw men please. I expected Bush to keep the proper priorities and not neglect or ingore the real goals of the war on terror to fulfill Paul Wolfowitz's wet dreams -- and even if he did I expected him to take the reconstruction of Iraq and by extension his attempted transformation of the middle east far more seriously than he in fact did.
The major exporters are Saudi, Pakistan and Egypt...none of whom we can take out, for various reasons.What various reasons? You know the only real reason you have ever produced for going into Iraq when we did was because it was easy (though you will change your story if the discussion happens to be about the US military's performance). Is that what policy should be based on -- what is easy?

I say if everything had gone perfect, from the day this began...we'll be lucky if it's over in our lifetimes...I don't disagree and never did with that kind of assessment. Your problem is you have never ever thought anything has gone wrong or has been done badly in the past six years.
Um.....he got a rare mandate to begin with...those aren't common in thise country.Three skyscrapers collapsing in Manhattan isn't common in this country either. Bush's mistake was thinking the mandate was given to him because of him.
I think 06 was just a market correction...I think 06 was a referendum on Iraq. There's no other way to explain the gains made by Democrats in traditionally Republican areas.
Yawn...Yawn, indeed. Wake us when you change your story again.

[whottt]

Hey Chump...do me a favor before I kick your ass on this...

If you are going to make long posts like I do...would you mind inserting some spaces for quoting purposes as I am kind enough to do for you?

Seriously...select quote on one of your posts and then on one of mine...see the difference?

One is easy to reply too and separate for the purposes of attacking an argument...the other is just a huge block of shit...

Anyway...it'll take me a good hour of stalling to organize that...got other stuff to do first.


Again...any time you want to give me a list of war authorization from congress over last 100 years or so...by all means do so.


You won't have much to do after WWII...yes, you got owned that badly.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't expect you to respond in any meaningful way, so why should I bother?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I don't expect you to respond in any meaningful way, so why should I bother?


Chump I wouldn't waste my time either with Whott..his incoherent rambling is a bit tiresome. All of his posts end with he owning that particular poster for no other reason than he says so..

[whottt]

Chump I wouldn't waste my time either with Whott..his incoherent rambling is a bit tiresome. All of his posts end with he owning that particular poster for no other reason than he says so..




No...you get owned factually. It's the only way it can be done...you're just too lazy to check out whether or not the rhetoric you have sold out too is accurate...

I don't mean accurate depending your interpretation, I mean accurate in any way shape or form.


Oh and...I bet you're the one person in America who would re-elect Cater...

You probably think his peaceful approach was effective.


The Iranians gave up these troops so quickly, without getting anything they asked for, because they fear Bush...as I sure as hell would if I was mid-eastern leader...he may not be smart, he may not be charismatic, but one thing he will do is bomb the living shit out of people...

That had more do to with this quick release than anything....

[whottt]

It will if Bushy starts another war.
No, it won't.


I know exactly what cruise missiles can and can't do.
No....you know what Clinton did with cruise missles...and that's it. IF you think they are described as minor.


You seem to ignore the fact that ground forces were used both times. It's entirely true that Desert Fox almost took out Saddam with cruise missiles alone, but that was thanks to the fact that his military power had been reduced by two thirds already. You were in denial about that little fact as well -- to say nothing of the fact that Iran is in no such state.
Good lord...you didn't watch either Iraq War...both were won in a matter of hours by bombing...the ground troops in the first war were just cleanp...in the second war they were a necessity.
Israel whipped the ass of just about every one of it's neighbors with nary a ground troop...


Yeah, thanks General. We're all impressed. Where are your links to this?
Idiot...you can't link common sense...I just suggest you read up on how our technology works...not to mention the things our military does covertly.
IF you don't think we've been running reconnasiance missions in and out of Iran since the day we overthrew Saddam...you're an idiot.
We have much better intelligence now than we did after Clinton let it deteriorate for 8 years.
I mean this is like me trying to explain nuclear physics to a kindergartener.
Dude...we've been running reconnasiance missions in and out of the remotes area of Iran every since we've been in Iraq and Afghanistan...we've been mapping it....we've been organizing resistance within Iran for when the fall takes place, we've been organizing and supporting the anti government forces in IRan and determining courses for smulling arms and weaponry into the country. You are just fucking stupid Chump...and no our government isn't going to announce it.


So now you are calling for a limited conflict with Iran? What exactly are you asking for?
No pandering...taking those leaders out, either militarily, or popular overthrow. The threat of military force is useless in encouraging any type of non violent overthrow, if the targets don't believe you will use it...


You've been all over the map these past four years -- kill everyone, only kill the leaders, nuke Mecca, just lob some cruise missiles, invade Iran? Why don't you just sticky your manifesto to the top of this forum so you won't be able to change your position every thread.
My manifesto is simple...Remove the leaders and you remove the cheif enablers and cultivators of terrorism...
If we have to kill everyone to do that, then that's what we have to do...
Because you contrary to what you fucking idiots, think, they don't just hate us because of Bush...


Nah, i know what they can do and more importantly, what they can't.
No...you don't. You really don't know shit...because you haven't seen it officially announced anywhere...
Just like you didn't know Manu didn't like coming off the bench, calling him a pussy if that were true, and I did.
And he says it with regularity now that he didn't like it...
See...you're obtuse, that's not my fault, nor does it mean I'm wrong.


Actually, you said we were going to war over the British hostages. You were stunningly wrong about that.
Well since the President of Iran released them before even the British knew it was being done...I'd say we didn't get the chance.
And no...I didn't say we were, I said he'll find out Carter isn't in the WhiteHouse anymore...I was right.
Even if he didn't realize it...his handlers did.

You say the Iranian president is suicidal and wants to die in a conflict with the US which he will do anything to bring about
Um...he says that too.

-- except when you say he is afraid of having his ass kicked by the US and gave up the hostages out of fear. Once again, make up your fucking mind.
Ehh...I never said he wanted to lose, which he will before he's got nukes.
And no I don't think he's scared..and I'm sorry if I missaid that...
His rulers are scared...those are those leaders that I am always talking about threatening to get them to control their attack dogs...it works. Trini will get rid of them in time though.
I gurantee you if Saudi thinks we're going to nuke them you won't see a Saudi Terrorist nuking an American city...I gurantee it. Not even Usama.


But you just said that Bush had a mandate to finish it by any means he chose. Which is it?
He had the mandate...it was rescinded because he was too busy pandering to political opposition that would never support him.
I didn't vote for a single Republican in 06...in fact I didn't vote at all, and would have been surprised had the Repubs maintained control...even if the wars were over.

Um, it completely proves what I have said all along. I didn't even have to change my argument in every thread like you have.
I haven't ever had to change my argument.
You've never had a clear argument...although you are getting better about it...which is one of the reasons I have been taking it easy on you...even dishing out alittle pity.


Too bad Bush has proven almost completely incompetent in his one-sided execution of this war. Quote:
Oh we're a long way from incompetence...mistakes have been made, but they are near as big as you think.
The other countries surrounding Iraq are going to make it difficult for any transition, because they don't want a Democracy there idiot...
They were always going to funnel or organize some kind of resistance...
Iran doesn't want to bea Democracy Chump....nor do they want a big US ally living right next door...And Syria really doesn't.
Nothing could have changed that...


Kerry wasn't my guy. I said he wouldn't win and I am on record as saying we have to stay in Iraq for awhile. Quote:
Good, then shut the fuck up and stop bitching about the war.


Nor do the majority share your misguided bloodlust. They simply see that Bush fucked up. You don't. Quote:
Link, to the perfect war?


Not only the American people, the international community as well. Bush had a unique historical opportunity and he blew it horribly. Quote:
Damn you're stupid...the Europe elite have been anti-american for 60 fucking years...This is an economic war, with Europe, with the Middle East, for determining whether the relations in the future with the EU are Pro or Anti Atlantacist...and whos going to get paid by China and India.


No straw men please. I expected Bush to keep the proper priorities and not neglect or ingore the real goals of the war on terror to fulfill Paul Wolfowitz's wet dreams -- and even if he did I expected him to take the reconstruction of Iraq and by extension his attempted transformation of the middle east far more seriously than he in fact did. Quote:

Yeah...you think Afghanistan is where all the terrorists were...you were wrong. If 911 wasn't already proof of that.


What various reasons? You know the only real reason you have ever produced for going into Iraq when we did was because it was easy (though you will change your story if the discussion happens to be about the US military's performance). Is that what policy should be based on -- what is easy? Quote:
We can't go to war with Pakistan #1...because Musharraf actually is attempting to unfuck that country...#2. Because they have nukes. #3. Because they have a big ass military...
We can't go into Saudi because it will destroy the World Economy, alienate an outwardly pro US regime, piss off every muslim in the world.
Oh sure...we could defeat Suadi easily in a conventional war...our fucking milit6ary was sitting there.
But politically and economically that would fuck us...however, if we get nuked, fuck it, priorities change.
Egypt is a corrupt regime but they are so corrupt they actually have corrupted their corruption and usually wind up one of our most important allies...
But they still have shitty government...
I mean our peace with themand Israel is basically bribing them....


I don't disagree and never did with that kind of assessment. Your problem is you have never ever thought anything has gone wrong or has been done badly in the past six years.
False...I just don't think it's been a disaster, and It hink the rousing discontent serves those that are trying to beat us politically(the only way they can win this war).


Three skyscrapers collapsing in Manhattan isn't common in this country either. Bush's mistake was thinking the mandate was given to him because of him. Quote:

Ehh...I can concede the point...but I think his mistake was trying to turn into a diplomat and unifier after proving himself to be an uncompromising asshole....I was voting for the uncompromising asshole, not the failed diplomat. In any case...
Bush's fuckups aren't near as bad as the Democrats that have kept him in power. The majority didn't vote for Bush in 2000...they did in 04...after no WMD, after unilaterially invading a country, without UN support...
THey voted for that Bush..they gave him that congress, then all of a sudden...he let the haters get to him...


I think 06 was a referendum on Iraq. There's no other way to explain the gains made by Democrats in traditionally Republican areas. Quote:
No, the refernedum was in 04...in 06 no one cares but the Democrats...and it's not like the country wants totally conservative leadership, you idiot.
They once put Clinton in office...what, do you think everyone changes hard wired political party preference every decade?
No idiot...the moderates rule.
[quote
Yawn, indeed. Wake us when you change your story again.[/quote]

Yeeee

Awwwn


Don't stall with your response...but I know you don't have the balls to take every point I made in this post on individually...becausde it's the kind of liberal you are.

Now go protest a US Soldier or Burn a flag or something...

[ChumpDumper]

we've been organizing resistance within Iran for when the fall takes place, we've been organizing and supporting the anti government forces in IRan and determining courses for smulling arms and weaponry into the country.So now you work for the CIA and the State Department. What a career you're having.

I'd believe all of this if we had done anything similar in Iraq before we invaded. We didn't. You give Bush way too much credit for shit you just assumed happened in Iraq and is happening for Iran. Unfortunately your made up master plan is just that -- something you made up and admitted you made up. The record proves that wasn't the case in Iraq and you don't even know it. That's the funny thing about you, facts don't affect your argument one bit because you don't care about them. You don't care about reality. You live in a fantasy world. It's so bad you don't even vote now, but somehow take credit for the 06 elections that have rendered Bush the lamest duck in half a century -- and argue that it won't affect his ability to fight his current wars or start new ones. You are in severe denial of everything that has happened since 2003, even Bush snapped out of that a little. You never will because your fragile ego can't handle accepting just how wrong you have been. Don't worry, your denial doesn't change reality, so you can continue living in your fantasy land. Leave the real world to people who can actually perceive it.

[johngateswhiteley]

when feminists appeared.

[ChumpDumper]

No, it won't.

No....you know what Clinton did with cruise missles...and that's it. IF you think they are described as minor.Quite the contrary. There are simply limits to what they can achieve. Bush knew that. Why don't you?
Good lord...you didn't watch either Iraq War...both were won in a matter of hours by bombing...the ground troops in the first war were just cleanp...in the second war they were a necessity.
Israel whipped the ass of just about every one of it's neighbors with nary a ground troop...but your wish is to overthrow governments. That isnt' done with air power alone. Bush proved that. Why can't you accept that?
Idiot...you can't link common sense...I just suggest you read up on how our technology works...not to mention the things our military does covertly.I've read plenty. i want specific links where you got your information, General. Everyone noticed you stopped doing that a long time ago.
IF you don't think we've been running reconnasiance missions in and out of Iran since the day we overthrew Saddam...you're an idiot.
We have much better intelligence now than we did after Clinton let it deteriorate for 8 years.Sure there's plenty of intel about Iran. We had plenty for Iraq too. remember how sure you were that WMDs were there? That's intel. Intel <> fact.
No...you don't. You really don't know shit...because you haven't seen it officially announced anywhere..I haven't seen what cruise missiles can do officially announced anywhere? You're losing it, pal.
Well since the President of Iran released them before even the British knew it was being done...I'd say we didn't get the chance.
And no...I didn't say we were, I said he'll find out Carter isn't in the WhiteHouse anymore...I was right.
Even if he didn't realize it...his handlers did.

Um...he says that too.So you officially won't make up your mind as to whether Iran is afraid of being us of suicidal and spoiling for a fight. You reserve the right to flip-flop at any time like. Kerryesque.
Ehh...I never said he wanted to lose, which he will before he's got nukes.
And no I don't think he's scared..and I'm sorry if I missaid that...
His rulers are scared...those are those leaders that I am always talking about threatening to get them to control their attack dogs...it works. Trini will get rid of them in time though.:lol So now he's not even in control. Make up your fucking mind for once. Who is leading Iran and what do they want?
I gurantee you if Saudi thinks we're going to nuke them you won't see a Saudi Terrorist nuking an American city...I gurantee it. Not even Usama. So now Saudi Arabia has complete control over every one of its citizens, even the ones not in Saudi Arabia. Did they implant chips in all of them to track their every movement and are able to terminate them at any time? Your guarantee is shit just like everything else you've made up.
He had the mandate...it was rescinded because he was too busy pandering to political opposition that would never support him.
I didn't vote for a single Republican in 06...in fact I didn't vote at all, and would have been surprised had the Repubs maintained control...even if the wars were over.Way to participate.
I haven't ever had to change my argument.You never had to, you just did it. The only reason you change is because you can't stand being as wrong as you have been.
You've never had a clear argument...although you are getting better about it...which is one of the reasons I have been taking it easy on you...even dishing out alittle pity.I have nothing but pity for you.
Oh we're a long way from incompetence...mistakes have been made, but they are near as big as you think.Nice administration passive voice. The mistakes are bigger than you think. And they are the direct cause for the Democrat win in 06. Everyone but you sees it.
The other countries surrounding Iraq are going to make it difficult for any transition, because they don't want a Democracy there idiot...Bush didn't count on the people of Iraq making it difficult. He made no plans in case of an insurgency and denied its existence for months. He didn't even have a comprehensive plan for reconstruction. Of course you have to ignore these facts because they don't fit into your wrong guess about what you thought Bush was doing in 2003. Yet in the face of all that, you stick to it because -- well because you said so. You don't need facts -- you have whottt.
Good, then shut the fuck up and stop bitching about the war.Make me, fascist.
Link, to the perfect war?I can link to competent military leaders who know about strategy and counterinsugency and presidents that actually had plans for nation building. Would you like to learn about them? Of course you wouldn't -- you have whottt's theory of everything. It's not really based on anything, but it's good enough for you.
Yeah...you think Afghanistan is where all the terrorists were...you were wrong. If 911 wasn't already proof of that.Hey, you're content with leaving Osama alive and well. I'm not. Idiot.
We can't go to war with Pakistan #1...because Musharraf actually is attempting to unfuck that country...#2. Because they have nukes. #3. Because they have a big ass military...
We can't go into Saudi because it will destroy the World Economy, alienate an outwardly pro US regime, piss off every muslim in the world.
Oh sure...we could defeat Suadi easily in a conventional war...our fucking milit6ary was sitting there.
But politically and economically that would fuck us...however, if we get nuked, fuck it, priorities change.
Egypt is a corrupt regime but they are so corrupt they actually have corrupted their corruption and usually wind up one of our most important allies...
But they still have shitty government...
I mean our peace with themand Israel is basically bribing them....So we aren't attacking them out of convenience. How nice. Good to know this is so important to you that you are just willing to let them sit and fester. Your pocketbook is more important.
False...I just don't think it's been a disaster, and It hink the rousing discontent serves those that are trying to beat us politically(the only way they can win this war).Of course you think it's been perfect. How could it not be. It's all been according to your plan.
Ehh...I can concede the point...but I think his mistake was trying to turn into a diplomat and unifier after proving himself to be an uncompromising asshole....I was voting for the uncompromising asshole, not the failed diplomat. In any case...
Bush's fuckups aren't near as bad as the Democrats that have kept him in power. The majority didn't vote for Bush in 2000...they did in 04...after no WMD, after unilaterially invading a country, without UN support...
THey voted for that Bush..they gave him that congress, then all of a sudden...he let the haters get to him...:lol reality set in for the rest of the country. Just not you.
No, the refernedum was in 04...in 06 no one cares but the Democrats...and it's not like the country wants totally conservative leadership, you idiot.So no one cares about Iraq? Except you, right? You cared enough to not vote, but wnough to will the Republicans out of control of congress. Good job.
They once put Clinton in office...what, do you think everyone changes hard wired political party preference every decade?
No idiot...the moderates rule.Yep, and they voted for Democrats because of Iraq.

[mookie2001]

i think you got dumped on whottt

[whottt]

You've got to be kidding me...

[whottt]

Chump just said he doesn't believe in the CIA....

[ChumpDumper]

The CIA that said WMDs in Iraq were, and I quote: "a slamdunk!"?

I said there are very real limits to what the CIA can do just like any intelligence group. If you knew anything about Iraq, you would know that. But you don't. You believe the CIA was perfect in Iraq. You believe that stockpiles of WMDs were found exactly where Rumsfeld said they were on TV. You believe Bush had a thoroughly developed plan for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq that was efficiently and thoughtfully executed by well-known experts who were chosen for the job based on merit, and who have stayed on for the duration of the reconstruction. You believe Bush fully expected and planned for an insurgency and secterian violence and made sure he secured the borders with Iran and Syria immediately after the invasion. You believe that every field commander in Iraq was well-trained in counterinsurgency, and no cordon and sweep operations ever happened that put innocent Iraqis in Abu Gharib. Even if they did, you believe that every Iraqi was treated humanely by the well-trained staff that numbered ten for every prisoner held.

Of course you never read any of this. You simply thought it up. Therefore its real to you.

Just like the tooth fairy and the boogeyman.

[ChumpDumper]

If you knew anything about the CIA in Iraq, you'd know we had agents operating in Iraq for months before the invasion. We gave out about 90 satellite phones and millions of dollars in cash to Iraqis and smuggled more to the CIA outpost for debriefing. These included members of the Special Security Organization, active-duty army officers who did things like turn over a hundred pages of war plans, and even one of Qusay's bodyguards. All this high-quality human intel, and the CIA still completely blew the issue of WMDs.

Now you are telling me they are infallibale directly after the one of the all-time biggest intel failures in the history of the United States. You know nothing. You believe Tom Clancy movies are documentaries.

[xrayzebra]

If you knew anything about the CIA in Iraq, you'd know we had agents operating in Iraq for months before the invasion. We gave out about 90 satellite phones and millions of dollars in cash to Iraqis and smuggled more to the CIA outpost for debriefing. These included members of the Special Security Organization, active-duty army officers who did things like turn over a hundred pages of war plans, and even one of Qusay's bodyguards. All this high-quality human intel, and the CIA still completely blew the issue of WMDs.

Now you are telling me they are infallibale directly after the one of the all-time biggest intel failures in the history of the United States. You know nothing. You believe Tom Clancy movies are documentaries.


Well Chump, you know Bush lied, so don't blame the
CIA. They were just doing their thingy. And we all
know Joe Wilson and his wife wouldn't lie. They are
just good americans, with a small "a".

[ChumpDumper]

The Bush administration basically ignored any intel that didn't support the conclusions they had already drawn about WMDs and the alledged links to Al Qaeda. Is that lying? Tough to say. It certainly wasn't interested in the truth as it was presented to them and as it actually turned out to be. The funny thing about neoconservativism is that real truth isn't as important as motivating the masses. The funnier thing is the the neocons in the administration didn't think anyone might check their gurus writings and speeches to figure out what they were doing.

[whottt]

The Bush administration basically ignored any intel that didn't support the conclusions they had already drawn about WMDs and the alledged links to Al Qaeda. Is that lying? Tough to say.


Because they didn't trust their intel.




Chump...after the Persian Gulf War in 91, when they sent weapons inspectors into Iraq...were Saddam's WMD programs ahead of what their intelligence indicated? Or behind?



Ahead, or behind?

No spin...no excuses, no delfections...just answer the question.