You must set the ad_network_ads.txt file to be writable (check file name as well).
U.S. and Europe Differ on Iran Strategy [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

PDA

View Full Version : U.S. and Europe Differ on Iran Strategy


Bestinshow
09-14-2004, 04:23 PM
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=040914&cat=news&st=newsd853n7o00&src=ap

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

Se7en
09-14-2004, 04:51 PM
This is me showing a complete and utter lack of surprise at the Euros lack of a backbone.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/7_sig.gif" width="300" height="100">
<br>
<br>
Don't blame me....I voted for Kodos.
I look forward to an orderly election that will eliminate the need for a violent bloodbath. </center>

Yerdaddy
09-14-2004, 05:32 PM
"I am George's overcompensating desire for paternal affection."

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

TheMojoPin
09-14-2004, 08:36 PM
Well, we're currently batting about .001 when it comes to the OTHER "Ira" country, so is it really too surprising to see the rest of the world is aprehensive when it comes to this?

A mass failure is still a failure.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Bestinshow
09-15-2004, 08:23 AM
Batting .001? I suppose with a better plan right now everything would all be cleaned up. Its all Bush's fault because of incompetence. I mean after all, centuries of conflicts is easily fixable in 6 months. Anyone who thought this would be over by now is either very naive or brain damaged. With the exception of what is a minority insurgency of Sunni and radical shitte militants, the leaders in Iraq are behind this new government. And it is more than a suspician that Iran's Bath party is involved in the unrest.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

GodsFavoriteMan
09-15-2004, 08:26 AM
It's not a matter of the war in Iraq being over. It's a matter of "what the hell was it for?" As far as the war on terror is concerned, what about Sudan? What about Saudi Arabia? I want to find terrorists, why is Pakistan doing a better job at that than we are?

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/GFMSIG_copy.jpg" width="300" height="107"></p>

TheMojoPin
09-15-2004, 08:31 AM
I suppose with a better plan right now everything would all be cleaned up. Its all Bush's fault because of incompetence.

I didn't say either of those things. In my opinion, the operation in Iraq, outside of the initial military victory, is a complete and utter failure at this point. It's not even a "work in progress" because nothing is working. I was never expecting "everything fixed in six months (Where'd you get that number? The "war" has supposedly been over for more than a year now)." But I was expecting at least SOME progress. We have a provisional government that has zero chance of succeeding. We have an almost inevitable multi-sided civil war for the forseeable future. On a daily basis, the majority of Iraqis are much, MUCH worse off than they were before the war (Symbolic gestures aside, prior to the conflict, they all had access to the basics of electricty, water and medical care. It's now a day-to-day of question as to which of those they may have, if any). And, worst of all, we didn't find any sort of WMD's or WMD program to justify our being there in the first place. As such, to the world, it no doubt seems like a totally arbritrary strike on our part that has yielded nothing but disaster. Yeah, that should have them RUNNING to invade Iran.

What's the one positive thing about this whole debacle? Saddam's gone? Evil dick he may be, there's more Iraqis and coalition soldiers dying on a daily basis there than when he was in power. This has been fucked up so badly it's actually making SADDAM HUSSEIN look good.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 9-15-04 @ 12:32 PM

mdr55
09-15-2004, 08:41 AM
Can't wait for Bush to sock it to Iran. We should have taken them out a long time ago....can't wait for him to settle an old debt.

If only Saddam was still running Iraq he could have taken care of Iran for us like in the 80's.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Hafa Adai

TheMojoPin
09-15-2004, 08:47 AM
Can't wait for Bush to sock it to Iran. We should have taken them out a long time ago....can't wait for him to settle an old debt.

One question for the audience out there...do sentiments like the one above mean that St. Reagan will get the same criticism from the neo-cons for not "handling" Iran in the 80's that Clinton has gotten for not "handling" Osama in the 90's?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Yerdaddy
09-15-2004, 09:01 AM
Yeah, things are going super duper in Iraq. The insurgency is only a minority of people, and it might be Iran's fault anyway, and after all, Bush made it perfectly clear to the American public that we were walking into the middle of "centuries of conflict." This is exactly the way he depicted it. [end sarcasm]

Truth is, this war has been a colosal blunder. And this war has made us less safe. Terrorism was at an all-time high, (despite that little boo-boo at the State Dept. that caused them to have to revise the lies - I mean figures). Iraq was a mistake to begin with, but more disgusting, the way it has been conducted has been with domestic political considerations in mind, and has cost us more of our troops than should have been necessary.

And we're losing. We have virtually no control over areas within the "Sunni Triangle." The insurgents control it. And Bush's plan is to wait until after the elections to try to plow in there and get control before the January elections so that there will be enough people participating to call it legitimate. In other words: the Bush administration is going to fail again. And we just sit here and suck on it. We're fucking pathetic.

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16309-2004Sep12.html" target="_blank">FALLUJAH, Iraq, Sept. 12 -- The outgoing U.S. Marine Corps general in charge of western Iraq said Sunday he opposed a Marine assault on militants in the volatile city of Fallujah in April and the subsequent decision to withdraw from the city and turn over control to a security force comprised of former Iraqi soldiers.

That security force, known as the Fallujah Brigade, was formally disbanded last week. Not only did the brigade fail to combat militants, it actively aided them, surrendering weapons, vehicles and radios to the insurgents, according to senior Marine officers. Some of brigade's members even participated in attacks on Marines ringing the city, the officers said.

The comments by Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, made shortly after he relinquished command of the First Marine Expeditionary Force on Sunday, amounted to a stinging broadside against top U.S. military and civilian leaders who ordered the invasion and the withdrawal. His statements also provided the most detailed explanation -- and justification -- of Marine actions in Fallujah this spring, which have been widely criticized for increasing insurgent activity in the city and turning it into a no-go zone for U.S. troops. </a>

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/international/middleeast/29province.html" target="_blank">BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 28 - While American troops have been battling Islamic militants to an uncertain outcome in Najaf, the Shiite holy city, events in two Sunni Muslim cities that stand astride the crucial western approaches to Baghdad have moved significantly against American plans to build a secular democracy in Iraq.

Both of the cities, Falluja and Ramadi, and much of Anbar Province, are now controlled by fundamentalist militias, with American troops confined mainly to heavily protected forts on the desert's edge. What little influence the Americans have is asserted through wary forays in armored vehicles, and by laser-guided bombs that obliterate enemy safe houses identified by scouts who penetrate militant ranks. Even bombing raids appear to strengthen the fundamentalists, who blame the Americans for scores of civilian deaths.

American efforts to build a government structure around former Baath Party stalwarts - officials of Saddam Hussein's army, police force and bureaucracy who were willing to work with the United States - have collapsed. Instead, the former Hussein loyalists, under threat of beheadings, kidnappings and humiliation, have mostly resigned or defected to the fundamentalists, or been killed. Enforcers for the old government, including former Republican Guard officers, have put themselves in the service of fundamentalist clerics they once tortured at Abu Ghraib.</a>

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?

A.J.
09-15-2004, 09:03 AM
If only Saddam was still running Iraq he could have taken care of Iran for us like in the 80's.


The problem was that he DIDN'T take care of Iran in the 80s.

One question for the audience out there...do sentiments like the one above mean that St. Reagan
will get the same criticism from the neo-cons for not "handling" Iran in the 80's that Clinton has gotten for not "handling" Osama in the 90's?

How can you compare the two? You're talking about the actions of a nation vice the actions of terrorists. Iran was in the middle of a revolution and that new theocratic government was responsible over overtaking an embassy. Upon Reagan's election those hostages were released so the need for military action was over. Instead, Iran's assets were frozen, it's military got no more aid from the U.S. and it has been a pariah ever since.

Bin Laden in effect has declared "war" on the U.S. and had targeted U.S. interests and citizens around the world. Military action against him and his supporters is still justified.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

Bestinshow
09-15-2004, 09:07 AM
I just used 6 months to be facitious. I don't understand how you can say nothing has been accomplished. Its nice to have a crystal ball to know this government has no chance to succeed. And I strongly disagree with your sentiments of quality of life. I mean obviously the standard of living hasnt reached Beverly Hills yet but they have the seeds to eventually move up. Russia is still recovering from their upheaval and there was no war. As far as Iraqis dying now? I'd say the old regime might have killed one or two.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

Bestinshow
09-15-2004, 09:36 AM
Truth is, this war has been a colosal blunder. And this war has made us less safe. Terrorism was at an all-time high, (despite that little boo-boo at the State Dept. that caused them to have to revise the lies - I mean figures). Iraq was a mistake to begin with, but more disgusting, the way it has been conducted has been with domestic political considerations in mind, and has cost us more of our troops than should have been necessary.


Made us less safe? Than what? In case you haven't noticed we were already at the top of the islamic fundamentalist hit parade. And these people were already ready to strap on bombs to kill any American, Jewish or Western targets that could bring attention. And they are more angry now? Give me a F'en break. The only way we could have lost less troops was to pull out, and that would create Kaos.

Yes I agree, its a giant shitstorm, but its ridiculous to say a conflict with no solution is mishandled. This is going to take years. Btw, It must be great that you have the real numbers at the state department by the way. Im sure none of the sources you read lie about numbers.

And domestic political considerations????? Oh yeah, Bush did this for popularity. He knew everyone would love it. Look at all the self service it did for him.

I guess you guys are right. Let the UN, Germany and France decide if Iran is a threat. Now we are in good hands.

This thread is supposed to be about the Iran nuclear controversy. Lets not degenerate it into another "Lets bash the republicans about the Iraq war" thread as you guys love.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

This message was edited by Bestinshow on 9-15-04 @ 1:53 PM

FUNKMAN
09-15-2004, 10:10 AM
Bush did this for popularity. He knew everyone would love it. Look at all the self service it did for him.


Bush 'in his simple mind' thought it would be a cakewalk and the MAJORITY of the Iraqi people would have welcomed the US and it's democracy. I think it would be safe to guess that he figured it would have been a 'done deal' by the next election.

I think Bush had done the right thing by going into Afghanistan but either his 'macho bravado or his hatred for Saddam' made him take it too far at too high a cost. It will just be a shame if John Kerry wins and has to try to clean up this mess. It will be a no-win situation for him as well.



<img src="http://img18.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/fm_sig.jpg">

HBox
09-15-2004, 10:18 AM
This thread is supposed to be about the Iran nuclear controversy. Lets not degenerate it into another "Lets bash the republicans about the Iraq war" thread as you guys love.

You started it. Mojo used it as an example of why Europe wouldn't be trusting us in the Iran situation, and you couldn't let that go by.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

Bestinshow
09-15-2004, 10:28 AM
You started it. Mojo used it as an example of why Europe wouldn't be trusting us in the Iran situation, and you couldn't let that go by.


I guess I did. But I guess my point is everything always comes back to the same mudslinging. There was alot of mishandling and misinformation in every direction but its too simplistic to say, "Bush is an asshole, let the UN decide" which seems to be the left wing answer to everything. Whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons should have nothing to do whether you think Bush is Patton or not.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

TheMojoPin
09-15-2004, 10:37 AM
How can you compare the two? You're talking about the actions of a nation vice the actions of terrorists. Iran was in the middle of a revolution and that new theocratic government was responsible over overtaking an embassy. Upon Reagan's election those hostages were released so the need for military action was over. Instead, Iran's assets were frozen, it's military got no more aid from the U.S. and it has been a pariah ever since.

Iran has been a haven and a source of anti-US terrorists for over 20 years now. This was known then, and it's known now. The release of the hostages changed nothing in that regard. Their links to the Lebanon bombing of US Marines, and the lack of US response, is comparable to the criticism Clinton has received in the wake of the embassy bombings in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole.

I don't understand how you can say nothing has been accomplished.

Why not? Was HAS been accomplished? As I said, the one recognizable goal that has been accomplished is the defeat and removal of Saddam Hussein. Once you subtract that, what has been accomplished that has made Iraq a better place to live now than any other time in the last 25 years? The daily life of the average Iraqi was no picnic under Saddam, and it's still misery today. Is this the direct fault of America and coalition forces? No, not really. It appears the administration felt the citizens of Iraq would be more open to the idea of "liberation," and would band together in the face of Saddam being taken down. This didn't happen, and apparently we didn't have an effective back-up plan.

And I strongly disagree with your sentiments of quality of life. I mean obviously the standard of living hasnt reached Beverly Hills yet but they have the seeds to eventually move up.

"Beverly Hills?" The bulk of the country does not have access to regular electricty or running water, and that's the shot you take? Where are these "seeds" for a better life? How can civil war possibly be avoided at this point? What do you see that indicates that the continual chaos there is anywhere near being contained or stopped, or even reduced?

As far as Iraqis dying now? I'd say the old regime might have killed one or two.

That's complete spin. Did I say there weren't Iraqis dying before? Of course not. What I DID say is that there are far more dying NOW than before on a daily basis. What's the difference if they were dying in torture chambers or being blown up on the streets? Dead is dead. There's not a "better" way of being dead. And more of them are dying now from the cotinuing conflict, lack of medical care, lack of water and lack of electricty on a regular basis. Does that excuse what happened under Saddam's rule? Of course not. But it also demonstrates nobody has any kind of alternative to that previous lifestyle. The overall plan for a post-Saddam Iraq was obviously not well thought out, and this is the result. More dead Iraqis, more dead coalition forces, and more dead Americans, with not even a hint of a light at the end of the tunnel.

This isn't some attempt by me to "attack Bush and the Republicans." This thread is about why Europe would not support an invasion of Iran at this time. The reasons and perceptions above are my opinions as to why this is the case. They're not just deciding to oppose such an idea out of thin air. The results of our invasion into Iraq are unavoidable if one is wondering why the rest of the world isn't gung-ho about mounting a similar campaign against Iran. That's it.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 9-15-04 @ 2:39 PM

HBox
09-15-2004, 10:38 AM
but its too simplistic to say, "Bush is an asshole, let the UN decide" which seems to be the left wing answer to everything.

And its too simplistic to say that about "the left." Because the fact is that we have no leverage here. We HAVE to let Europe and the UN handle this. We have no options other than military. We have no diplomatic ties and no trade ties with Iran. Europe does, so we'd be best served not pissing them off and trying to rebuild our shattered credibility. War with Iran is a dead last option here. If you think it will be anywhere near as easy as Iraq (the invasion part, anyway) you're nuts.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

Bestinshow
09-15-2004, 10:41 AM
whatever your opinion on Iraq, that is still a copout. The situation in Iran is too serious and volatile to stick your head in the sand which is what the un , France and germany love to do.

And if we have to leave it up to France and the UN to decide what to do in the middle East, than god help us.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

This message was edited by Bestinshow on 9-15-04 @ 2:44 PM

TheMojoPin
09-15-2004, 10:45 AM
As opposed to, say, Sudan? Or North Korea?

They're saying an invasion right now isn't the only option.

Again, look at it this way...look how Iraq has turned out for us. Why in God's name would ANY other country in the world, all of which are less powerful and capable than us, want to get into what's almost inevitably a far worse quagmire, militarily and politically, with Iran?

A fullscale invasion and investment of lives should be the LAST option, once everything else has been exhausted. Iraq is what happens when this is not done.

THAT'S why people are bringing up Iraq here. Iraq is now the basis for which future similar situations will be stacked up against.

To put it this way, what is Europe sure to gain if they tossed out all other options and just invaded ASAP? Contrast that with all that they're sure to lose.

And if we have to leave it up to France and the UN to decide what to do in the middle East, than god help us.

Wait, how is our track record any better? They at least (Along with the UK) helped create Israel. NOBODY outside of the Middle East has any idea how to deal with the Middle East, so let's not start thinking we have some kind of insight that gives us an advantage.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 9-15-04 @ 2:50 PM

Bestinshow
09-15-2004, 10:50 AM
Bush 'in his simple mind' thought it would be a cakewalk and the MAJORITY of the Iraqi people would have welcomed the US and it's democracy. I think it would be safe to guess that he figured it would have been a 'done deal' by the next election.


Im so tired of this simple mind crap. We were sold a bill of goods by certain supposed inside Iraqis that had an agenda. The problem was a breakdown in intelligence, not ego. He was told that the majority of Iraq would welcome us. They lied.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today

HBox
09-15-2004, 10:53 AM
He was told that the majority of Iraq would welcome us. They lied.

Oh no you didn't! There were plenty of people saying how difficult this would be, including the State Department. And even if Bush had every reason to believe Iraq would welcome us, it's his responsibility to plan for every contigency. He obviously didn't.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

Bestinshow
09-15-2004, 10:54 AM
I didnt read anywhere in the article that we were ready to invade. We are looking for the other countries to put a date and exert pressure on Iran to succumb peacefully. Ironically by being so laise Faire, its more likely to result in violence. If the other countries start turning the screws, Iran is more likely to give in to diplomatic methods.

The American suggestions also were made available to the AP. They demand Iran grant agency inspectors "complete, immediate and unrestricted access;" provide "full information" about past illegal nuclear activities; suspend "immediately and fully" uranium enrichment and related activities; and meet all agency demands to "resolve all outstanding issues" nurturing suspicions of a possible weapons program.


<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>
<marquee>I am not part of any percentage. I am the Bestinshow<marquee>
[center]Kiss a Doberman Today


This message was edited by Bestinshow on 9-15-04 @ 2:59 PM

GodsFavoriteMan
09-15-2004, 10:58 AM
Im so tired of this simple mind crap. We were sold a bill of goods by certain supposed inside Iraqis that had an agenda. The problem was a breakdown in intelligence, not ego. He was told that the majority of Iraq would welcome us. They lied.

This is a war we're talking about. We were told that the "bill of goods" was 100% true. You don't go into a war and then come out saying, "Oh, damn, we were lied to, silly me."

As far as Iran is concerned, another invasion right now would string out our forces too far. We need help from our allies, but they, too have their own concerns and fears. Any attack upon Iran would have a larger retaliation than we had with Iraq. And the point has already been made about North Korea, Sudan, and Saudi.

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/GFMSIG_copy.jpg" width="300" height="107"></p>

ADF
09-15-2004, 10:59 AM
Anyone who thought this would be over by now is either very naive or brain damaged.


http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/vstory.bush.banner.afp.jpg

<center><a href="http://somesuch.org" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.somesuch.org/sigpics/heroine.gif"></a><i><br><br><b>Roses are red... Violets are blue... All of my base... Are belong to you.</i></b></center>

TheMojoPin
09-15-2004, 11:01 AM
Plus you have to take into account the last two World Wars. Both were in part started because of "tumbling countries/conflicts" like what could happen here, and Europe took the full brunt of both of those conflicts. An expanding conflict in a localized region could easily flare up into something MUCH bigger, and then we all end up paying the price.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

TheMojoPin
09-15-2004, 11:03 AM
Anyone who thought this would be over by now is either very naive or brain damaged.


http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/vstory.bush.banner.afp.jpg

Awwww, leave him be. He was talking about the initial conflict against Saddam and his forces.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Yerdaddy
09-15-2004, 11:33 AM
Im so tired of this simple mind crap. We were sold a bill of goods by certain supposed inside Iraqis that had an agenda. The problem was a breakdown in intelligence, not ego. He was told that the majority of Iraq would welcome us. They lied.

The CIA and the State Department said openly for years before the invasion of Iraq that Chalabi and the INC were lying. The INC could not account for the $5+ million that we gave to it in 1998. But the leading defense officials in the Bush administration chose to remain not only supporters of Chalabi, but declared their "friendships" with him. They used Chalabi for the war they wanted as much as he used them for the war he wanted. So there is no way to blame Chalabi and the INC without pointing out that the administration CHOSE to believe every dubious claim that they made, in the face of open opposition from the CIA and the State Dept. who had been disproving their lies for years. You made my case for me. Chalabi's "friends" are the ones running US foreign policy right now. Hell, they even flew that fucker into Iraq on military transports with the hope of grooming him for the presidency. Just another of the colossal blunders of the adminsitration, and another of the many reasons why we don't have the credibilty or the military strength to force our own policies on Iran or North Korea. Just another cost of this ill-advised and poorly conducted war.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

FUNKMAN
09-15-2004, 12:59 PM
The problem was a breakdown in intelligence


quite an understatement! maybe if more OBGYN's were making love to their woman we'd live in a safer world...
:)

the core of the problem here is that Republicans and George Bush refuse to admit any responsibility for the 'miscalculation of Iraq' ... When Clinton f'd up with Monica it was admitted to that it was a 'fuckup' but it hadn't cost 10,000 lives(at least) and what will become a trillion dollars before we know it...

the country is weaker, poorer, and 'although there hasn't been another 9/11 yet' more hated than before...

<img src="http://img18.photobucket.com/albums/v53/monster6sixty6/guests/fm_sig.jpg">

mdr55
09-15-2004, 01:00 PM
[quote]
Awwww, leave him be. He was talking about the initial conflict against Saddam and his forces.
[quote]

You mean daddy's unfinished war???

Hafa Adai

TheMojoPin
09-15-2004, 01:07 PM
When Clinton f'd up with Monica it was admitted to that it was a 'fuckup' but it hadn't cost 10,000 lives(at least) and what will become a trillion dollars before we know it...

"Monicagate" has zero to do with the debacle in Iraq.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

Yerdaddy
09-15-2004, 02:13 PM
Iraq is not a blue dress! They actually found biological material on the dress.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

TheMojoPin
09-16-2004, 01:27 PM
I said...

We have a provisional government that has zero chance of succeeding. We have an almost inevitable multi-sided civil war for the forseeable future.

...and now the NSA kind of agrees with me. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6016743/)

This is the kind of stuff that HAS to be weighed in when considering a similar move into Iran.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

HBox
09-16-2004, 01:41 PM
What also has to be weighed is that the youth of Iran are much more pro-democracy and pro-USA than the everyone else. I would bet an invasion would reverse that. Hell, there's even some thought out there that the invasion of IRAQ allowed the theocracy to consolidate their power and crack down on democratic forces in Iran, not to mention their influence in Iraq now.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

TheMojoPin
09-17-2004, 03:13 PM
Another reason why the rest of the world may be wary about our "focus" when it comes to "nation-building..."

How many new targets are we moving on to without picking up THIS guy? Why should anyone else in the world be confident in our priorities when they're just getting further out of whack? (http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/enhancedstory.jsp?maxphotos=4&phototerm=Osama+Qaeda&maxstories=3&storyterm=Osama&floc=FF-APO-PLS&idq=/ff/story/0001/20040917/0334592208.htm&photoid=20040904NY125)

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

HBox
09-17-2004, 09:23 PM
Update on Iran nukes proceedings. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6012416/)

Good to see our good freinds the Pakistanis got our backs. Fuckers.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

ADF
09-17-2004, 09:29 PM
When Clinton f'd up with Monica it was admitted to that it was a 'fuckup' but it hadn't cost 10,000 lives(at least)


What about the hundreds of thousands of poor spermy soldiers who died in a vain attempt to impregnate a poly/cotton blend.

<center><a href="http://somesuch.org" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.somesuch.org/sigpics/heroine.gif"></a><i><br><br><b>Roses are red... Violets are blue... All of my base... Are belong to you.</i></b></center>

Lumber
09-18-2004, 12:11 AM
It's not a matter of the war in Iraq being over. It's a matter of "what the hell was it for?" As far as the war on terror is concerned, what about Sudan? What about Saudi Arabia? I want to find terrorists, why is Pakistan doing a better job at that than we are?

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/GFMSIG_copy.jpg" width="300" height="107"></p>Do yourself a favor...Before you post, think...You just made yourself look like a fool w/ that statement.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=jtodd">

This message was edited by njlumberdude on 9-18-04 @ 4:17 AM

GodsFavoriteMan
09-18-2004, 01:12 AM
"The government of Pakistan continues to be supportive in its effort to stop terrorists around the world, and we hope that continues," spokesman Sgt. Maj. Lewis Matson said.

Remeber Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? According to this General guy, we wouldn't have caught him without Pakistan's "cooperation". You see, that's the fun of irony.

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/GFMSIG_copy.jpg" width="300" height="107"></p>