The War in Iraq is "Over"

[Gunny]

Hmmm ... I guess if O-blah-blah says so, it must be. And he's going to "bring our boys home", right? Isn't that the leftwingnut chant?

What's the first thing the government does when it "brings our boys home"? Draws down the military. Oddly enough, I seem to not recall hearing Herr Obama address this particular issue. Sure, he can hide some by shifting them to Afghanistan.

Wonder if he's got any of those "shovel-ready jobs" for the rest .... In case he hasn't noticed, the job market here isn't quite the best evuh.

[gabosaurus]

About time. An insecure job market is better than potential death. We need all American military out of Iraq, not just the active ones.
Now Obama needs to withdraw all our troops out of Afghanistan. Like he promised in 2008.
Our troops would be better used patrolling the Mexican border.

[Gunny]

About time. An insecure job market is better than potential death. We need all American military out of Iraq, not just the active ones.
Now Obama needs to withdraw all our troops out of Afghanistan. Like he promised in 2008.
Our troops would be better used patrolling the Mexican border.

Point is, the war isn't over just because he says so. Iraq is going to implode if he pulls our troops, that's if Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey don't carve it up.

He needs to finish the job and just saying so doesn't make it so.

He's a douche, and so is anyone that supports or votes for the commie.

[ConHog]

About time. An insecure job market is better than potential death. We need all American military out of Iraq, not just the active ones.
Now Obama needs to withdraw all our troops out of Afghanistan. Like he promised in 2008.
Our troops would be better used patrolling the Mexican border.

Outside of the national guard, it would be illegal to use soldiers to police our southern border. And I'm not sure that putting national guardsmen down there to man the offices while Border Patrol agents actually patrol the border is the best use of resources either.

As to Gunny's point. Do you or do you not agree with him that a war isn't over simply because one side goes home?

[gabosaurus]

He needs to finish the job and just saying so doesn't make it so.


Iraq is merely a more modern version of Viet Nam. There is no "finish." The only way out is to leave entirely and leave whatever happens to happen.
The invasion of Iraq was a total failure from the beginning, the product of a deluded American leader who thought that conflict was the only way to make himself famous.
The only real "douches" are those who feel military conflict is the only solution to problems.

[revelarts]

I've been asking what does "finish the job" mean for years,
maybe Gunny or ConHog can tell us.

It's worse mess now politically since we removed Saddam a minority nominal sunni and replaced him with a majority pro Iranian devout shia leadership. But it's been a corrupt mess from begining to end. the reason we went there was to "get them WMD's" well hey OOoopppps uh, that job's is done... well never needed to be done. And we aren't "nation building" so it's past time to get the heck out.


And I'm not sure why we should stay in Iraq killing and dying because the troops won't have jobs back home. Haven't the troop been complaining about stop loss and multiple tours and the like?
If jobs are why we are still in Iraq then we should just declare war on any number of small countries and get the rest of the U.S. back to work as soldiers too.

[ConHog]

I've been asking what does "finish the job" mean for years,
maybe Gunny or ConHog can tell us.

It's worse mess now politically since we removed Saddam a minority nominal sunni and replaced him with a majority pro Iranian devout shia leadership. But it's been a corrupt mess from begining to end. the reason we went there was to "get them WMD's" well hey OOoopppps uh, that job's is done... well never needed to be done. And we aren't "nation building" so it's past time to get the heck out.


And I'm not sure why we should stay in Iraq killing and dying because the troops won't have jobs back home. Haven't the troop been complaining about stop loss and multiple tours and the like?
If jobs are why we are still in Iraq then we should just declare war on any number of small countries and get the rest of the U.S. back to work as soldiers too.

I can't imagine any sane person sees war as a good way to provide jobs.

[fj1200]

I can't imagine any sane person sees war as a good way to provide jobs.

FDR's entire reputation is built on that premise.

[ConHog]

FDR's entire reputation is built on that premise.

And how exactly does that contradict what I said? :laugh2:

[fj1200]

Just an easy way to identify the INsane. ;)

[ConHog]

Just an easy way to identify the INsane. ;)

Honestly I think anyone who actually would WANT to be President is insane.

[gabosaurus]

I can't imagine any sane person sees war as a good way to provide jobs.

We haven't had any sane presidents for multiple decades. Some have merely been less sane than others.

The military is just like any other industry. It needs to trim the fat occasionally. Not that the war loving hawks ever see it that way. To them, casualties and bloodshed equal good business.

[pegwinn]

I've been asking what does "finish the job" mean for years,
maybe Gunny or ConHog can tell us.

I aint them, but if'n they don't mind I will take a shot at it.

The war is over and the job is done when the winner says so.

[Nukeman]

Outside of the national guard, it would be illegal to use soldiers to police our southern border. And I'm not sure that putting national guardsmen down there to man the offices while Border Patrol agents actually patrol the border is the best use of resources either.

As to Gunny's point. Do you or do you not agree with him that a war isn't over simply because one side goes home?Actually the Act does not prohibit members of the Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army) from exercising state law enforcement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_agency_powers), police (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police), or peace officer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_officer) powers that maintain "law and order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_order_%28politics%29)"; it simply requires that any orders to do so must originate with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.

So if Congress decides this needs done they can authorize it..

[Gunny]

Iraq is merely a more modern version of Viet Nam. There is no "finish." The only way out is to leave entirely and leave whatever happens to happen.
The invasion of Iraq was a total failure from the beginning, the product of a deluded American leader who thought that conflict was the only way to make himself famous.
The only real "douches" are those who feel military conflict is the only solution to problems.

You're lowering the property value of this thread. The REAL douches are anyone who supports or voted for Herr Obama. Period.

As to your other failed attempt at a point, it is moot. We're there. Doesn't matter why or how except in little pea-brains more worried about blaming someone than fixing something. We started it, we finish.

You shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[Gunny]

I've been asking what does "finish the job" mean for years,
maybe Gunny or ConHog can tell us.

It's worse mess now politically since we removed Saddam a minority nominal sunni and replaced him with a majority pro Iranian devout shia leadership. But it's been a corrupt mess from begining to end. the reason we went there was to "get them WMD's" well hey OOoopppps uh, that job's is done... well never needed to be done. And we aren't "nation building" so it's past time to get the heck out.


And I'm not sure why we should stay in Iraq killing and dying because the troops won't have jobs back home. Haven't the troop been complaining about stop loss and multiple tours and the like?
If jobs are why we are still in Iraq then we should just declare war on any number of small countries and get the rest of the U.S. back to work as soldiers too.

I said nothing about staying and dying because troops won't have jobs. You're as ignorant as Gabby.

I said we should stay and finish the job and saying it's over doesn't make it so; and,

it has not gone unnoticed that Obama has NOT addressed what he's going to do with the troops when he gets them home. The simple reason is: it's political dynamite in an election year. It doesn't surprise me any no GOP candidate has thought of it and nailed him to the wall on it.

Those are my points. Re-hashing for the billionth time why we're in Iraq and who wants to blame who has nothing to do with it. Feel free to start your own thread if you wish. And don't start that WMD shit with ME. We KNOW he had them because we sold the MFers to him.

[Gunny]

I can't imagine any sane person sees war as a good way to provide jobs.

I agree. That wasn't my point. Rev just wants to address everything BUT the issue.

[Gunny]

I aint them, but if'n they don't mind I will take a shot at it.

The war is over and the job is done when the winner says so.

Sounds like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

[pegwinn]

Sounds like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Not sure of the reference. Monty never was a favorite.

But, for the others who didn't get my point, only a pol would say we won. Instead of the WWII ending where it was decisive we have..... this mess. Instead of the Marshall Plan, we tried to incorporate that into the ROE and we have .... this mess.

[Gunny]

Not sure of the reference. Monty never was a favorite.

But, for the others who didn't get my point, only a pol would say we won. Instead of the WWII ending where it was decisive we have..... this mess. Instead of the Marshall Plan, we tried to incorporate that into the ROE and we have .... this mess.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690

I wasn't a fan much either. But this clip is a classic.

[revelarts]

I said nothing about staying and dying because troops won't have jobs. You're as ignorant as Gabby.

mmm ... I guess if O-blah-blah says so, it must be. And he's going to "bring our boys home", right? Isn't that the leftwingnut chant?

What's the first thing the government does when it "brings our boys home"? Draws down the military. Oddly enough, I seem to not recall hearing Herr Obama address this particular issue. Sure, he can hide some by shifting them to Afghanistan.

Wonder if he's got any of those "shovel-ready jobs" for the rest .... In case he hasn't noticed, the job market here isn't quite the best evuh.

Looks like you've implied it in a back handed way. It may not be what you meant but it seem to be what your saying here. "you shouldn't draw down the troops when there are no jobs.
What did you mean to say here?



I said we should stay and finish the job and saying it's over doesn't make it so; and,ANd I asked So When is the War Over Gunny? are you avoiding the question?



it has not gone unnoticed that Obama has NOT addressed what he's going to do with the troops when he gets them home. The simple reason is: it's political dynamite in an election year. It doesn't surprise me any no GOP candidate has thought of it and nailed him to the wall on it.
You didn't mention anything about about election year politics before, i'm not sure How anyone was suppose to divine that.


Those are my points. Re-hashing for the billionth time why we're in Iraq and who wants to blame who has nothing to do with it. Feel free to start your own thread if you wish. And don't start that WMD shit with ME. We KNOW he had them because we sold the MFers to him. we Agree that we sold them to him, you might have a problem with Gaffer and maybe Jim on that point he says only the Russians ever helped Saddam. You ought to tell him. I produced federal docs to that effect but people forget stuff like that sometimes, it's cool.




Point is, the war isn't over just because he says so.

ANd I asked So When is the War Over Gunny? Are You avoiding the question?



Iraq is going to implode if he pulls our troops, that's if Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey don't carve it up.

And that is our problem because... what?



He needs to finish the job and just saying so doesn't make it so.
And What does Finish the Job mean to you Gunny?



He's a douche, and so is anyone that supports or votes for the commie.
...Well Ok ...

[jimnyc]

we Agree that we sold them to him, you might have a problem with Gaffer and maybe Jim on that point he says only the Russians ever helped Saddam. You ought to tell him. I produced federal docs to that effect but people forget stuff like that sometimes, it's cool.

WTF are you babbling about now? I never said that. I know very well about our past with Iraq, the CIA and all that other crap. I never stated otherwise. Just do me a favor, leave my name out of your posts, as all you do is just make shit up about me and attribute made up quotes whenever you feel like it to spruce up your lame stances.

[Gunny]

Looks like you've implied it in a back handed way. It may not be what you meant but it seem to be what your saying here. "you shouldn't draw down the troops when there are no jobs.
What did you mean to say here?

ANd I asked So When is the War Over Gunny? are you avoiding the question?


You didn't mention anything about about election year politics before, i'm not sure How anyone was suppose to divine that.

we Agree that we sold them to him, you might have a problem with Gaffer and maybe Jim on that point he says only the Russians ever helped Saddam. You ought to tell him. I produced federal docs to that effect but people forget stuff like that sometimes, it's cool.





ANd I asked So When is the War Over Gunny? Are You avoiding the question?



And that is our problem because... what?


And What does Finish the Job mean to you Gunny?


...Well Ok ...

I don't respond to expand-a-post trash like this. Make a coherent thought that addresses my points and put it in one post paragraph style. Save THIS game of semantics for someone that will answer it.

[jimnyc]

I don't respond to expand-a-post trash like this. Make a coherent thought that addresses my points and put it in one post paragraph style. Save THIS game of semantics for someone that will answer it.

I'm glad you said it, I can't stand that type of posting. Some think we can't read a paragraph, or take in more than one point at a time.

[Gunny]

WTF are you babbling about now? I never said that. I know very well about our past with Iraq, the CIA and all that other crap. I never stated otherwise. Just do me a favor, leave my name out of your posts, as all you do is just make shit up about me and attribute made up quotes whenever you feel like it to spruce up your lame stances.

The fact is, why we are there, how we got there, the WMDs WE sold Saddam, or any other deflections don't answer the questions I asked. As previously stated, if anyone wants to relive all that bullshit, go start another thread.

[jimnyc]

The fact is, why we are there, how we got there, the WMDs WE sold Saddam, or any other deflections don't answer the questions I asked. As previously stated, if anyone wants to relive all that bullshit, go start another thread.

His point is dog shit anyway. Let's suppose we sold companies in the UK some chemicals that could be made into weapons. Let's say we sell them a bit of fighter jets. Then we sell them all kinds of neat bombs. They are an ally at the time. If this ally goes a little rabid down the road, and turn the chemicals into weapons and use this crap on their own people, and go after neighboring countries - and then threaten to use them against us - that doesn't mean we either deserve it, or caused it. I've discussed this a million times with a million people and have always explained it in the same basic terms. Yet here comes Rev quoting me as stating we never sold them or gave them anything, that I said only Russia did that? I dunno, maybe I hit the bong the day I wrote that and Rev is right, otherwise one would think he just makes shit up as he goes along, tosses all of it on the screen here and just hopes that some will believe him without question.

[Gunny]

His point is dog shit anyway. Let's suppose we sold companies in the UK some chemicals that could be made into weapons. Let's say we sell them a bit of fighter jets. Then we sell them all kinds of neat bombs. They are an ally at the time. If this ally goes a little rabid down the road, and turn the chemicals into weapons and use this crap on their own people, and go after neighboring countries - and then threaten to use them against us - that doesn't mean we either deserve it, or caused it. I've discussed this a million times with a million people and have always explained it in the same basic terms. Yet here comes Rev quoting me as stating we never sold them or gave them anything, that I said only Russia did that? I dunno, maybe I hit the bong the day I wrote that and Rev is right, otherwise one would think he just makes shit up as he goes along, tosses all of it on the screen here and just hopes that some will believe him without question.

I agree. He sounds like a lefty to me.

[ConHog]

I agree. That wasn't my point. Rev just wants to address everything BUT the issue.

Oh, I absolutely knew that you weren't saying we should stay there because of jobs. I was actually saying you are sane so obviously you wouldn't think that.

[Gunny]

Oh, I absolutely knew that you weren't saying we should stay there because of jobs. I was actually saying you are sane so obviously you wouldn't think that.

Right. My point is, Obama's declared the war over and he's "bringing our boys home". He has NOT addressed what he's going to do with them, but ...

History tells us what he's going to do with them. Put them on the street in the no-job market he's created.

[revelarts]

Uh Jim I apologize, I wasn't sure of your position on Where the WMDs Saddam had (long ago) came from. That's why i put the word "maybe" in my post, I'm sure Gaffer said it because it was recently he was rebutting a point i made with that idea.
Sorry Jim.



Right. My point is, Obama's declared the war over and he's "bringing our boys home". He has NOT addressed what he's going to do with them, but ...

History tells us what he's going to do with them. Put them on the street in the no-job market he's created.

Gunny, you said a pet peeve was words meaning things in the constitution thread. your words taken as a whole in that one post did Imply that. Though I hoped you didn't mean it that way. So i put a point on it with my reply.

Now it seems your still upset because if the soldiers aren't at war then they will be jobless,

But Ok Here let me try to put this in the best light i can think of based on your words
You think that we NEED to Finish the "JOB" (whatever that is to you, you won't say).
But Not because soldiers need work.
SO if the "Job" was Finished (whatever that is to you). It would be Ok to bring the troops home but since it's not it's twice as bad to bring them home because there are no jobs.
That's the best i can make of what you saying I may be to slow to pick it up your full intent.

But I'm not sure what question you all want me to answer. that your so hot on?
If you want to answer What "Obama is going to do with the troops" I've got no idea what his plans might be. If your asking me, Well this is America, I believe in capitalism and self sufficiency. The Troops have access to the renewed GI bill with access to education and designated loans for housing and business loans. Which I think is deserved. If they are out of the service they have to make their way like the rest of us. There are no guaranteed jobs in the U.S. last I checked. Maybe some of these troops can create the Jobs the country needs rather than wasting their talents in the M.E.. For those that want to stay in the military if we close some bases overseas I'm not sure why we can't put a couple extra of bases on the Mexico boarder, stations some troops there. that one thing. I can give a few more ideas but the post might be longer than what you want to reply too.

[ConHog]

Uh Jim I apologize, I wasn't sure of your position on Where the WMDs Saddam had (long ago) came from. That's why i put the word "maybe" in my post, I'm sure Gaffer said it because it was recently he was rebutting a point i made with that idea.
Sorry Jim.




Gunny, you said a pet peeve was words meaning things in the constitution thread. your words taken as a whole in that one post did Imply that. Though I hoped you didn't mean it that way. So i put a point on it with my reply.

Now it seems your still upset because if the soldiers aren't at war then they will be jobless,

But Ok Here let me try to put this in the best light i can think of based on your words
You think that we NEED to Finish the "JOB" (whatever that is to you, you won't say).
But Not because soldiers need work.
SO if the "Job" was Finished (whatever that is to you). It would be Ok to bring the troops home but since it's not it's twice as bad to bring them home because there are no jobs.
That's the best i can make of what you saying I may be to slow to pick it up your full intent.

But I'm not sure what question you all want me to answer. that your so hot on?
If you want to answer What "Obama is going to do with the troops" I've got no idea what his plans might be. If your asking me, Well this is America, I believe in capitalism and self sufficiency. The Troops have access to the renewed GI bill with access to education and designated loans for housing and business loans. Which I think is deserved. If they are out of the service they have to make their way like the rest of us. There are no guaranteed jobs in the U.S. last I checked. Maybe some of these troops can create the Jobs the country needs rather than wasting their talents in the M.E.. For those that want to stay in the military if we close some bases overseas I'm not sure why we can't put a couple extra of bases on the Mexico boarder, stations some troops there. that one thing. I can give a few more ideas but the post might be longer than what you want to reply too.


The "job" at this point is to make sure that Iraq is strong enough to stand on its own after we leave. That's what some of you don't seem to get. We went to take out saddam and give the Iraqi people the opportunity to have their country back. It does no good to kill Sadaam if 10 years later we just leave and someone worse steps into the void. We created a mess over there , and frankly we owe it to Iraq to clean it up.

Personally, I think Bush screwed up. He should have sent team 6 in and just killed the fucker and his sons and told the Iraqi people "do what you want, but if the next guy fucks with us, he's dead to."

[jimnyc]

ANd I asked So When is the War Over Gunny?

Rev, let me ask you, when is ANY war over? Short of one side waving the white flag and surrendering, or an agreement/treaty being reached - when is ANY war "over"? Are these the ONLY ways a war can be over?

[Gunny]

Uh Jim I apologize, I wasn't sure of your position on Where the WMDs Saddam had (long ago) came from. That's why i put the word "maybe" in my post, I'm sure Gaffer said it because it was recently he was rebutting a point i made with that idea.
Sorry Jim.




Gunny, you said a pet peeve was words meaning things in the constitution thread. your words taken as a whole in that one post did Imply that. Though I hoped you didn't mean it that way. So i put a point on it with my reply.

Now it seems your still upset because if the soldiers aren't at war then they will be jobless,

But Ok Here let me try to put this in the best light i can think of based on your words
You think that we NEED to Finish the "JOB" (whatever that is to you, you won't say).
But Not because soldiers need work.
SO if the "Job" was Finished (whatever that is to you). It would be Ok to bring the troops home but since it's not it's twice as bad to bring them home because there are no jobs.
That's the best i can make of what you saying I may be to slow to pick it up your full intent.

But I'm not sure what question you all want me to answer. that your so hot on?
If you want to answer What "Obama is going to do with the troops" I've got no idea what his plans might be. If your asking me, Well this is America, I believe in capitalism and self sufficiency. The Troops have access to the renewed GI bill with access to education and designated loans for housing and business loans. Which I think is deserved. If they are out of the service they have to make their way like the rest of us. There are no guaranteed jobs in the U.S. last I checked. Maybe some of these troops can create the Jobs the country needs rather than wasting their talents in the M.E.. For those that want to stay in the military if we close some bases overseas I'm not sure why we can't put a couple extra of bases on the Mexico boarder, stations some troops there. that one thing. I can give a few more ideas but the post might be longer than what you want to reply too.

The OP is rather clear and concise.

Wrong answer. When you send them off to war, then bring them back and put them out, all that access to this and that you talk about is a bunch of bunk. What about the married with children personnel? How about I come take away your job, in this market, put you and your family in the street living out of your car?

Create jobs the country needs? Does reality EVER cross your mind?

[Gunny]

Rev, let me ask you, when is ANY war over? Short of one side waving the white flag and surrendering, or an agreement/treaty being reached - when is ANY war "over"? Are these the ONLY ways a war can be over?

The mission is over when the government of Iraq, elected by the people can stand on its own, as CH posted. Obama and the left calling the US military being used as Iraqi policemen a "war" is quite a stretch.

Rule #1. WE made this mess. Pointing fingers is BS. The mess is made. Last I checked, when one makes a mess, one cleans it up, NO MATTER HOW LONG IT TAKES.

And this is in response that little gem you quoted of Rev's, Jim, not your post. I'm just too lazy to dig through all the mumbo-jumbo to find it right now.:laugh:

[ConHog]

The mission is over when the government of Iraq, elected by the people can stand on its own, as CH posted. Obama and the left calling the US military being used as Iraqi policemen a "war" is quite a stretch.

Rule #1. WE made this mess. Pointing fingers is BS. The mess is made. Last I checked, when one makes a mess, one cleans it up, NO MATTER HOW LONG IT TAKES.

And this is in response that little gem you quoted of Rev's, Jim, not your post. I'm just too lazy to dig through all the mumbo-jumbo to find it right now.:laugh:

Hey Gunny, I've done a quick search and I just can't find anywhere where Obama or any of his supporters are clamoring to bring the troops home from Korea, and I'd say THAT war is far more concluded than the one in Iraq. Could it possibly be that this is just a political stunt and Obama and his loons neither know nor care about a war actually being over?

[revelarts]

The mission is over when the government of Iraq, elected by the people can stand on its own, as CH posted. Obama and the left calling the US military being used as Iraqi policemen a "war" is quite a stretch.

Rule #1. WE made this mess. Pointing fingers is BS. The mess is made. Last I checked, when one makes a mess, one cleans it up, NO MATTER HOW LONG IT TAKES.

And this is in response that little gem you quoted of Rev's, Jim, not your post. I'm just too lazy to dig through all the mumbo-jumbo to find it right now.:laugh:

Nation Building. Great.
Any real benchmarks for that in your REALITY. Stand on it's own is kinda vague it seems to me. Cleaning up the mess is kinda vague to.

I'm not sure how the world will make it without us were bankrupt and can't even pay the troops.

[ConHog]

Nation Building. Great.
Any real benchmarks for that in your REALITY. Stand on it's own is kinda vague it seems to me. Cleaning up the mess is kinda vague to.

I'm not sure how the world will make it without us were bankrupt and can't even pay the troops.

This country has ALWAYS been a nation builder. Don't like it, go dig up James Monroe and spit on him.

As for the mess being vague. It is not our fault that you don't have an understanding of exactly what we did to Iraq. Bush screwed up , plain and simple. Iraq was a fairly urbanized country in 2002 , albeit ran by an asshole . Most of the nation had what we would consider to be standard urban utilities and such, and if we had just taken said asshole out and let Iraq just put someone new in place we wouldn't have created such a mess. But no we shock and awed an urban country into the stone age. By the time we were done, Iraqis didn't even have power, or the capability to pump oil, or the ability to defend themselves. We killed most of their top military so even if we just turned things over, it would be like giving command of a battalion of the US Army to a corporal and telling him to defend Nevada when California attacks. Good luck.

Are things going as quickly as they should? Obviously not, but unless you've actually been in country you can't possibly know the extent of the mess we made.

Imagine someone carpet bombing Texas and then just walking away and telling them to fend for themselves.

I am proud of the soldiers who have stayed on all this time out of honor to help correct what we caused.

[revelarts]

Rev, let me ask you, when is ANY war over? Short of one side waving the white flag and surrendering, or an agreement/treaty being reached - when is ANY war "over"? Are these the ONLY ways a war can be over?

"..one side waving the white flag and surrendering, or an agreement/treaty being reached.."
those are the standard ways.
We've installed a new gov't in Iraq and Afghanistan , for what it's worth, and If they can't maintain it that's their problem. Just as If the revolutionary war here had ended and all of the states broke into pieces or small civil wars it wouldn't have been the French's job to maintain a U.S. federal gov't, It's our country's problem. And it's taken 200 years and a civil war for us to get to the place we are now.

Unless you folks are saying we have other interest in the region -in the real world- that compel us to stay and CONTROL the direction of other people's gov't. So far your point are flimsy at best. and Fiscally unsustainable. But i've been told that Oil is NOT a reason for a "WAR we NEED to FINISH" . But cleaning up messes and nation building is...go figure

[ConHog]

"..one side waving the white flag and surrendering, or an agreement/treaty being reached.."
those are the standard ways.
We've installed a new gov't in Iraq and Afghanistan , for what it's worth, and If they can't maintain it that's their problem. Just as If the revolutionary war here had ended and all of the states broke into pieces or small civil wars it wouldn't have been the French's job to maintain a U.S. federal gov't, It's our country's problem. And it's taken 200 years and a civil war for us to get to the place we are now.

Unless you folks are saying we have other interest in the region -in the real world- that compel us to stay and CONTROL the direction of other people's gov't. So far your point are flimsy at best. and Fiscally unsustainable. But i've been told that Oil is NOT a reason for a "WAR we NEED to FINISH" . But cleaning up messes and nation building is...go figure

Sure, our own national interests play into the decision. That is just part of it. BUT you're comparison is silly. We weren't an already established nation that the french blew into oblivion, so they owed us NOTHING. We put Iraq in the situation the find themselves in today. Do you understand that? If we hadn't bombed them, a new leader could have stepped right in and had the third strongest military in the region and plenty of oil income to keep that country viable. We took all of that away from them.

[revelarts]

This country has ALWAYS been a nation builder. Don't like it, go dig up James Monroe and spit on him.

As for the mess being vague. It is not our fault that you don't have an understanding of exactly what we did to Iraq. Bush screwed up , plain and simple. Iraq was a fairly urbanized country in 2002 , albeit ran by an asshole . Most of the nation had what we would consider to be standard urban utilities and such, and if we had just taken said asshole out and let Iraq just put someone new in place we wouldn't have created such a mess. But no we shock and awed an urban country into the stone age. By the time we were done, Iraqis didn't even have power, or the capability to pump oil, or the ability to defend themselves. We killed most of their top military so even if we just turned things over, it would be like giving command of a battalion of the US Army to a corporal and telling him to defend Nevada when California attacks. Good luck.

Are things going as quickly as they should? Obviously not, but unless you've actually been in country you can't possibly know the extent of the mess we made.

Imagine someone carpet bombing Texas and then just walking away and telling them to fend for themselves.

I am proud of the soldiers who have stayed on all this time out of honor to help correct what we caused.

What your taking about is Restoration or reparations and rebuilding.
Well Talk to Bremmer and ask him where all the Billions the U.S. and the millions of from the Iraqis own bank accounts went to DO ALL OF THE REPAIRS your talking about went. He was the Occupation leader in Iraq when all that money for that got pissed into the wind with corruption on all sides. Soldiers and airmen generally don't repair utilities, they blow them up. Soldiers don't rebuild skycrappers, they target them. That's what they are trained to do and yes many are honorable and great folks. But nation rebuilding is not thier job BUILDING CONTRACTORS do that. and they can be civilians from any country as long as they get paid. Unless your saying that the Army corp of engineers should exclusively do the work. I might work with you there. But Sure we Screwed the Iraqis Royally and they deserve better I'm not sure we have ever been willing to do right by them or if we can make up for it But the average Soldiers shouldn't be rebuilding stuff it's not the military's job.

[ConHog]

What your taking about is Restoration or reparations and rebuilding.
Well Talk to Bremmer and ask him where all the Billions the U.S. and the millions of from the Iraqis own bank accounts went to DO ALL OF THE REPAIRS your talking about went. He was the Occupation leader in Iraq when all that money for that got pissed into the wind with corruption on all sides. Soldiers and airmen generally don't repair utilities, they blow them up. Soldiers don't rebuild skycrappers, they target them. That's what they are trained to do and yes many are honorable and great folks. But nation rebuilding is not thier job BUILDING CONTRACTORS do that. and they can be civilians from any country as long as they get paid. Unless your saying that the Army corp of engineers should exclusively do the work. I might work with you there. But Sure we Screwed the Iraqis Royally and they deserve better I'm not sure we have ever been willing to do right by them or if we can make up for it But the average Soldiers shouldn't be rebuilding stuff it's not the military's job.

I'm not talking about rebuilding their building Rev. I don't care if their building get rebuilt. I'm not talking about rebuilding their infrastructure. Roads, utilities, military leadership, emergency response units, that sort of thing.

And perhaps civilian contractors COULD do the job ( and in fact they are in conjunction with the military and have been since almost the start) but I'm sure you've seen the insurgents there shooting people on TV? Those people are there as a direct result of OUR actions. There certainly weren't insurgents killing people on the streets when Saadam was around (he made sure that only HE did that)

As for corruption, that exists no matter what.

Is Iraq ready for us to leave and stand on their own? I don't know. But I do know that this President hasn't shown me a single reason to trust HIS judgement on the matter.

Oh, one other thing. Where is your thread about it's time to bring the troops home from Korea?

[revelarts]

I'm not talking about rebuilding their building Rev. I don't care if their building get rebuilt. I'm not talking about rebuilding their infrastructure. Roads, utilities, military leadership, emergency response units, that sort of thing.

And perhaps civilian contractors COULD do the job ( and in fact they are in conjunction with the military and have been since almost the start) but I'm sure you've seen the insurgents there shooting people on TV? Those people are there as a direct result of OUR actions. There certainly weren't insurgents killing people on the streets when Saadam was around (he made sure that only HE did that)

As for corruption, that exists no matter what.

Is Iraq ready for us to leave and stand on their own? I don't know. But I do know that this President hasn't shown me a single reason to trust HIS judgement on the matter.

Sounds like You blow off Billions in corruption but bemoan our wholesale devastation of the country... and think Soldiers staying for a long time can fix it ...without the money to rebuild? well .. Ok.

Umm ,But you mention roads etc being destroyed by us. However Insurgents stop shooting at U.S. troops if we leave,. And just As i mentioned in my Revolutionary war analogy, if we started shooting at each other, Once we had freedom , it's our problem. not others. Saddam managed to keep internal peace in ways that are not democratic. It may take some time for the Iraqis to work out the regional , economic and religious issues that we've handed them , with the "freedom" from Saddam. But it seems to me we can't/shouldn't dictate by force their "peace" without remaining Dictators it seems to me.


Oh, one other thing. Where is your thread about it's time to bring the troops home from Korea?
I think we should close most of the bases around the world. why stop at Korea? do you want a thread I'll start one. BTW I ddin't start this thread.
but Gunny doesn't want that because there are no jobs for troops. And never will be enough i guess.

[ConHog]

Sounds like You blow off Billions in corruption but bemoan our wholesale devastation of the country... and think Soldiers staying for a long time can fit it ...without the money to rebuild? well .. Ok.

Umm ,But you mention roads etc being destroyed by us. However Insurgents stop shooting at U.S. troops if we leave,. And just As i mentioned in my Revolutionary war analogy, if we started shooting at each other, Once we had freedom , it's our problem. not others. Saddam managed to keep internal peace in ways that are not democratic. It may take some time for the Iraqis to work out the regional , economic and religious issues that we've handed them , with the "freedom" from Saddam. But it seems to me we can't/shouldn't dictate by force their "peace" without remaining Dictators it seems to me.

I think we should close most of the bases around the world. why stop at Korea? do you want a thread I'll start one.
but Gunny doesn't want that because there are no jobs for troops. And never will be enough i guess.

I don't blow off corruption. ANd in fact I think that they should have an equal financial stake in rebuilding their country to our own (meaning oil) but that doesn't mean we can or should just leave without making sure they can take care of their own.

[revelarts]

SO here's another Question for you Hog, and it goes to others here as well who are EXTREMELY concerned about Iran.

You've spoken clearly and others have agreed it seems that the Attack on Iraq was a mistake in the way it was handled, at least. That and has left them "a mess" with no infrastructure and a vacuum in leadership that could turn out to bite us in asre later if we don't stay and nation build or "fix it"
You've probalbly guessed my Question.
Why should we attack Iran, when we can end up with the SAME situation. there's no seal team 6 to kill Ahmadinejad that's going to change the situation. Another Ayatollah may rise in his place. Or MANY. And convert action could Spur a more radical element and rouse Iranian populous Away from any U.S. sentiment. BUT all out war will create another horrible Mess that we don't need and can't afford and don't know how to "Fix" and more ,OH well, Corruption. Politically who will we try to put in place IF we can win a ground war there. They already have a some democracy, are we to kill all the devout Shia for the Saudis or what?
Any Airstrike will alone will be an Act of war on our part and Iran would be justified in ANY type of retaliation on U.S. troops close by in Iraq or Afghanistan on it boarders or a Strike Here on the US mainland in the form of terrorist or Assassinations. Not to mention that Russia and China may not take kindly to the U.S. attacking there old Buddy.

What GOOD would a U.S. strike on A so called Iranian Nuke base do?

And are you folks SERIOUSLY afraid that if Iran gets 1 nuke that they will instigate an Attack on the U.S. or Israel? In the light of the hellish devastation ConHog describes we've wrought in IRAQ and Afghanistan that Iran can see clearly from their boarders?

Won't we be Worse off if we attack? and the ME in a bigger mess cause by US?


PS: Muslim Pakistan hates Hindu India but somehow the nukes haven't flown.

[Gaffer]

SO here's another Question for you Hog, and it goes to others here as well who are EXTREMELY concerned about Iran.

You've spoken clearly and others have agreed it seems that the Attack on Iraq was a mistake in the way it was handled, at least. That and has left them "a mess" with no infrastructure and a vacuum in leadership that could turn out to bite us in asre later if we don't stay and nation build or "fix it"
You've probalbly guessed my Question.
Why should we attack Iran, when we can end up with the SAME situation. there's no seal team 6 to kill Ahmadinejad that's going to change the situation. Another Ayatollah may rise in his place. Or MANY. And convert action could Spur a more radical element and rouse Iranian populous Away from any U.S. sentiment. BUT all out war will create another horrible Mess that we don't need and can't afford and don't know how to "Fix" and more ,OH well, Corruption. Politically who will we try to put in place IF we can win a ground war there. They already have a some democracy, are we to kill all the devout Shia for the Saudis or what?
Any Airstrike will alone will be an Act of war on our part and Iran would be justified in ANY type of retaliation on U.S. troops close by in Iraq or Afghanistan on it boarders or a Strike Here on the US mainland in the form of terrorist or Assassinations. Not to mention that Russia and China may not take kindly to the U.S. attacking there old Buddy.

What GOOD would a U.S. strike on A so called Iranian Nuke base do?

And are you folks SERIOUSLY afraid that if Iran gets 1 nuke that they will instigate an Attack on the U.S. or Israel? In the light of the hellish devastation ConHog describes we've wrought in IRAQ and Afghanistan that Iran can see clearly from their boarders?

Won't we be Worse off if we attack? and the ME in a bigger mess cause by US?


PS: Muslim Pakistan hates Hindu India but somehow the nukes haven't flown.

While Pakistan would love to nuke India, they don't dare, because India would nuke them in return. The MAD scenario works there. On the other hand iran is a different colored horse. The mullahs in charge and the president, are believers in the 12th imam. They believe a catastrophic war is necessary for his return. The fact iran might be annihilated doesn't matter to them. So their having even one nuke is very dangerous. Not to mention they could transport that nuke through help of their various terrorist organizations. And you can bet that when they announce they have a nuke it won't be one nuke.

Iran has a plan to create a new caliphate in the middle east with themselves as the center. The maneuvering and fighting is already under way. Iraq is going to be carved up. The kurds are under attack from both iran and Turkey. Syria is being protected by iran and will be used as a base of operations for them. Turkey is well within range of iranian missiles. Egypt is fragmented but could provide support to the saud's. Iran is the 21st century nazi regime. There's a major world war coming and it will be centered in the middle east. We can act to prevent it or we can sit back and watch until it comes to our shores.

We are not involved in many wars in the middle east. It's all one war. The war with islam. No one has the guts to come out and say that. They are all afraid to name the enemy because it might offend a few. Since there are muslims that are on our side the govt and news media walk on egg shells instead of calling things what they are. Anyone that believes in the "tiny minority of radicals" is a fool.

Two nation building successes were Germany and Japan. Why was that? Because we had direct say in how their new govt's were formed. The nazi's were outlawed and Bushido and emperor worship were outlawed. Religion was not a part of their new constitutions.

Rev your always thinking outside the box. But you really need to go back in the box once in a while to get a full perspective.

[Bootneck]

I aint them, but if'n they don't mind I will take a shot at it.

The war is over and the job is done when the winner says so.

The hardest thing about winning a war, is winning the peace.

[revelarts]

SO here's another Question for you Hog, and it goes to others here as well who are EXTREMELY concerned about Iran.

You've spoken clearly and others have agreed it seems that the Attack on Iraq was a mistake in the way it was handled, at least. That and has left them "a mess" with no infrastructure and a vacuum in leadership that could turn out to bite us in asre later if we don't stay and nation build or "fix it"
You've probalbly guessed my Question.
Why should we attack Iran, when we can end up with the SAME situation. there's no seal team 6 to kill Ahmadinejad that's going to change the situation. Another Ayatollah may rise in his place. Or MANY. And convert action could Spur a more radical element and rouse Iranian populous Away from any U.S. sentiment. BUT all out war will create another horrible Mess that we don't need and can't afford and don't know how to "Fix" and more ,OH well, Corruption. Politically who will we try to put in place IF we can win a ground war there. They already have a some democracy, are we to kill all the devout Shia for the Saudis or what?
Any Airstrike will alone will be an Act of war on our part and Iran would be justified in ANY type of retaliation on U.S. troops close by in Iraq or Afghanistan on it boarders or a Strike Here on the US mainland in the form of terrorist or Assassinations. Not to mention that Russia and China may not take kindly to the U.S. attacking there old Buddy.

What GOOD would a U.S. strike on A so called Iranian Nuke base do?

And are you folks SERIOUSLY afraid that if Iran gets 1 nuke that they will instigate an Attack on the U.S. or Israel? In the light of the hellish devastation ConHog describes we've wrought in IRAQ and Afghanistan that Iran can see clearly from their boarders?

Won't we be Worse off if we attack? and the ME in a bigger mess cause by US?


PS: Muslim Pakistan hates Hindu India but somehow the nukes haven't flown.


While Pakistan would love to nuke India, they don't dare, because India would nuke them in return. The MAD scenario works there. On the other hand iran is a different colored horse. The mullahs in charge and the president, are believers in the 12th imam. They believe a catastrophic war is necessary for his return. The fact iran might be annihilated doesn't matter to them. So their having even one nuke is very dangerous. Not to mention they could transport that nuke through help of their various terrorist organizations. And you can bet that when they announce they have a nuke it won't be one nuke.

Iran has a plan to create a new caliphate in the middle east with themselves as the center. The maneuvering and fighting is already under way. Iraq is going to be carved up. The kurds are under attack from both iran and Turkey. Syria is being protected by iran and will be used as a base of operations for them. Turkey is well within range of iranian missiles. Egypt is fragmented but could provide support to the saud's. Iran is the 21st century nazi regime. There's a major world war coming and it will be centered in the middle east. We can act to prevent it or we can sit back and watch until it comes to our shores.

We are not involved in many wars in the middle east. It's all one war. The war with islam. No one has the guts to come out and say that. They are all afraid to name the enemy because it might offend a few. Since there are muslims that are on our side the govt and news media walk on egg shells instead of calling things what they are. Anyone that believes in the "tiny minority of radicals" is a fool.

Two nation building successes were Germany and Japan. Why was that? Because we had direct say in how their new govt's were formed. The nazi's were outlawed and Bushido and emperor worship were outlawed. Religion was not a part of their new constitutions.

Rev your always thinking outside the box. But you really need to go back in the box once in a while to get a full perspective.


That's a lot to take in Gaffer, I don't want to do a long rebut you probably wouldn't buy it anyway. Buuut i think your assuming the worse muslim wise (they are expansionist Nazi, that want to rule the world and will have multiple Nukes if we don't strike 1st) But if it's as bad as you say couldn't "Strinking 1st" Set WW3 off. and we'd be the cuase?!

and If you were right It still seems to me we've struck 1st allready. We attack the talibain ..not part of a Calif , we've attacked AlQuida, We attacked Saddam enemy of Iran, not part of the Calif or the Mullahs, We Attack Khadafiis Lybia Not part of Calif or a lover of Mullahs and Enemy of Alquida. I've posted before the Reports from Cia and state dept officials who --like with Iraq said that there is NO threat of an Aggressive attacks form Iran. I'm not sure Why I should ignore them for a few Mullahs fantasies. And why WE should send troops into what should esntailly be an ME war if any of the ME state got the Stones to Attack each other with help or EXCUSES from larger proxies (or larger pawns depending on your POV) the Saudis would love to USE OUR TROOPS to crush the Shia in IRAN, but don't want to do it them selves. It's not ENVEITAIBLE that we go to war with anyone over there the ONLY thing that Yanks our Chain to the region is OIL and
And since the Powers that Be around the world and the U.S. CAN"T seem to think out of the Box on Oil it seems we'd rather spend money "fixing" the M.E. you want to FIX the Muslims by fighting a world war over their resuorces there rather spend the money and energy to make us M.E. independent. What a crazy thought let the Sunnis and Shias Duke it out while we start a manhattan project on energy at home and let the M.E. deal with their own problems. Is it so hard to be like switzerland for one World War. We've got nothing to prove and nothing to gain by sending men to die in the M.E. again. it's BS..
many of you guy say we should have sent seal team six or similar to deal with the Iraq issue. Well look we are strong enough to sit an M.E. war out. I'd suggest that we lay an ultimatum out if anyone dare attack us outright that we guarantee the harshest of retailiations. What i would mean by that is if Iran or any M.E. country attackes us their capital would be nuked. Just one. none of our men die and anyone else would back the Hell off. Big Stick. But even prior to that with a manhattan project on Energy and a war in the M.E. the money in the M.E. may soon dry up or they end up selling oil extremely cheap to pay for there wars ethier way and they may end up being truly 3rd world countries again .. if we sit on the side lines. and Don't let the mega oil corps convince us that we can't survive without them.

I think your fear of a militarily aggressive muslim world is overblown my concern is that the muslims win by attrition. they tend to have large families we in the west have small ones. A few generations and they will be able to vote in Shrai law legally since no one wants to follow the constituton anymore. Frankly the iilleagal imagants might be our salvation here. they have large families as well and are predominately Catholics and Pentecostals. We might want to reconsider our immigration policies, "give us your Christian non muslim kids" (During an M.E. war NO citizenships for Muslims/M.E. Imgrants) and FIX abortion laws. ZERO tolerance. if we want to survive as a free country.

[jimnyc]

TI've posted before the Reports from Cia and state dept officials who --like with Iraq said that there is NO threat of an Aggressive attacks form Iran.

I'm curious Rev, not many people I know are more "anti-government" than you. Pretty much anything coming from them is questioned and/or laughed at by you. From what I remember, you even claim GWB "lied" regardless of reports coming from the CIA, other intel agencies, and agencies throughout the world (no, I don't want to debate that again). But my point is, NOW you are going to side with the big bad CIA and "reports". Why are some things from the CIA no good and others gospel? I just find it funny how some "intel" can be dismissed or scoffed at, but the same agencies other reports are the end all. They say no threat, it MUST be true. Then if that's the case, then Iraq WAS a threat to us and they WERE moving WMD's around before we entered in 2003. Or do you just decide yourself which reports are valid, which are invalid, and who lies?

[revelarts]

I'm curious Rev, not many people I know are more "anti-government" than you. Pretty much anything coming from them is questioned and/or laughed at by you. From what I remember, you even claim GWB "lied" regardless of reports coming from the CIA, other intel agencies, and agencies throughout the world (no, I don't want to debate that again). But my point is, NOW you are going to side with the big bad CIA and "reports". Why are some things from the CIA no good and others gospel? I just find it funny how some "intel" can be dismissed or scoffed at, but the same agencies other reports are the end all. They say no threat, it MUST be true. Then if that's the case, then Iraq WAS a threat to us and they WERE moving WMD's around before we entered in 2003. Or do you just decide yourself which reports are valid, which are invalid, and who lies?

Not rehashing it again but to be fairly specific, the CIA and State Dept people who are making the statements about Iran questioned the WMD Iraq info and were RIGHT as well and don't seem to have an agenda.

the no WMD no Threat from Iraq reports came from people in the FBI, CIA, DOD and the U.N. Inspectors. It was this EXTRA info that was ignored by Bush, Rummy and Cheny. CIA people and DOD folks told Rummy/Bush that Chalabi was a piss poor source,... but I digress.
There are a lot of Great people in all parts of gov't My default position is to listen to it ALL pro, con and sideways ANd I've come to believe that things in general are worst at the top. Whitleblowers have nothing to gain and usually lose there jobs etc so they get more initial street cred than the official line, which has political agendas and CYA motives. But sure of ALL of the alphabets soups I'm skeptical of the CIA most, both Current and "former" employees. Frankly i think there's a small core of corrupt/inept people their that feed off of drugs, assassinations, illegal spying on U.S. citizens and overthrowing gov'ts BUT the rest of the CIA folks are just trying to protect the country despite politics and generally are not into the other crap.

more than what you wanted to here i'm sure Jim

And BTW if i use other sources you might think they aren't credible
:beer:

[jimnyc]

Not rehashing it again but to be fairly specific, the CIA and State Dept people who are making the statements about Iran questioned the WMD Iraq info and were RIGHT as well and don't seem to have an agenda.

So the exact same individuals in the CIA who "questioned" intel about Iraq from 1998-2003 are the exact same individuals who released a report about Iran? Without a thousand Youtube videos, can you just backup this one claim for me with links to CIA reports and news stories identifying the same individuals? Thanks!

And beers to you too :beer:

[gabosaurus]

Dedicated to all of you who continue to enjoy the Middle East conflict: :lame2:

Thousands more dead in continuing Iraq victory

http://www.theonion.com/articles/thousands-more-dead-in-continuing-iraq-victory,2110/

[jimnyc]

Dedicated to all of you who continue to enjoy the Middle East conflict: :lame2:

Thousands more dead in continuing Iraq victory

http://www.theonion.com/articles/thousands-more-dead-in-continuing-iraq-victory,2110/

Enjoy? That's a stupid comment. "Continuing Iraq" - I thought your messiah just declared our job there done?

[gabosaurus]

Enjoy? That's a stupid comment. "Continuing Iraq" - I thought your messiah just declared our job there done?

My messiah is spiritual. Don't know about yours.

Otherwise, I don't think Obama was the first President to declare that the job was done.

http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/0808/mission-accomplished-bush-mission-accomplished-douche-demotivational-poster-1218085722.jpg

[jimnyc]

My messiah is spiritual. Don't know about yours.

Otherwise, I don't think Obama was the first President to declare that the job was done.



If you weren't a "hack" looking at things from one side, you would know that the "mission accomplished" was for that ship, not the war in Iraq.

[gabosaurus]

If you weren't a "hack" looking at things from one side, you would know that the "mission accomplished" was for that ship, not the war in Iraq.

Obviously you are joking and don't seriously believe this. :eek:

[jimnyc]

Obviously you are joking and don't seriously believe this. :eek:

Sure, then other than posting a picture of the sign and Bush on the ship - can you point us to a speech or an official announcement from the Military and/or GWB stating that the war in Iraq was over? Obama did just that, and then there was even a ceremony in Iraq to declare the end. Surely you can show us where Bush did the same...

[jimnyc]

From GW's speech on the ship:


"Our mission continues...The War on Terror continues, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide."

"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous."

If the war in Iraq was over, as in the way Obama supposedly means it, then why would Bush have made that statement aboard the ship? It sure doesn't sound like someone announcing the end of the war to me. Sounds like a man that was congratulating the men on that ship and announcing the end of the major battles and air bombarding.

[jimnyc]

So the exact same individuals in the CIA who "questioned" intel about Iraq from 1998-2003 are the exact same individuals who released a report about Iran? Without a thousand Youtube videos, can you just backup this one claim for me with links to CIA reports and news stories identifying the same individuals? Thanks!

And beers to you too :beer:

Back to where we were.... Rev, do you have these names of the individuals from the CIA that were involved both with Iran and the intel in Iraq?

[revelarts]

Back to where we were.... Rev, do you have these names of the individuals from the CIA that were involved both with Iran and the intel in Iraq?

Jim, ask Ron Paul he can give you the names of many

but Ray Mcgovern former CIA breifer to G Bush senior, Fmr Lt Col Karen KWIATKOWSKI of the pentagon and Middle east desk come to mind, look it up for yourself.
the Leverett's a husband and wife, CIA and State dept in GW's administration who somewhat bought the Iraq line but are now extremely skeptical-- no DENY -- all of the Iran talk because it's their area of specialty.

But Can i get you and others who are so set on Desroying Iran and all bad Muslims, to give me the documentation for the Iranian attacks on the U.S. and Israel. BEFORE you promote "preemptive stikes. no you tube please or hersay, written docs from the Iranian military or Military or speeches that describe the ATTACKS you all know are coming. Or evidence of tanks massing on our boarders or ships off our coast? something. what are going by? i hope it's not Bill Krystal.

And In general Jim I'm about done with this differential rigor applied to everything i say, just because you don't like my position. I've got to post a stack of material and others can just post an opinion and they never heard of it before and that's "good enough". By now you should know i don't post stuff that I can't produce a load of docs, video or audio for. just because it all doesn't come from the RNC, fox or a neoCon you Deny deny and No amount of evidence seem enough, I'm not gonna do this with ya'll anymore believe what you want Go to iran and kill all the mullohs for us so we'll be safe

later

[jimnyc]

Jim, ask Ron Paul he can give you the names of many

but Ray Mcgovern former CIA breifer to G Bush senior, Fmr Lt Col Karen KWIATKOWSKI of the pentagon and Middle east desk come to mind, look it up for yourself.
the Leverett's a husband and wife, CIA and State dept in GW's administration who somewhat bought the Iraq line but are now extremely skeptical-- no DENY -- all of the Iran talk because it's their area of specialty.

But Can i get you and others who are so set on Desroying Iran and all bad Muslims, to give me the documentation for the Iranian attacks on the U.S. and Israel. BEFORE you promote "preemptive stikes. no you tube please or hersay, written docs from the Iranian military or Military or speeches that describe the ATTACKS you all know are coming. Or evidence of tanks massing on our boarders or ships off our coast? something. what are going by? i hope it's not Bill Krystal.

So no specific names from the CIA that were involved in BOTH. You're cherry picking what supports your argument. Some stuff by the CIA is dismissed an other stuff is fact. Only those who have your POV seem to be telling the truth and the rest are wrong and/or lying.

[jimnyc]

but Ray Mcgovern former CIA breifer to G Bush senior, Fmr Lt Col Karen KWIATKOWSKI of the pentagon

Would she have ANY reason to "profit" from her story?

[ConHog]

SO here's another Question for you Hog, and it goes to others here as well who are EXTREMELY concerned about Iran.

You've spoken clearly and others have agreed it seems that the Attack on Iraq was a mistake in the way it was handled, at least. That and has left them "a mess" with no infrastructure and a vacuum in leadership that could turn out to bite us in asre later if we don't stay and nation build or "fix it"
You've probalbly guessed my Question.
Why should we attack Iran, when we can end up with the SAME situation. there's no seal team 6 to kill Ahmadinejad that's going to change the situation. Another Ayatollah may rise in his place. Or MANY. And convert action could Spur a more radical element and rouse Iranian populous Away from any U.S. sentiment. BUT all out war will create another horrible Mess that we don't need and can't afford and don't know how to "Fix" and more ,OH well, Corruption. Politically who will we try to put in place IF we can win a ground war there. They already have a some democracy, are we to kill all the devout Shia for the Saudis or what?
Any Airstrike will alone will be an Act of war on our part and Iran would be justified in ANY type of retaliation on U.S. troops close by in Iraq or Afghanistan on it boarders or a Strike Here on the US mainland in the form of terrorist or Assassinations. Not to mention that Russia and China may not take kindly to the U.S. attacking there old Buddy.

What GOOD would a U.S. strike on A so called Iranian Nuke base do?

And are you folks SERIOUSLY afraid that if Iran gets 1 nuke that they will instigate an Attack on the U.S. or Israel? In the light of the hellish devastation ConHog describes we've wrought in IRAQ and Afghanistan that Iran can see clearly from their boarders?

Won't we be Worse off if we attack? and the ME in a bigger mess cause by US?


PS: Muslim Pakistan hates Hindu India but somehow the nukes haven't flown.



I don't condone an attack on Iran. Not on the level of what we did in Iraq anyway. A tactical attack on a single nuclear facility would be the most I would want to see.

[pegwinn]

The solution is an actual Mutual Defense Treaty with Israel. Once ratified, we can then send a diplomat to Tehran to tell them that an attack on Israel is an attack on us. We tell them that 1979 wasn't that long ago and we would love a chance to stomp them flat and leave them for dead.

Heck, why not make Israel the 51st State?

[ConHog]

The solution is an actual Mutual Defense Treaty with Israel. Once ratified, we can then send a diplomat to Tehran to tell them that an attack on Israel is an attack on us. We tell them that 1979 wasn't that long ago and we would love a chance to stomp them flat and leave them for dead.

Heck, why not make Israel the 51st State?

OR, and this one area I agree with RP about, we announce to the world that we will no longer counsel Israel on how they should handle their neighbors aggression. Who here doesn't think Israel could beat the shit out of Iran?

[pegwinn]

OR, and this one area I agree with RP about, we announce to the world that we will no longer counsel Israel on how they should handle their neighbors aggression. Who here doesn't think Israel could beat the shit out of Iran?

Me too actually. I forgot to add the and tags to the last sentence.

[revelarts]

So no specific names from the CIA that were involved in BOTH. You're cherry picking what supports your argument. Some stuff by the CIA is dismissed an other stuff is fact. Only those who have your POV seem to be telling the truth and the rest are wrong and/or lying.


Jim, ask Ron Paul he can give you the names of many

but Ray Mcgovern former CIA breifer to G Bush senior, Fmr Lt Col Karen KWIATKOWSKI of the pentagon and Middle east desk come to mind, look it up for yourself.
the Leverett's a husband and wife, CIA and State dept in GW's administration who somewhat bought the Iraq line but are now extremely skeptical-- no DENY -- all of the Iran talk because it's their area of specialty.

...
compelled to mention that the Leveretts were are involved with Both and resigned over Iraq.

any progress on any of my 20 or 30 questions?

[jimnyc]

compelled to mention that the Leveretts were are involved with Both and resigned over Iraq.

any progress on any of my 20 or 30 questions?

Flynt wants to publish, just as Kwiatkowski is releasing her book this year. Neither Everett has been working for the CIA/government since 2003. I'm confident that means they know very little about Iran's desires and progress since then. But either way, my point is that you find a few disgruntled people and take their word as absolute fact, but others that do the same are wrong, and the agencies themselves are wrong... Yet those we are supposed to believe no longer work their and stand to financially gain from their stories.

Regardless of those specifics, I'm still pointing out that you cherry pick your stories and even use the same agencies as proof of wrongdoing or proof of Iran's intent, while using the same agency as target practice when describing bogus intel and lies.

I could post positive intel, and positive results - from people who don't stand to gain financially, but you want me to believe that they are involved in wrongdoing or have bogus intel.

Funny that so many anti-government people that want the "truth" heard also want to sell books!

[jimnyc]

any progress on any of my 20 or 30 questions?

Where exactly are these "20 to 30" questions? In your last post to me you asked 2 questions, that seem like they came out of nowhere and had absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing. But anyway, link to your questions...

[revelarts]

Flynt wants to publish, just as Kwiatkowski is releasing her book this year. Neither Everett has been working for the CIA/government since 2003. I'm confident that means they know very little about Iran's desires and progress since then. But either way, my point is that you find a few disgruntled people and take their word as absolute fact, but others that do the same are wrong, and the agencies themselves are wrong... Yet those we are supposed to believe no longer work their and stand to financially gain from their stories.

Regardless of those specifics, I'm still pointing out that you cherry pick your stories and even use the same agencies as proof of wrongdoing or proof of Iran's intent, while using the same agency as target practice when describing bogus intel and lies.

I could post positive intel, and positive results - from people who don't stand to gain financially, but you want me to believe that they are involved in wrongdoing or have bogus intel.

Funny that so many anti-government people that want the "truth" heard also want to sell books!


... After leaving government, Leverett has criticized the Bush Administeration on a number of fronts. On a Lehrer (http://www.nndb.com/people/800/000023731/) New Hour roundtable, [2 June 2004] he stated that when a dissident voice was expressed at the National Security Council regarding Ahmed Chalabi (http://www.nndb.com/people/645/000024573/)'s shady background and impure motives -- reservations that while inconvenient at the time proved entirely correct later -- that person was dismissed from the NSC altogether.

A paper How Bush Bungled the War on Terror, published on Democracy Now, documents how in March, 2002 -- only six months after the 9/11 (http://www.rotten.com/library/history/wtc/) attacks -- U.S. special forces, CIA, and foreign language experts assigned to hunting Osama bin Laden (http://www.nndb.com/people/669/000023600/) were pulled off that task and reassigned to Iraq....


the Leverett have been in various forign policy consultat postions since then and in con personal contact with many of the iranian leadership. They've probably talk to more than Kauthammer, Krystal, beck, limbaugh and Savage have.
As I said I look at a lot and based on what seems to be the most factually based on evidence not POLITICS and so far I've been "cherry picking" WINNERS people who were right then and are probably RIGHT TODAY.
Sorry you don't like my process, yours seems to be just deny ANYTHING that you don't like. Attack the messengers, Assume negative ulterior motives as FACT without proof of any kind, and name call it, if you haven't heard of before. And Assume pure motives for all Republican leaders and law enforcement that agrree with your ideas most. You should take more time to look at more info so you'll have a broader range of info to look at an form your own opinions. Even Gov't mafia tell the truth from time to time, you just need to do like Reagan suggested, "trust but verify".

Any progress on any of my questions or are you Running like a pissy lil girl?

[gabosaurus]

How about ZERO financial aid to any country in the Middle East? Zero to Saudi Arabia, zero to Israel, zero Egypt, zero to all of them. Let them work out their own problems among themselves.
Saudi Arabia hosted and funded the terrorists who pulled off the Sept. 11 attacks. Yet we continue to send them billions of dollars worth of foreign aid every year.
Everyone is going hysterical about Iran possibly developing nuclear weapons. Yet Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. And is not exactly a friend of the U.S. Even though we also send them billions of dollars in aid.
There is no way Iran (or any terrorist faction) would detonate a nuclear weapon in Israel. It would devastate the entire region. Does no one comprehend that?

You want to balance the budget? NO FOREIGN AID to terrorist states. That includes Israel.

[ConHog]

How about ZERO financial aid to any country in the Middle East? Zero to Saudi Arabia, zero to Israel, zero Egypt, zero to all of them. Let them work out their own problems among themselves.
Saudi Arabia hosted and funded the terrorists who pulled off the Sept. 11 attacks. Yet we continue to send them billions of dollars worth of foreign aid every year.
Everyone is going hysterical about Iran possibly developing nuclear weapons. Yet Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. And is not exactly a friend of the U.S. Even though we also send them billions of dollars in aid.
There is no way Iran (or any terrorist faction) would detonate a nuclear weapon in Israel. It would devastate the entire region. Does no one comprehend that?

You want to balance the budget? NO FOREIGN AID to terrorist states. That includes Israel.

Two things:

A) First and foremost Israel is NOT a terrorist state. Not sure if that's what you meant, or just a misstatement on your part.
B) I am for ZERO foreign aid period. Why the fuck are we borrowing money to give to other nations? That's just stupid.

[jimnyc]

As I said I look at a lot and based on what seems to be the most factual based on evidence not POLITICS and so far I've been "cherry picking" WINNERS people who were right then and are probably RIGHT TODAY.
Sorry you don't like my process your just deny ANYTHING that you don't like. and name call it if you haven't heard of before. You should take more time to look at more info so you'll have a braoder range of info to look at an from your opinions. Even Gov't mafia tell the truth from time to time, you just need to do like Reagan suggested, "trust but verify"

Any progress on any of my questions or are you Running like a pissy lil girl?

Because I don't take your shit and call you to the floor when you lie about me, misquote me and just make shit up in general when you feel it suits your argument?

I also believe I addressed your "questions" with my follow up post. I've never failed to answer questions. That's you, and noted by so many people that ask you any difficult questions. Don't call me names and twist the argument around when I NEVER avoid your sorry ass like you do with me.

[gabosaurus]

Two things:

A) First and foremost Israel is NOT a terrorist state. Not sure if that's what you meant, or just a misstatement on your part.
B) I am for ZERO foreign aid period. Why the fuck are we borrowing money to give to other nations? That's just stupid.

I disagree with A and totally agree with B.

[ConHog]

I disagree with A and totally agree with B.

Feel free to list all Israeli sponsored terrorist acts. I'll wait.




PS - I agree they do some things wrong when it comes to the Palestinians, but those aren't terrorist acts, so if that is your response. Well..................

[pegwinn]

Two things:

A) First and foremost Israel is NOT a terrorist state. Not sure if that's what you meant, or just a misstatement on your part.
B) I am for ZERO foreign aid period. Why the fuck are we borrowing money to give to other nations? That's just stupid.

Word

[ConHog]

Word

Glad to see a swift kick in Jim's rear got you your Marine icon. :dance:

[gabosaurus]

Feel free to list all Israeli sponsored terrorist acts. I'll wait.

PS - I agree they do some things wrong when it comes to the Palestinians, but those aren't terrorist acts, so if that is your response. Well..................

They are both terrorist states who do equally treacherous things to each other. Attacks by each side are usually responded to in kind.
Strangely enough, the Palestinians believe all the attacks by Israel constitute "terrorism." Israel believes each attack by the Palestinians constitutes "terrorism." A suicide bomber brings forth a tank attack. They both kill civilians, including children.

In addition to zero foreign aid, we need to withdraw everyone from Iraq, no matter if they are in a military or advisory role. Let the idiots settle their own destiny. Same with Afghanistan.

[jimnyc]

any progress on any of my 20 or 30 questions?


Any progress on any of my questions or are you Running like a pissy lil girl?

Where's my pet bitch? :laugh2:

C'mon Rev, how long does it take to point out the questions you asked me?

[ConHog]

They are both terrorist states who do equally treacherous things to each other. Attacks by each side are usually responded to in kind.
Strangely enough, the Palestinians believe all the attacks by Israel constitute "terrorism." Israel believes each attack by the Palestinians constitutes "terrorism." A suicide bomber brings forth a tank attack. They both kill civilians, including children.

In addition to zero foreign aid, we need to withdraw everyone from Iraq, no matter if they are in a military or advisory role. Let the idiots settle their own destiny. Same with Afghanistan.

Military actions taken by a military are NOT terrorist acts. They may be brutal acts of war, and they may even be ILLEGAL war acts, but they aren't terrorism.

Now I understand, you just don't know what you're talking about. Better that than you believing Israel supports terrorism I suppose.

[Gaffer]

Where's my pet bitch? :laugh2:

C'mon Rev, how long does it take to point out the questions you asked me?

I haven't seen those 20 to 30 questions either.

[pegwinn]

Glad to see a swift kick in Jim's rear got you your Marine icon. :dance:

Just spotted that thanks to your post. Thanks Guys.

[jimnyc]

I haven't seen those 20 to 30 questions either.

And I just went to the store and back, and still no questions. I guess the pissy little girl changed her mind.

[ConHog]

And I just went to the store and back, and still no questions. I guess the pissy little girl changed her mind.:lol:

Take your flames to the steel cage. :lol:

[jimnyc]

:lol:

Take your flames to the steel cage. :lol:

My belief is that what I stated was a factual observation. But I'll heed your warning and try to be more civilized. But I was really only using his words!

[revelarts]

SO here's another Question for you Hog, and it goes to others here as well who are EXTREMELY concerned about Iran.

You've spoken clearly and others have agreed it seems that the Attack on Iraq was a mistake in the way it was handled, at least. That and has left them "a mess" with no infrastructure and a vacuum in leadership that could turn out to bite us in asre later if we don't stay and nation build or "fix it"
You've probalbly guessed my Question.
Why should we attack Iran, when we can end up with the SAME situation? there's no seal team 6 to kill Ahmadinejad that's going to change the situation. Another Ayatollah may rise in his place. Or MANY. And convert action could Spur a more radical element and rouse Iranian populous Away from any U.S. sentiment. BUT all out war will create another horrible Mess that we don't need and can't afford and don't know how to "Fix" and more ,OH well, Corruption. Politically who will we try to put in place IF we can win a ground war there?
They already have a some democracy, are we to kill all the devout Shia for the Saudis or what?
Any Airstrike will alone will be an Act of war on our part and Iran would be justified in ANY type of retaliation on U.S. troops close by in Iraq or Afghanistan on it boarders or a Strike Here on the US mainland in the form of terrorist or Assassinations. (added) Any way to gauartee limited response from Iran?
Not to mention that Russia and China may not take kindly to the U.S. attacking there old Buddy.

What GOOD would a U.S. strike on A so called Iranian Nuke base do?

And are you folks SERIOUSLY afraid that if Iran gets 1 nuke that they will instigate an Attack on the U.S. or Israel?
In the light of the hellish devastation ConHog describes we've wrought in IRAQ and Afghanistan that Iran can see clearly from their boarders?

Won't we be Worse off if we attack?
and the ME in a bigger mess cause by US?


PS: Muslim Pakistan hates Hindu India but somehow the nukes haven't flown.


I was Responding to Gaffer but you inserted yourself in the below..

That's a lot to take in Gaffer, I don't want to do a long rebut you probably wouldn't buy it anyway. Buuut i think your assuming the worse muslim wise (they are expansionist Nazi, that want to rule the world and will have multiple Nukes if we don't strike 1st) But if it's as bad as you say couldn't "Striking 1st" Set WW3 off. and we'd be the cuase?!

and If you were right It still seems to me we've struck 1st allready. We attack the talibain ..not part of a Calif , we've attacked AlQuida, We attacked Saddam enemy of Iran, not part of the Calif or the Mullahs, We Attack Khadafiis Lybia Not part of Calif or a lover of Mullahs and Enemy of Alquida. I've posted before the Reports from Cia and state dept officials who --like with Iraq said that there is NO threat of an Aggressive attacks form Iran. I'm not sure Why I should ignore them for a few Mullahs fantasies. And why WE should send troops into what should esntailly be an ME war if any of the ME state got the Stones to Attack each other with help or EXCUSES from larger proxies (or larger pawns depending on your POV) the Saudis would love to USE OUR TROOPS to crush the Shia in IRAN, but don't want to do it them selves. It's not ENVEITAIBLE that we go to war with anyone over there the ONLY thing that Yanks our Chain to the region is OIL and
And since the Powers that Be around the world and the U.S. CAN"T seem to think out of the Box on Oil it seems we'd rather spend money "fixing" the M.E. you want to FIX the Muslims by fighting a world war over their resuorces there rather spend the money and energy to make us M.E. independent. What a crazy thought let the Sunnis and Shias Duke it out while we start a manhattan project on energy at home and let the M.E. deal with their own problems. Is it so hard to be like switzerland for one World War? We've got nothing to prove and nothing to gain by sending men to die in the M.E. again. it's BS..
many of you guy say we should have sent seal team six or similar to deal with the Iraq issue. Well look we are strong enough to sit an M.E. war out. I'd suggest that we lay an ultimatum out if anyone dare attack us outright that we guarantee the harshest of retailiations. What i would mean by that is if Iran or any M.E. country attackes us their capital would be nuked. Just one. none of our men die and anyone else would back the Hell off. Big Stick. But even prior to that with a manhattan project on Energy and a war in the M.E. the money in the M.E. may soon dry up or they end up selling oil extremely cheap to pay for there wars ethier way and they may end up being truly 3rd world countries again .. if we sit on the side lines. and Don't let the mega oil corps convince us that we can't survive without them.

I think your fear of a militarily aggressive muslim world is overblown my concern is that the muslims win by attrition. they tend to have large families we in the west have small ones. A few generations and they will be able to vote in Shrai law legally since no one wants to follow the constituton anymore. Frankly the iilleagal imagants might be our salvation here. they have large families as well and are predominately Catholics and Pentecostals. We might want to reconsider our immigration policies, "give us your Christian non muslim kids" (During an M.E. war NO citizenships for Muslims/M.E. Imgrants) and FIX abortion laws. ZERO tolerance. if we want to survive as a free country.

If your going to give bs answers without any reason or facts to back up your answes but only flip opinion don't bother.

[ConHog]

My belief is that what I stated was a factual observation. But I'll heed your warning and try to be more civilized. But I was really only using his words!

LOL I was just messing with you.

But that is an interesting discussion. Is it flaming if the person actually believes what they are saying about the other person?

For instance. If I called you faggot knowing full well that you're not, that's obviously a flame. But what if I call someone who is gay, or at least who I think is gay a faggot. Is that flaming? or just stating a fact?


Just thinks that make you go hmmmm....





PS - I posted a bikini pic down in the steel cage for you consideration. Get down there and peruse it.

[jimnyc]

I was Responding to Gaffer but you inserted yourself in the below..


If your going to give bs answers without any reason or facts to back up your answes but only flip opinion don't bother.

You NEVER asked any of those questions to me, so why the fuck are you calling me a little girl avoiding your questions - the questions you NEVER ASKED ME. Seriously, do you really, really need to make shit up towards me this often? Are you angry or something that I give you a verbal ass kicking every other day? I'm baffled that you continually make shit up, misquote, exaggerate.... Anyway, like I said, I didn't avoid shit from you as you never asked ME, dumbass.

[revelarts]

You NEVER asked any of those questions to me, so why the fuck are you calling me a little girl avoiding your questions - the questions you NEVER ASKED ME. Seriously, do you really, really need to make shit up towards me this often? Are you angry or something that I give you a verbal ass kicking every other day? I'm baffled that you continually make shit up, misquote, exaggerate.... Anyway, like I said, I didn't avoid shit from you as you never asked ME, dumbass.

"SO here's another Question for you Hog, and it goes to others here as well who are EXTREMELY concerned about Iran."
that might be you Jim, do you skip parts that you don't like too?
And look You volunteered a comment on to my response to Gaffer, why not answer the questions, you've got some deep interest in my response to him, and you feel free to answer me when i don't call your name everywhere else. Been following me around thread to thread with and neg reping me for supposed offenses.

But just as i thought you got nothing but name calling and BS.


Are you trying to run me off the board? I'm not gonna flame you back. I'm not gonna give you an excuse to ban me.

Come back with some reason and facts and we'll talk. admit your wrong once in a while as I have, when a fact to 2 has corrected me. Even from you. But if you just got nothing but the whinny talk about misquotes of you, than look ...
were finished professional

[ConHog]

SO here's another Question for you Hog, and it goes to others here as well who are EXTREMELY concerned about Iran.
that might be you Jim, do you skip parts that you don't like too?
And look You volunteered a comment on to my response to Gaffer, why not answer the questions, you've got some deep interest in my response to him, and you feel free to answer me when i don't call your name everywhere else. Been following me around thread to thread with and neg reping me for supposed offenses.

But just as i thought you got nothing but name calling and BS.


Are you trying to run me off the board? I'm not gonna flame you back. I'm not gonna give you an excuse to ban me.

Come back with some reason and facts and we'll talk. admit your wrong once in a while as I have, when a fact to 2 has corrected me. Even from you. But if you just got nothing but the whinny talk about misquotes of you, than look ...
were finished professional

Why did you just write "Here's another question for you Hog" and then never ask a question?

I think some confusion is you use a thousand words when 20 would suffice and so any questions you are actually asking get lost in the morass.

Just ask your question.

[jimnyc]

SO here's another Question for you Hog, and it goes to others here as well who are EXTREMELY concerned about Iran.
that might be you Jim, do you skip parts that you don't like too?
And look You volunteered a comment on to Gaffer why answer the questions, you've got some deep interest in my response to him, and you feel free to answer me when i don't call your name everywhere else. Been following me around thread to thread with and neg reping me for supposed offenses.

But just as i thought you got nothing but name calling and BS.


Are you trying to runn me off the board? I'm not gonna flame you back. I'm not gonna give you an excuse to ban me.

Come back with some reason and facts and we'll talk. admit your wrong once in a while as I have, when a fact to 2 has corrected me. Even from you. But if you just got nothing but the whinny talk about misquotes of you, than look ...
were finished professional

I wasn't even in this thread when you posted them questions, dumbfuck!! I simply asked a question about your "CIA sources".

I've neg repped you 2x in recent memory, and it should have been many more times for putting up with your non-stop lies and misquotes.

As for running you off, go fuck yourself. I'd ban you if I didn't want you here. You're just acting like a bitch because you chose to interject me into threads I wasn't in, lie about statements I supposedly made when I never did, continually change my words to make them say something I didn't, all in the name of bolstering your shit arguments.

Then when I have the audacity to step up and defend what is said about me, or tell the truth about what I actually stated, or posting actual quotes instead of stretching the truth - you accuse me of trying to run you off!!

And then here we were in this thread, I asked a few questions and you answered, no words were said. Then in one of your replies you start calling me a little girl for no reason and stating that I am running from your questions. Then it turns out you never asked me those questions, and now feeling foolish, probably a little like a dickhead, and maybe even a little embarrassed, you try and turn things around to deflect the attention away from your lies and fuckups.

Here, have another beer, then you can come back and lie about me some more and then whine when I straighten the shit out again. :beer:

[jimnyc]

Come back with some reason and facts and we'll talk. admit your wrong once in a while as I have, when a fact to 2 has corrected me. Even from you. But if you just got nothing but the whinny talk about misquotes of you, than look ...
were finished professional

Just yesterday, in a thread about the group "anonymous" I erroneously posted that they would try and hack the Iowa caucus. You came back and stated that the article only mentioned them having disruptions on site at the voting and cops outside the door could protect from the problem. I followed up on your post and admitted I was incorrect about my original take.

Looks like you're even wrong about this crap too!

[jimnyc]

You know what, Rev, my bad. I'll take the upper road and apologize if you feel I'm trying to run your off the board. That was hardly my intent, but I'm sorry. Anyone who wants to track my posts from the past week will see that I asked a bunch of tough questions, demanded proof and corrected false assertions. Other than some sarcasm, the name calling didn't start till this evening when YOU started it, I just hit back harder. But in the interest of fairness, and the community, I won't push the issue. Consider yourself ignore, just please don't use me as a point of reference anymore in your future debating.

[ConHog]

Rev, you can't seriously think that Jim wants you to leave the board do you?

You do realize that if that were the case. He'd simply hit the ban button and be done with it, don't you?

I've been on boards where the owners simply ban people they don't like for no real reason (and frankly they have that right if they own the board) and THIS board is NOT one of those.

[pegwinn]

Rev, you can't seriously think that Jim wants you to leave the board do you?

You do realize that if that were the case. He'd simply hit the ban button and be done with it, don't you?

I've been on boards where the owners simply ban people they don't like for no real reason (and frankly they have that right if they own the board) and THIS board is NOT one of those.

Gotta go along with that.

I seek out left leaning boards to see if they can rattle my cage. I have been banned by DailyKos and Democratic Underground for simply going against the current train of thought.

DK is different though. After you been there long enough and gotten along you become a trusted user. Each line a person writes has a + or - next to it. Anyone can tip up (the plus sign) and TU's can do the minus. Enough minus on a post and it disappears (hidden from all but TU's). Enough hidden comments and your posting is suspended. All I did was mention that Obama blew off visiting troops in a hospital overseas when he was running for pres. In about two hours the feeding frenzy was over.

At least here you get to slug it out.

[Gaffer]

So all those were asked of me and I'm suppose to reply with links and utubes. You will be disappointed.


Why should we attack Iran, when we can end up with the SAME situation?
No one says we have to invade. Just take out the main targets such as nuke facilities, AA sites and launch pads, then let them stew. Take out there ONE oil refinery and they're limited in retaliation abilities.

Politically who will we try to put in place IF we can win a ground war there? Like I said a ground war is not necessary. There are plenty in iran that would love to overthrow the govt there. They just need some backing.

They already have a some democracy, are we to kill all the devout Shia for the Saudis or what? They don't have a democracy. They have a theocracy. The voting is all for show, the president is selected by the ayatollah.


Any Airstrike will alone will be an Act of war on our part and Iran would be justified in ANY type of retaliation on U.S. troops close by in Iraq or Afghanistan on it boarders or a Strike Here on the US mainland in the form of terrorist or Assassinations. (added) Any way to gauartee limited response from Iran? It would definitely be an act of war. And they would be justified in striking back. They are not likely to strike in neutral countries however. They have already sent assassins to this country and probably have a lot more here or in Mexico. Taking out the above listed facilities would do a lot to limit their response. Take out their offensive capability and there's not much they can do. Not to mention that Russia and China may not take kindly to the U.S. attacking there old Buddy. I'm sure Russia and China would have a lot to say about it. How far they would go depends on their treaties with iran and whether they are concerned about iran having nukes.
What GOOD would a U.S. strike on A so called Iranian Nuke base do? There are 12. Taking out the facilities would prevent them from having and developing nuclear weapons. They now have a fuel rod of their own which means they can produce their own plutonium for bombs. Russia no longer controls the fuel rods.

And are you folks SERIOUSLY afraid that if Iran gets 1 nuke that they will instigate an Attack on the U.S. or Israel?
In the light of the hellish devastation ConHog describes we've wrought in IRAQ and Afghanistan that Iran can see clearly from their boarders?

They won't do anything with one nuke, they will wait until they have at least a dozen. They will then attack Israel and any US target they can get close enough too. These fanatics don't care about repercussions. Do you know that it's reported every year that the ayatollah goes up into the sky for four hours to commune with the mahdi about strategy and how to bring about the world cataclysm. This is the mind set of these nut jobs.
Won't we be Worse off if we attack? Why would we be worse off?
and the ME in a bigger mess cause by US? The ME is a big mess because of islam not the US.

But if it's as bad as you say couldn't "Striking 1st" Set WW3 off. and we'd be the cuase?! No, iran would be the cause. striking them first would limit it to iran. Letting them strike first would escalate things into a world war. Cause they are going to try to drag everyone they can into it.

Is it so hard to be like switzerland for one World War? This is one of the silliest things you have ever asked. Bury your head in the sand and hope all the bad guys just go away.

I think I found and answered all the 20 questions you had buried in that post.

[revelarts]

So all those were asked of me and I'm suppose to reply with links and utubes. You will be disappointed.


Why should we attack Iran, when we can end up with the SAME situation?
No one says we have to invade. Just take out the main targets such as nuke facilities, AA sites and launch pads, then let them stew. Take out there ONE oil refinery and they're limited in retaliation abilities.

Politically who will we try to put in place IF we can win a ground war there? Like I said a ground war is not necessary. There are plenty in iran that would love to overthrow the govt there. They just need some backing.

They already have a some democracy, are we to kill all the devout Shia for the Saudis or what? They don't have a democracy. They have a theocracy. The voting is all for show, the president is selected by the ayatollah.


Any Airstrike will alone will be an Act of war on our part and Iran would be justified in ANY type of retaliation on U.S. troops close by in Iraq or Afghanistan on it boarders or a Strike Here on the US mainland in the form of terrorist or Assassinations. (added) Any way to gauartee limited response from Iran? It would definitely be an act of war. And they would be justified in striking back. They are not likely to strike in neutral countries however. They have already sent assassins to this country and probably have a lot more here or in Mexico. Taking out the above listed facilities would do a lot to limit their response. Take out their offensive capability and there's not much they can do. Not to mention that Russia and China may not take kindly to the U.S. attacking there old Buddy. I'm sure Russia and China would have a lot to say about it. How far they would go depends on their treaties with iran and whether they are concerned about iran having nukes.
What GOOD would a U.S. strike on A so called Iranian Nuke base do? There are 12. Taking out the facilities would prevent them from having and developing nuclear weapons. They now have a fuel rod of their own which means they can produce their own plutonium for bombs. Russia no longer controls the fuel rods.

And are you folks SERIOUSLY afraid that if Iran gets 1 nuke that they will instigate an Attack on the U.S. or Israel?
In the light of the hellish devastation ConHog describes we've wrought in IRAQ and Afghanistan that Iran can see clearly from their boarders?

They won't do anything with one nuke, they will wait until they have at least a dozen. They will then attack Israel and any US target they can get close enough too. These fanatics don't care about repercussions. Do you know that it's reported every year that the ayatollah goes up into the sky for four hours to commune with the mahdi about strategy and how to bring about the world cataclysm. This is the mind set of these nut jobs.
Won't we be Worse off if we attack? Why would we be worse off?
and the ME in a bigger mess cause by US? The ME is a big mess because of islam not the US.

But if it's as bad as you say couldn't "Striking 1st" Set WW3 off. and we'd be the cuase?! No, iran would be the cause. striking them first would limit it to iran. Letting them strike first would escalate things into a world war. Cause they are going to try to drag everyone they can into it.

Is it so hard to be like switzerland for one World War? This is one of the silliest things you have ever asked. Bury your head in the sand and hope all the bad guys just go away.

I think I found and answered all the 20 questions you had buried in that post.

We disagree but , hey we knew that .
And usually i don't press people if they don't answer, i, like others, have whole threads with no response. no biggie. I let myself get get drawn it to an internet a bit of an internet drama thing, sorry, anyway, I appreciate the response.

[ConHog]

Rev, stop being a whiny little girl. I asked you a question. Answer it.

[revelarts]

Rev, you can't seriously think that Jim wants you to leave the board do you?

You do realize that if that were the case. He'd simply hit the ban button and be done with it, don't you?

I've been on boards where the owners simply ban people they don't like for no real reason (and frankly they have that right if they own the board) and THIS board is NOT one of those.

true, i just wondered where we were going with all that.

[ConHog]

true, i just wondered where we were going with all that.

Well, you DID make an accusation that simply isn't true. Jim isn't trying to ban you. He wouldn't have to try. It isn't like he'd have to justify his actions if he did so. Just click the button and poof no more Rev.

[revelarts]

Rev, stop being a whiny little girl. I asked you a question. Answer it.:lol: everyones gotta get in on the act now, sheesh..

[ConHog]

:lol: everyones gotta get in on the act now, sheesh..



I had hoped that would amuse you.

[revelarts]

Well, you DID make an accusation that simply isn't true. Jim isn't trying to ban you. He wouldn't have to try. It isn't like he'd have to justify his actions if he did so. Just click the button and poof no more Rev.

just wondering a loud where it was going, a slap fight with a site owner ain't one you can win really.


I had hoped that would amuse you.
that was wasn't bad.

[ConHog]

just wondering a loud where it was going, a slap fight with a site owner ain't one you can win really.


that was wasn't bad.

Eh, it takes a lot for Jim to slap someone off the board, he actually told me what the last one did to get that, and it was far worse than what yall just had.

[Kathianne]

Eh, it takes a lot for Jim to slap someone off the board, he actually told me what the last one did to get that, and it was far worse than what yall just had.

We are all so more educated to this site, now that we know Jim's confidant. Thank you! Some of us might have been mistaken that he was open minded, but you've set us straight. At least, according to CH

[ConHog]

We are all so more educated to this site, now that we know Jim's confidant. Thank you! Some of us might have been mistaken that he was open minded, but you've set us straight. At least, according to CH

More flaming from you?

PS - It wasn't in confidence it was on the open board in a thread where I offered to bet Jim on a football game with wages of unbanning PB and he declined.