http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17146548/

Quote :

" Bush insists Iran is arming Iraq ‘I’m going to do something about it,’ president says WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday he’s convinced that the Iranian government is supplying deadly weapons to fighters in Iraq, even if he can’t prove the orders came from the highest levels in Tehran. More important, Bush said in his first news conference of the year, is protecting U.S. troops against the lethal new threat. “I’m going to do something about it,” Bush said. And the president warned of “disastrous consequences” that would follow in the event of a U.S. military withdrawal. Story continues below ? advertisement “I concluded that to step back from Baghdad would have disastrous consequences in America,” Bush told reporters. And the reason why I say ‘disastrous consequences’ is, the Iraqi government could collapse and chaos could spread.” U.S. officials have said that Iran helped on attacks on troops in Iraq, an assertion denied by Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In comments Tuesday, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also appeared to question the assertions about Iran's role in Iraq. “That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this,” Pace said. President dismisses resolution effort Meanwhile, Bush shrugged off congressional debate on a resolution opposing his Iraq policy, noting that the measure was nonbinding and mostly symbolic. But he said U.S. troops are counting on lawmakers to provide them the funds they need to win. Bush spoke as the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives debated a measure opposing his decision to send some 21,500 additional troops to Iraq. “They have every right to express their opposition and it is a nonbinding resolution,” he said of the House members, who were continuing a marathon Iraq policy debate on Capitol Hill even as he spoke. Republican allies of the president are battling against the resolution sponsored by Democrats against the war. “This battle is the most visible part of a global war” against terrorists, countered the House Republican leader, Rep. John Boehner. “If we leave, they will follow us home. It’s that simple.” Click for related content * U.S. military insists al-Sadr is in Iran * Baghdad crackdown begins in earnest * U.S. general: No evidence Iranian leaders arming Iraqis Status report In his first news conference since Dec. 20, Bush said he received a briefing earlier in the day from Iraq from newly-confirmed Gen. David Petraeus, the new chief commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, who is now in Baghdad. “We talked about the coordination between Iraqi and coalition forces,” Bush said. For now, he said, that coordination appeared to be good, although Bush said much work remains. NBC VIDEO • Bush on war funds Feb. 14: President Bush says U.S. troops are counting on lawmakers to provide them the funds they need to win. MSNBC Noting discussions he has had with lawmakers, Bush said: “They have told me that they are dissatisfied with the situation in Iraq. I have told them that I was dissatisfied with the situation in Iraq.” Bush also said that the Iraqi government “is following up on its commitment” to crack down on insurgents. Rising rhetoric from Russia Bush also faced questions about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s remarks Saturday that the United States “has overstepped its national borders in every way” and is fostering a new global arms race. Putin told a conference in Germany of the world’s top security officials that his reason for his warning about the United States was its increased use of military force. Nations “are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations,” the Russian leader said. “This is nourishing an arms race with the desire of countries to get nuclear weapons,” he said. His remarks were challenged by the White House. “His accusations are wrong,” said Gordon Johndroe, Bush’s national security spokesman. The Associated Press contributed to this report."

So should we start taking bets on when the next war starts?

2/14/2007 1:44:21 PM

And this is all to "stamp out terrorism".

I get infuriated every time I hear a politician connect Iraq with the war on terror.

2/14/2007 1:47:43 PM

Quote :

"If we leave, they will follow us home. It’s that simple.”"

how much more of a naive brainwashed childish simpleton could one get?

there are so many things just nonsensical about what he said, i don't where to start.

for example:

so what do you want to do bush, kill them all in iraq? how long will that take? how many are there? can it be done? how will they follow you?

or

they weren't messing with the US before you invaded their country, were they?

or

who are these turrists in iraq? does he even know?



can he die?

2/14/2007 2:00:09 PM

Of course he can die, he's not immortal. Though if he did die you'd be faced with Cheney as president which is far scarier in my opinion.

2/14/2007 2:06:04 PM

Quote :

"If we leave, they will follow us home. It’s that simple."

Oh yea, this is the other statement I hear which infuriates me, and OEP summed up all my thoughts about the matter.

I feel infinitely safer and happier when I read news like this

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/14/france.arrests/index.html?eref=rss_world

than the thought of the billions upon billions were pissing away refereeing a sectarian war which isn't doing dick towards the terrorist cause.

2/14/2007 2:16:29 PM

Are you retarded? Or did you listen to the press conference?


They have undeniable proof of Iranian weapons. He cannot prove that Achmadinijad made the phone call to have them put into the insurgents hands.

2/14/2007 2:20:32 PM

once they quit bashing, they'll read it or watch it

let them vent first

2/14/2007 2:24:13 PM

If I'm not mistaken they have American-made weapons as well. Does that mean America is funding the terrorists? I think not. Weapons have to come from somewhere, it doesn't signify consent though, unless you want to argue that Bush 1 supported the massacre of the Kurds in the north.........................................hmmmmm..........

2/14/2007 2:24:25 PM

wow, you still didn't read it did you?

2/14/2007 2:28:38 PM

^ well he DID

didn't he ask them to stand up to saddam and say the great america will come to aid them and help them get rid of saddam.

and when they stood up against saddam, there was an eerie silence in the air, before, and after.

2/14/2007 2:28:44 PM

^^^ What I was gonna post.

Quote :

"President Bush said Wednesday he’s convinced that the Iranian government is supplying deadly weapons to fighters in Iraq, even if he can’t prove the orders came from the highest levels in Tehran."

What do you mean "bash"? Why shouldn't I bash? You bitch and moan about the government meddling in your affairs but you aren't bothered when they tell you

"just go on my good faith son that I KNOW even if I can't prove it

Hell, at least for the Iraq war they invented some bullshit intelligence. Here, they don't even have that.

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 2:31 PM. Reason : a]

2/14/2007 2:28:45 PM

I've never seen a fundamentalist Christian that I was so certain that was going to burn in hell.

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 2:33 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2007 2:32:43 PM

^ true.

Quote :

"Here, they don't even have that."

just wait... the great cooks in the DHS can cook it up when bush wants it.

2/14/2007 2:34:26 PM

Even if they claimed to have proof, I wouldn't take it at this point. this administration has zero credibility left .. .zero. They should not be allowed to urinate toward Iran without Congressional approval - and I am disappointed in our 'new way forward' congress for not having addressed this already.

also, I would take Cheney over Bush without hesitation. He is more well-spoken and at least his specific ideology is more grounded in political theory, rather than bush's dogma.

2/14/2007 2:35:52 PM

the shit came from iran, the media has even reported


are you denying that?


ok, no one can prove who made the phone call to send the iranian teams in with it, but apparently they are there with the bombs...


what does that have to do with Saddam gassing the kurds? Did saddam only have WMDs when it was convenient to admit to him having them?


yeah I said bash, every one of you started bashing bush without acknowledging the fact that Iranians with Iranian made bombs are in Iraq and using them against US troops...

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 2:38 PM. Reason : past tense]

2/14/2007 2:36:21 PM

^exactly.

2/14/2007 2:40:28 PM

Quote :

"every one of you started bashing bush without acknowledging the fact that Iranians with Iranian made bombs are in Iraq and using them against US troops"

and you go defending bush without acknowledging that there is no reason to believe anything bush says at this point.

i don't doubt that there are iranian individuals in Iraq... i'm sure there are also egyptians, saudis, syrians, afghanis ... and people from anywhere else that perceive this as a battle of imperialist agression in their backyard.

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 2:41 PM. Reason : "]

2/14/2007 2:40:59 PM

um

2/14/2007 2:41:03 PM

bush didn't publish the stories in the news about this stuff

2/14/2007 2:41:49 PM

Quote :

"yeah I said bash, every one of you started bashing bush without acknowledging the fact that Iranians with Iranian made bombs are in Iraq and using them against US troops..."

You mean Iraqi's?

And I listened to his speech, and re-read the cnn.com article about it, and this one as well before I made any comments.

I think it's pretty stupid to use (and I hesitate to call it this) intelligence as flimsy as this, ESPECIALLY in light of this admins great track record with intelligence, as some sort of basis for strategery.

I mean...its real fucking dumb.

2/14/2007 2:45:12 PM

I never said the weapons didn't come from Iran. But I remember a report a few weeks ago saying that the insurgents were carrying US made weapons as well.

2/14/2007 2:49:13 PM

the media has been reporting that iranians have been coming in using iranian made weapons


bush didn't report it


bush just said that he doesn't know just how high up the orders came from, it sounds to me like he's avoiding jumping to conclusions about this situation

^I'm sure there are, the Colt M16 has been around since the late 50's and is widely used across the world now...

not to mention that everytime a soldier gets killed the people strip him of all the gear he has

DUUUURRRR

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 2:50 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2007 2:49:22 PM

I have a question.

Many of you blind Bush supporters, the ones of you that think the Commander in Chief should have all the freedom he wants to conduct the war how he sees fit, whine and complain that a lot of this information that spreads into the media hampers our ability to wage the war. That is, if the insurgents know that we know their tactics, they will change them.

Why then, would our leaders make public statements implying we are going to turn focus on Iran? Why isn't this type of information that no doubt will have an impact on our overall strategy kept highly secretive?

Why does the beginnings of this mess sound exactly like the beginnings of the run up to the Iraq war, where as we all know, bogus informations was trotted out to the American people to gain support for a war in Iraq?

This just reeks from all orifices.

Quote :

"the media has been reporting that iranians have been coming in using iranian made weapons"

I'd ask you to find an article, but I know you're too lazy to do that.

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 2:54 PM. Reason : a]

2/14/2007 2:52:59 PM

I'm not a "blind" supporter of Bush, his dad fucked me over and I don't trust the patriot act that much and I think this was hasn't done shit for us


but I see what you're saying... it sounds similar, but I also think he is showing some restraint, if he is the satan that people claim don't you think we'd already be bombing Iran?

^ it's been on the news for the past week, you find a goddamn link, it's not my job to provide a link because you haven't paid attention to something thats been going on because you don't agree with me

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 2:56 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2007 2:55:25 PM

Quote :

"but I also think he is showing some restraint"

??? I think as much as some people dislike the guy, no one here thinks he is so stupid as to start randomly bombing a country on a whim. Nice red herring.

Quote :

"^ it's been on the news for the past week, you find a goddamn link, it's not my job to provide a link because you haven't paid attention to something thats been going on because you don't agree with me"

Everything I have read doesn't say it's Iranians themselves doing the attacks, just that they are supplying weapons. I'm pretty sure I pay attention better than you do to the news reports. I and others often ask for you to back a statement up, and I have never seen you do it, typically your reply is just like the one you made. Btw, I already have links supporting my cause. I want to see yours.


[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 2:58 PM. Reason : a]

2/14/2007 2:56:48 PM

according to some people here he already did it in Iraq


omfg red herring, like you can talk

hey look

SOAP BOX IMPORTANT WORDS HERE

red herring
straw man
ad nauseum

I'm so goddamned special because I use words to make me feel like I am more important than I really am, oh wait, I'm sitting on my ass posting on tww

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 2:59 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2007 2:58:18 PM

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB15Ak02.html

Quote :

"US's smoking gun on Iran misfires By Gareth Porter WASHINGTON - The first major effort by the administration of US President George W Bush to substantiate its case that the Iranian government has been providing weapons to Iraqi Shi'ites who oppose the occupation undermines the administration's political line by showing that it has been unable to find any real evidence of an Iranian government role. Contradicting recent claims by both Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that US intelligence had proof of Iranian government responsibility for the supply of such weapons, the unnamed officials who briefed the media on Sunday admitted that the claim is merely "an inference" rather than based on a trail of evidence. Although it was clearly not the intention, moreover, the briefing revealed for the first time that the Iranians and Iraqis detained by US forces in recent months did not provide any evidence implicating either the Iranian government or the Islamic Revolutionary Guards in the acquisition of armor-piercing explosive devices and other weapons by Iraqi Shi'ite groups. In the end, the administration presentation suggested that there could be no other explanation for the presence of Iranian-made weapons than official government sponsorship of smuggling them into Iraq. But in doing so, they had to ignore a well-known reality: most weapons, including armor-piercing projectiles, can be purchased by anyone through intermediaries in the Middle East. Indeed, General Peter Pace, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an interview published while he was on a visit to Indonesia that he did not know whether Iranian-made material used to assemble roadside bombs in Iraq had been supplied on Tehran's orders. And speaking on CNN, CentCom Commander William Fallon, the top commander of US forces in the Middle East, was asked about the administration's claim over Iran supplying weapons to Iraq. "I have no idea who may be actually hands-on in this stuff," Fallon said. The briefing in Baghdad on Sunday displayed a number of weapons or photographs of weapons said to have been found in Iraq, including what were called "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs), which the officials said were smuggled into the country by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Quds Force. The RPG-7s and 81-millimeter mortar rounds shown to reporters did indeed have markings showing that they had been recently manufactured, and there is no reason to doubt that those weapons were manufactured in Iran. The argument for Iranian official responsibility assumes that such weapons are so tightly controlled that Shi'ite groups could not purchase them in small numbers on the black market in Iran, Syria or Lebanon. It is well documented, however, that the Shi'ites have resorted to black-market networks to obtain EFPs. An article in Jane's Intelligence Review last month by Michael Knights, chief of analysis for the Olive Group, a private security-consulting firm, reports that the British discovered that there was indeed an organization in Basra engaged in arranging for the purchase and delivery of imported EFPs and that it was composed entirely of police officials, including members of the Police Intelligence Unit, the Internal Affairs Directorate and the Major Crimes Unit. They found that members of the organization followed no specific Shi'ite faction, but included members from all the factions in Basra. The Washington Post quoted one of the US officials at the briefing as saying that there was no "widespread involvement" of the Iraqi government in supplying weaponry, thus implicitly conceding that some Iraqi government officials are indeed involved in the weapons traffic. By insisting that the Iranian government was involved, the Bush administration has conjured up the image of a smuggling operation so vast that it could not occur without official sanction. In fact, as Knights points out, the number of EFPs exploded monthly has remained at about 100, which clearly would not require high-level connivance to maintain a flow of imports. The PowerPoint slides presented to the press in Baghdad ended with a slide that in essence confirms that the evidence points not to official sponsorship of cross-border weapons smuggling but to private arms-trafficking networks. The slide, which can be viewed on the Talking Points Memo website, includes the curious statement that information from detainees "included references to Iranian provision of weapons to Iraqi militants engaged in anti-coalition violence". That formulation carefully avoids stating that any of the information implicated Iranian officials. Furthermore, the slide's six bullet points, representing the concrete "highlights" of the information, fail to make reference to any official Iranian role in the smuggling of weapons across the border. In fact, the slide reveals that the smuggling is handled by what it calls "Iraqi extremist group members", not by the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The oral presentation accompanying the PowerPoint indicated that the smuggling had been carried out by "paid Iraqis", without specifying who was paying them, according to the New York Times report. The final bullet point of the slide says, "Quds Force provides support to extremist groups in Iraq by supplying money, training and propaganda operations." But its silence on the question of supplying weapons to groups in Iraq represents a serious blow to the credibility of the Bush administration's line. The EFPs used against US and British troops in Iraq were the centerpiece of the briefing. But the anonymous US officials did not claim that the finished products have been manufactured in Iran. Instead they referred to machining of EFP "components" - referring to the concave metal lids on the devices - as being done in Iran. That position parallels the testimony by General John P Abizaid last March 16 to the Senate Armed Services Committee, which claimed only that "sophisticated bomb-making material from Iran has been found in improvised explosive devices in Iraq". It also raises an obvious question: If Iran has the technical ability to supply the complete EFPs, why are only components being smuggled into Iraq? The absence of shipments of complete EFPs suggests that the components that have been smuggled in have been manufactured in small workshops outside the official system. Knights, the most knowledgeable and politically neutral source on the issue, says these components could have been manufactured by a "small handful of external bomb-makers". He notes that the only source to claim that the Iranian defense industry is the source of the EFP components is the opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran. The US briefers argued that EFPs are not being manufactured within Iraq. The New York Times quoted a "senior military official" as saying that they had "no evidence" that the machining of components for EFPs "has ever been done in Iraq". But Knights presents evidence in Jane's Intelligence Review that the Iraqi Shi'ites have indeed manufactured both the components for EFPs and the complete EFPs. He observes that the kind of tools required to fabricate EFPs "can easily be found in Iraqi metalworking shops and garages". He also notes that some of the EFPs found in Iraq had substituted steel plates for the copper lining found in the externally made lids. Knights calculates that the entire production of EFPs exploded thus far could have been manufactured in one or at most two simple workshops with one or two specialists in each - one in the Baghdad area and one in southern Iraq. "I'm surprised that they haven't found evidence of making EFPs in Iraq," Knights said in an interview. "That doesn't ring true for me." Knights believes that there was a time when whole EFPs were imported from outside, but that now most if not all are manufactured by Iraqis. Taking into account both the false notes struck by the anonymous officials, the damaging admissions they made and the absence of information they needed to make a case, the briefing appears to have been a serious setback to the Bush administration's propaganda campaign. It will certainly haunt administration officials trying to persuade Congress to support its increased aggressiveness toward Iran. "

2/14/2007 2:58:18 PM

thanks for the link


I've just been going on what I've been hearing, thats iranian people with iranian made bombs


^^^ what the point, everytime you disagree with someone it because a shit slinging fest and the links would just be dismissed by dissenters

whatever, I'd rather post and look around on tww than go scouring the nets looking for links to support what I say, no one on here is going to change their mind, why waste my time doing so?



[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 3:03 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2007 3:01:49 PM

Quote :

"according to some people here he already did it in Iraq omfg red herring, like you can talk hey look SOAP BOX IMPORTANT WORDS HERE red herring straw man ad nauseum I'm so goddamned special because I use words to make me feel like I am more important than I really am, oh wait, I'm sitting on my ass posting on tww"

I tried to click on some of your words, but alas, none of them were links supporting any statements you have made. In the meantime, guth replied with something nicely to destroy any point you were trying to make.



PS, in case you didn't notice, you were the first one to derail this thread with the comment you just made there. So don't act all high and goddamn mighty or like I'm the one that fucks these things up.

2/14/2007 3:03:08 PM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1381540.ece

Quote :

" From The Times February 14, 2007 General clashes with Bush on Iraq Tom Baldwin in Washington and Stephen Farrell in Baghdad Stephen Farrell's blog from inside Iraq America’s top general appeared to contradict claims made by the White House and other US military commanders yesterday that Iran was arming Shia militants in Iraq. General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he did not know if Iranian-made material used to assemble roadside bombs in Iraq had been supplied on Tehran’s orders. “That does not translate that the Iranian Government, for sure, is directly involved in doing this,” he said on a visit to Jakarta, the Indonesian capital. “What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers.” On Sunday US military officials in Baghdad said that al-Quds Force, an Iranian para-military organisation, was sending arms into Iraq. Weapons that they said were “coming from the highest level of the Iranian Government” included bombs that shot molten metal jets through the armour of American tanks, which had been responsible for killing 170 US troops and wounding more than 600. Last night a new Iraqi security crackdown was announced, which included closing the border with Iran. General Pace’s public scepticism over the Iranian link is surprising given his record of intense loyalty to the Bush Administration, which has led him to be nicknamed in some circles “Perfect Peter”. His comments followed remarks he made the previous day in Canberra, Australia, that: “I would not say that the Iranian Government clearly knows or is complicit.” Yesterday Tony Snow, President Bush’s press secretary, insisted that the Administration and General Pace were “not on separate pages”. Mr Snow said that the apparent differences were because the general, who was airborne yesterday and could not be contacted, had been very precise in his use of language. While the US did not have a “signed piece of paper” from the Iranian leadership authorising the weapons supply, al-Quds was “part of the Army and part of the Government”, he said. But there has been widespread scepticism about the Administration’s claims among congressional Democrats and military experts. British officials, who had their fingers burnt over the dossiers detailing Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war, have also been urging caution about building another intelligence-led case. Stephen Hadley, the President’s National Security Adviser, said this month that a presentation outlining the Iranian link had been postponed. There have been reports that it was intelligence chiefs, not the White House, who demanded that the briefing should be scrubbed of exaggerated claims. "

2/14/2007 3:03:14 PM

^^ hey look, a shit slinging fest whenever state409c is involved


I told him thanks for the link, get off your goddamned high horse... troll

Quote :

"whatever, I'd rather post and look around on tww than go scouring the nets looking for links to support what I say, no one on here is going to change their mind, why waste my time doing so?"

still doesn't change the fact that for the last week it's been reported that iranians with iranian made bombs were over there....

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 3:05 PM. Reason : ...]

2/14/2007 3:04:31 PM

Not only that, but Pace confirmed yesterday that there was no evidence showing that the Iranian government was assisting at all.

2/14/2007 3:04:41 PM

Quote :

"whatever, I'd rather post and look around on tww than go scouring the nets looking for links to support what I say, no one on here is going to change their mind, why waste my time doing so?"

i didnt have to do any scouring of the nets, i just picked a couple random articles from google from international sources

2/14/2007 3:05:04 PM

by scouring I meant, I'm not gonna open up another browser to bring up another site when I could be here wasting my time because no one here is going to change their stances or views about anything they believe in no matter what gets posted

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 3:07 PM. Reason : ...]

2/14/2007 3:06:23 PM

WE DIDNT FIND WMDS IN IRAQ

THEREFORE THAT AUTOMATICALLY MEANS THE ADMINISTRATION IS WRONG ABOUT THIS TOO

2/14/2007 3:07:04 PM

^^i see, youre just gonna post from your gut instead of being informed (kind of like bush)

i mean its fine if you dont care about issues like this and dont want to be informed, but then dont post in threads on these topics if you dont know anything about the topic and have an active interest in not learning

^people are more inclined to want evidence, thats fair. right now the evidence is contrary to bush's statements.

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 3:09 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2007 3:08:24 PM

Quote :

"still doesn't change the fact that for the last week it's been reported that iranians with iranian made bombs were over there...."

Dude, what fox news channels are you watching?

There is nothing that exists saying it's iranians doing the bombing. The article guth posted mentions TWICE references to groups giving the bombs to IRAQIS for them to do the bombing.

You're really effing up any civility here when you get ultra defensive and make bullshit irrelevant posts about me when I am asking you a simple question to defend a statement.

Whats the point of debate here if everyone just invents any statement they want to and doesn't do anything to prove the point. Whats worse, is after someone supplies a link to completely destroy the point you are trying to make, you still stick to your guns, and in the process look like a giant retarded idiot.

Face it bro, you do a much better job of starting the thread shitting than I could ever do.

2/14/2007 3:09:46 PM

^^I just don't feel like searching for links


I figured if I'd been hearing about this a week ago, that most of you on here would have heard it by now


^ whatever, fuck off troll, you shit up plenty of threads with your non stop pissing and moaning about everything you don't agree with

iranian nationals have beenn caught over there since the insurgency, and now they are finding out that iranian made weapons have been used against our troops... right or wrong?

eat a fucking dick, you pansy ass crybaby.. I really hope to see you and all of your (I don't care about tww) aliases terminated

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 3:13 PM. Reason : waaaaaaaaaaaah]

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 3:14 PM. Reason : ..]

2/14/2007 3:09:51 PM

Defeated.

2/14/2007 3:14:41 PM

yeah totally

how am i gonna go to sleep tonight

2/14/2007 3:15:46 PM

^^what was the god damn point of that post, to give an example of being a troll.


[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 3:16 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2007 3:16:02 PM

Why shouldn't Iran be involved in Iraq. We are on the other side of the world, they are right next door. It would be stupid to think that Iran doesn't have an interest of how the Iraq situation unfolds. Furthermore, this whole "Bush revelation" that Iran is funding the insurgency in Iraq should be a surprise to no one. We funded the mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 80's, the Shah in Iran for decades, tons of CIA based insurgencies in Africa and South America. If anything, they are no worse than us. Hell, remember Iran- Contra?

2/14/2007 3:20:00 PM

There was no point. There isn't anything else I can add that is worthwhile for this guy.

This thread is a mirror of all the others that he posts in.


1. Makes incendiary statement about Bush haters/liberals
2. Attempts to add to debate with some bogus, uninformed opinion
3. Gets questioned and goes on the extreme defensive saying he is just here to bs around and doesnt really feel like backing up any of his statements
4. Gets dominated by the counterpoint, backed up with qualified statements/articles/links/etc
5. Makes a post about how I am a troll and I fuck up every thread and hopes my accounts are terminated


Every thread he posts in goes this way if I ask him a question. It burns him up so much knowing I "got him" that the only thing he can do is let his vagina seep out and hope I make enough of a mess of the thread replying to him and the other trolls that people won't see he is even worse.


^ I think people are so up in arms about this right now is because of the way the entire Iraq war was handled, and the shoddy intelligence that lead up to it.

I don't think any of us have a problem, if we have to be over there at the moment, trying to clamp down on any major influence from Iraq. I think most of us are afraid the loonies running the show are going to have us attack Iran, and this propaganda campaign that is ramping up is starting to feel like thats just what will happen.

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 3:23 PM. Reason : a]

2/14/2007 3:21:06 PM

and you do it again

and again

and again


you're not really getting under my skin because you're a tool on tww... a tool on the internet of all things, you're meaningless, I log off tww and I'm off tww, I'm not too concerned with wondering if I pissed someone off or if I made some new friends

I'm not worried about you, or any of your name sakes bothering me, keeping me from having a good time, sleeping at night, or living my life as I deem necessary

and if you really hated me enough to make it personal, well, I'm not too concerned about that either

2/14/2007 3:24:41 PM

Great, so we're going to overextend resources that are already stretched to the breaking point.

All I can say is I'm glad that the Dems got the Senate

2/14/2007 3:25:08 PM

Why is anyone arguing this? Its no big secret that Iran has some sort of influence on Iraqi insurgents and the Iranian President, proven or not, is of the mindset to support such activity.

Nobody here can argue this.

What you can argue is the ability of the US to do anything about it. I for one don't think we are in any position to do anything.

2/14/2007 3:34:37 PM

Another thread ruined by State409c / TypeA

2/14/2007 3:36:34 PM

Well, to be fair, most threads aren't going to get off on the right foot when these types of statements are made

Quote :

"pwrstrkdf250 All American 49262 Posts user info edit post once they quit bashing, they'll read it or watch it let them vent first "

2/14/2007 3:36:56 PM

Quote :

"omfg red herring, like you can talk hey look SOAP BOX IMPORTANT WORDS HERE red herring straw man ad nauseum I'm so goddamned special because I use words to make me feel like I am more important than I really am, oh wait, I'm sitting on my ass posting on tww "

Why are you always getting upset about this over and over?

2/14/2007 3:44:54 PM

Quote :

"Dude, what fox news channels are you watching? There is nothing that exists saying it's iranians doing the bombing. The article guth posted mentions TWICE references to groups giving the bombs to IRAQIS for them to do the bombing."

Quote :

"The timing of the arrest of two Iranian officials in Iraq by US forces has triggered controversy in Tehran, Baghdad, and Washington."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/838CF982-7E19-42C3-AEE5-42094584C5AC.htm




And that's from al jazeera... so stfu

2/14/2007 3:46:08 PM