Understanding the Enemy

[Gipper]

Still waiting for you to cite one single war they've started in the last 100 years. So Jimmy Carter unleashed Islamic fanaticism? That's a rather amusing, if idiotic, claim.

So, by your...uh....logic....a nation that has not started a war in 100 years will never start a war...is that not illogical?

If you knew anything of the ME prior to Jimma's arrival in the WH, you would know radical Islam was well contained. After Jimma turned turtle on the Shah (who was very good at controlling radicals) because the Shah was not nice to everyone...say those words with a limp liberal wrist...in comes ayatollah khomeini who was REAL NICE to everyone...

 

[orogenicman]

So, by your...uh....logic....a nation that has not started a war in 100 years will never start a war...is that not illogical?

If you knew anything of the ME prior to Jimma's arrival in the WH, you would know radical Islam was well contained. After Jimma turned turtle on the Shah (who was very good at controlling radicals) because the Shah was not nice to everyone...say those words with a limp liberal wrist...in comes ayatollah khomeini who was REAL NICE to everyone...

Well contained? By who? Iran's radicalization had nothing to do with Jimmy Carter. It was well on its way to radicalism thanks to the Shaw and his henchmen. Your logic on Iran's threat is much worse than Bush's argument against Iraq. And make no mistake. Iran is not Iraq. Attack Iran, and they will unify faster than you can shake a cruise missile at them. But what the hell, it's only our boys in the military that would have to face the brunt of such a callous mistake. Right?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Well contained? By who? Iran's radicalization had nothing to do with Jimmy Carter. It was well on its way to radicalism thanks to the Shaw and his henchmen. Your logic on Iran's threat is much worse than Bush's argument against Iraq. And make no mistake. Iran is not Iraq. Attack Iran, and they will unify faster than you can shake a cruise missile at them. But what the hell, it's only our boys in the military that would have to face the brunt of such a callous mistake. Right?

so lets see..Gipper is endorsing Tyranny and oppression by leaders...casting blame on Carter for radicalizing Islam...and also not doing enough to support a leader who had zero support in his own nation...to jail and kill all who apposed him. shows a complete lack of understanding of Iran, its History, or well lets be fair...much at all...

but don't worry Liberals are Hitler ...even if Gipper supports the guys most like him....Then again he supports giving Iran arms and supports them in terrorism by paying them off for it..so what do you expect?

 

[PLC1]

Good Lord...give me strength...

Iran is the leading pusher of terrorism in the world and has been since your beloved Jimma Carter unleashed Islamic fanaticism...

Jimmy Carter is to blame for Islamic fanaticism? Now, there's an interesting position.

And, if Iran is the leading pusher of terrorism in the world, why did the US attack their enemy, Iraq, in the name of the "war on terror"?

 

[Gipper]

Jimmy Carter is to blame for Islamic fanaticism? Now, there's an interesting position.

And, if Iran is the leading pusher of terrorism in the world, why did the US attack their enemy, Iraq, in the name of the "war on terror"?

Glad to see you have returned THC. Do you think drug rehab will take this time?

I guess you never heard that Jimmy Worthless Jew Hater Carter bares much responsibility for Islamic terror. Funny how libs are in the dark on most issues.

And regarding your question on Iran, got an answer?

 

[PLC1]

Glad to see you have returned THC. Do you think drug rehab will take this time?

I guess you never heard that Jimmy Worthless Jew Hater Carter bares much responsibility for Islamic terror. Funny how libs are in the dark on most issues.

And regarding your question on Iran, got an answer?

Yes, we libs are in the dark on a lot of silly theories, aren't we? Maybe it's all of those drugs we'd like to see legalized instead of keeping junkies locked up to the tune of fifty grand or so a year. We libs are cheap that way.

But no, I didn't get an answer to my question of why we invaded Iraq when you said that Iran was the center for terrorism, nor do I expect one. I've asked several pointed questions from your posts without getting any kind of answer that made sense.

 

[Gipper]

Yes, we libs are in the dark on a lot of silly theories, aren't we? Maybe it's all of those drugs we'd like to see legalized instead of keeping junkies locked up to the tune of fifty grand or so a year. We libs are cheap that way.

But no, I didn't get an answer to my question of why we invaded Iraq when you said that Iran was the center for terrorism, nor do I expect one. I've asked several pointed questions from your posts without getting any kind of answer that made sense.

Is it news to you that Iran is the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world? If so, you are terribly uninformed. Check this out...from your beloved Hillary. http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-11/...energy-agency-security-council?_s=PM:POLITICS

Iran has been doing this for a long time. And, it all started thanks to your beloved Jimma Carter's failure to support the Shah.

Ever heard of Humas or Hezbollah? I would guess not, but try this...
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2009/0128/egypt-slams-irans-hamas-hezbollah-connection

Good luck going cold turkey. Hope it works this time.

 

[zakiyeh]

And, if Iran is the leading pusher of terrorism in the world, why did the US attack their enemy, Iraq, in the name of the "war on terror"?

Iraq wasn't Iran's enemy until US persuaded saddam to attack iran, because he was furious of what had happenned in the islamic revolution causing him to loose his place in iran, which was rich of oil. It was the US weapons and bombs (including british and deutsch and...) which ruined the cities in Iran and killed the Iranians. So just like then, getting closer to the resources of oil and gaining a foothold in the middle east, was the purpose of attacking Iraq; not "war on terror" or "democracy and human rights" or any thing as such.

 

[orogenicman]

Iraq wasn't Iran's enemy until US persuaded saddam to attack iran, because he was furious of what had happenned in the islamic revolution causing him to loose his place in iran, which was rich of oil. It was the US weapons and bombs (including british and deutsch and...) which ruined the cities in Iran and killed the Iranians. So just like then, getting closer to the resources of oil and gaining a foothold in the middle east, was the purpose of attacking Iraq; not "war on terror" or "democracy and human rights" or any thing as such.

That is a rather odd position to take considering that about 95% of Iraq's weapons were made in the Soviet block, whereas most of Iran's weapons at the time were American made.

 

[Gipper]

Iraq wasn't Iran's enemy until US persuaded saddam to attack iran, because he was furious of what had happenned in the islamic revolution causing him to loose his place in iran, which was rich of oil. It was the US weapons and bombs (including british and deutsch and...) which ruined the cities in Iran and killed the Iranians. So just like then, getting closer to the resources of oil and gaining a foothold in the middle east, was the purpose of attacking Iraq; not "war on terror" or "democracy and human rights" or any thing as such.

Yeah its all America's fault right? I am sure the libs here would agree with you.

But, have you considered what the Iranians did to the USA after Jimma Carter threw the Shah under the bus?

I would guess not.

 

[orogenicman]

Yeah its all America's fault right? I am sure the libs here would agree with you.

But, have you considered what the Iranians did to the USA after Jimma Carter threw the Shah under the bus?

I would guess not.

Nice revisionism. Iran did what they did because we supported the Shaw, dude. And it wasn't just Carter who supported him. There were Congressional supporters on both sides of the isle.

 

[PLC1]

Is it news to you that Iran is the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world?

No, the question was:

If Iran is the biggest exporter of terrorism, why didn't we attack them? Why Iraq?

Still, as expected, no answer to that one.

 

[zakiyeh]

Yeah its all America's fault right? I am sure the libs here would agree with you.

But, have you considered what the Iranians did to the USA after Jimma Carter threw the Shah under the bus?

I would guess not.

I have just now realised what you are saying. Do you really think Iran is fed up with USA because it didn's support the Shah? That's the oddest thing I've ever heard about this issue. I'm afraid orgenicman is right on this on. Shah was cruel to his own men and was selling his country out to USA, and USA supported him as far as it could.
Whatever policy Iranians have took towards USA after the revolution was just an answer to USA's policies towards Iran itself. There is an Iranian parable which says there is no complaint to what demands a compensate.
If you want me to study what Iran has done to USA after the revolution, then I suggest you too take a look back in history and see what USA has been up to a from a way time before that.

 

[zakiyeh]

That is a rather odd position to take considering that about 95% of Iraq's weapons were made in the Soviet block, whereas most of Iran's weapons at the time were American made.

It might have been as such until the war started, but then it changed:

"When the Iraq-Iran War broke out in September 1980 it was American policy to let the two nations fight it out. America had turned anti-Iran since the Iranian revolution and its hostage crisis. America had no love for Saddam in Iraq either, at the time he was part of the Soviet sphere of influence and backed terrorist attacks against the US's close ally, Israel.

This all changed when Iran started to make significant gains in the war. President Ronald Reagan saw disaster if Iran's revolutionary government overran Iraq and so Reagan created the National Security Decision Directive 114 on Nov. 26, 1983. This directive changed US policy from neutral observer to active supplier of military supplies, battle field intelligence, and most controversially, dual-use technology that allowed Saddam to create WMDs. Howard Teicher, who served on Reagan's National Security Council described in sworn statements how, "CIA Director Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war" http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.php?title=Donald_Rumsfeld_Shakes_Hands_With_Saddam_Hussein

Or lets have a look at some lines of Iran-Iraq war timeline:

"October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act."

"November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians."

"December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support."

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

 

[orogenicman]

Note where I said "at the time", by which I meant immediately prior to the Iran-Iraq war.