Lieberman wants to bomb Iran

[Peet]

Thanks to your heroes I have now not only mine, but also a few Iraqi families to support. Can you tell me when they can go home and what they shall find if they ever can go home?

They can go home when Islamist militias and terrorist put down their iranian weapons and engage in the democratic process. That way they will find a land with a clean slate and the potential to build a modern state free of the butchery that has typified the middle eat for decade.

Blame it on the USA who wages a war to serve its own interests and those of its satellite Israel, you mean?

You can blame the USA for the invasion if you want but the perpetuation of this war lies in the hands of those who see a free and liberal Iraq as an intolerable threat to their grip on their tinpot regimes.

Obviously you don't understand the word "criminal".

See Saddam Hussein.

Obviously you don't understand teh word "imperialism".

See Iran. the word Caliphate ring a bell?

Do not let that hinder your ability to come up with more indoctrinated nonsense.

Ideological nonesense if you please. Indoctrinated implies received opinion. I just heard the ideas and happen to agree.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The Iraqi army could have them.

What would the Iraqi army do with airstrips big enough to land Starlifters on? Oh, and bases with barracks facilities big enough to house the Iraqi army (whatever "the Iraqi army" is) several times over?

It's not as though they haven't already got surplus barracks that they can't fill as it is.

 

[rhys gethin]

'They can go home when Islamist militias and terrorist put down their iranian weapons and engage in the democratic process. '

Clearly you are a nazi madman. WHO did the US pay to invade Iran? Wasn't it the dictator they recently had murdered? Who was it supported and trained those forces in Afghanistan they are now fighting? Who, ultimately, pays for Mossad to trick naive young Muslims into 'terrorism' and uses their activities to destroy our liberties? Who was it that invaded Iraq illegally, causing immense slaughter? And, on the other hand, who LIVES in Iraq? Persuade you imperialist bosses to piss off home and stop this vomitous nonsense, then go away and shoot yourself, you grotesque hitlerite leftover!

 

[Peet]

What would the Iraqi army do with airstrips big enough to land Starlifters on?

Perhaps unload aid supplies?

Oh, and bases with barracks facilities big enough to house the Iraqi army (whatever "the Iraqi army" is) several times over?

Train a force capable of defending themselves against Iran and Syria?

It's not as though they haven't already got surplus barracks that they can't fill as it is.

That can only come with time.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I not interested in how many people were killed during shock and awe. I'm jsut stating a fact that the US would withdraw if muslims stopped killing muslims.

That's not a fact, it's an opinion. Buy a dictionary and check out the difference.

 

[Peet]

'They can go home when Islamist militias and terrorist put down their iranian weapons and engage in the democratic process. '

Clearly you are a nazi madman.

National socialism? Statism? No thanks. I prefer the term neocon madman.

WHO did the US pay to invade Iran? Wasn't it the dictator they recently had murdered?

Times change. Sh*t happens.

Who was it supported and trained those forces in Afghanistan they are now fighting?

So, alliegences change as the world changes.

Once the soviets were our enemy too.

Who, ultimately, pays for Mossad to trick naive young Muslims into 'terrorism' and uses their activities to destroy our liberties?

Get a grip.

Who was it that invaded Iraq illegally, causing immense slaughter?

Ah... UN law. As Bolton probably said... Who elected them?

And, on the other hand, who LIVES in Iraq? Persuade you imperialist bosses to piss off home and stop this vomitous nonsense, then go away and shoot yourself, you grotesque hitlerite leftover!

LOL.

 

[Peet]

That's not a fact, it's an opinion. Buy a dictionary and check out the difference.

So the sectarian slaughter is a figment of my immagination?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Perhaps unload aid supplies?



Train a force capable of defending themselves against Iran and Syria?



That can only come with time.

You're waffling.

1) Aid supplies don't need to be shipped in via a Starlifter. Logistically it'd be foolish to do so, as it concentrates too much materiel at a single site.

2) You're ignoring the "fact on the ground" (and I can make a guess a how fond you are of those) that Iraq is no longer a unitary state, but a state that's effectively split into three "regions", one of which enjoys constitutionally-granted autonomy. That being so, there's less actual necessity to guard against Iran and Syria.

3) So I've heard many people prate. Their saying it doesn't mean it will happen. The US split Iraqi society into it's constituent parts. Nothing short of force will put those pieces back together again, and that force is very unlikely to be brought to bear, weakheart Joe notwithstanding.

 

[Aldebaran]

That may be so but activity against Iraqi cilivans carried out by sectarianism is a deliberate attempt to stall any hope of democracy.

See, that is where your disinformation starts. It is sold to you as "sectarian". While that aspect is only an addition to and in some cases a fueling of what in fact is - as I said before - the backlash of the US invasion on a society that was totally disrupted on all levells while creating the biggest power vacuum possible at that.

Concentrated skirmishes with US forces are a rarity these days.

No they are not.
It is not because your censored media don't report them, that they don't happen. Daily.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm

http://icasualties.org/oif/

The planet where the US is pumping billions of dallars into infrastructure that remained in tatters from the Iran/Iraq war.

You mean: The planet where the USA destroyed what was left of Iraq after their previous war against it in defense of their economic and strategic interests and the following murderous santions put onto the Iraqi population for over a decade?

Last time i checked I could stand for parliament.

I do hope for your co-citizens that you never make it; Allthough among some of them your ignorance and jingoism wouldn't even stand out.

What on eart are you talking about?

Re-read.
Hint: Not everyone posting here automaticall has to be born and has to live in the UK, the USA, Australia, Europe or any other so called "Western" nation.

Again, I should hope so. It's primary interest in Iraq is the prevention of terrorism.

No it isn't and by the way, they did a hell of a job to incite young people to join the ranks of the Lunatical Radicals, didn't they. For which I have to thank the USA sincerely. We didn't have enough of them as it was.

Creating a parliamentary democracy ensures it doesn't end up another Saudi Arabia.

Amazing, isn't it, that Saudi Arabia happens to be the "besdt friend" of the USA. Since decades an decades. One woujld think the US would invade them, if it is their aim to "spread democracy".
I'm waiting the day. Let me know when they are coming.

If that were not a concern, they'd have given up and paid some Saddam Mk2 for the oil and left it to rot. Given the reaction of Muslims, I rather wish they had.

It has clearly passed your inside view that the former "friend" was since some time going solo on the ego tripping and - oh horror - even thought about all his oil deals switched to the Euro. While at the back stage destabilising somewhat the US friends in the OPEC.
As such he became also completely useless in a renewed role as proxy warrior against Iran. That US endorsed murdering adventure ended in a draw, remember, leaving millions dead at both sides.

salaam.

 

[rhys gethin]

Weel. Pet - After THAT posting, how do you plan to persuade anyone you are not a nazi? As your General said in Spain, 'Long live Death', eh?

 

[ViolentPanda]

So the sectarian slaughter is a figment of my immagination?

Don't try to put words in my mouth.

You said "...I'm jsut stating a fact that the US would withdraw if muslims stopped killing muslims.".

That's not "stating a fact", it's stating your opinion.

You've provided no evidence to support this "fact", and would probably be unable to do so from a non-partisan source if requested to.

Again, get a dictionary and check the difference in meaning, otherwise you're going to keep embarrassing yourself writing foolish things.

 

[Peet]

You're waffling.

1) Aid supplies don't need to be shipped in via a Starlifter. Logistically it'd be foolish to do so, as it concentrates too much materiel at a single site.

Depends on the location of the base.

2) You're ignoring the "fact on the ground" (and I can make a guess a how fond you are of those) that Iraq is no longer a unitary state, but a state that's effectively split into three "regions", one of which enjoys constitutionally-granted autonomy. That being so, there's less actual necessity to guard against Iran and Syria.

Appreciated but I don't buy for a second that Iran isn't a threat and there are plenty ultranationalist groups roaming free that the Iraqi army will have to confront eventually.

3) So I've heard many people prate. Their saying it doesn't mean it will happen. The US split Iraqi society into it's constituent parts.

As it should have been in the first place. As I see it, it's correcting a historical anomoly.

Nothing short of force will put those pieces back together again, and that force is very unlikely to be brought to bear, weakheart Joe notwithstanding.

Except the aim isn't to put it back together, only to keep the alliance together so that proportionate oil revenues continue to flow to poorer areas. And yes, that does take force. IE, the US marines until the Iraq army is up to the job.

 

[Peet]

Don't try to put words in my mouth.

You said "...I'm jsut stating a fact that the US would withdraw if muslims stopped killing muslims.".

Well you are right. What I suppose I meant is the occupation, ie, tanks on the street would end. If Iraq does become a free state I wouldnt be surprised if there was a US military presence.

 

[Aldebaran]

'They can go home when Islamist militias and terrorist put down their iranian weapons and engage in the democratic process.

No, they can go home as soon as law and order is restored, the civil service structure, the social structure is back into fully functuioning, the land is cleared of US dropped projectiles, DU contamination and other such rubbish - which invader was it again that caused and causes all that - including arrogant, culture barbarian foreign soldiers who act as if they own Iraq and its citizens are of low life status and wildlife they are free to hunt and kill .
In short: they can only go back when they can have their previous, peaceful, normal life back.
How many years is that going to take, if ever it is going to happen? Can I send you the bills?

I prefer the term neocon madman.

I met high ranking Neocon Madmen in person. You don't even come to the level of their shoes because - and this might surprise you - they do have intellectual capacities. If only these were functioning in the right direction, things wouldn't be as madly spiralling out of US control as they are now.

I suppose in World Named Peet International Law is of no use but it still is in the real world.

salaam.

 

[Peet]

See, that is where your disinformation starts. It is sold to you as "sectarian". While that aspect is only an addition to and in some cases a fueling of what in fact is - as I said before - the backlash of the US invasion on a society that was totally disrupted on all levells while creating the biggest power vacuum possible at that.

Sectarian is for want of a better word. Partisan may be a better choice. But semmantics aside it's still civilians/paramilitaries killing civilians.

No they are not.
It is not because your censored media don't report them, that they don't happen. Daily.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm

http://icasualties.org/oif/

I think we have differing definitions of concentrated skirmishes.

You mean: The planet where the USA destroyed what was left of Iraq after their previous war against it in defense of their economic and strategic interests and the following murderous santions put onto the Iraqi population for over a decade?

Yes that one.

And so if that is the case, is it not a moral obligation to work toward a free state and repair social infrastructure?

I do hope for your co-citizens that you never make it; Allthough among some of them your ignorance and jingoism wouldn't even stand out.

Believe me it would!

No it isn't and by the way, they did a hell of a job to incite young people to join the ranks of the , didn't they.

How so?

Amazing, isn't it, that Saudi Arabia happens to be the "besdt friend" of the USA. Since decades an decades. One woujld think the US would invade them, if it is their aim to "spread democracy".
I'm waiting the day. Let me know when they are coming.

And therin lies the hypocrisy of neoconservatism. But I suspect thats a can of worms even the US wouldn't open, what with it being the seat of Islam and all that. I suppose its a case of do what you can when you can.

It has clearly passed your inside view that the former "friend" was since some time going solo on the ego tripping and - oh horror - even thought about all his oil deals switched to the Euro.

Well there's an argument for invasion for starters.

While at the back stage destabilising somewhat the US friends in the OPEC.
As such he became also completely useless in a renewed role as proxy warrior against Iran. That US endorsed murdering adventure ended in a draw, remember, leaving millions dead at both sides.

And without the US intervention there would never have been an iran iraq war huh?

 

[Peet]

No, they can go home as soon as law and order is restored, the civil service structure, the social structure is back into fully functuioning, the land is cleared of US dropped projectiles, DU contamination and other such rubbish

Which is more likely to happen under parliamentary democray

In short: they can only go back when they can have their previous, peaceful, normal life back.

Which will take time, investment and security forces.

How many years is that going to take, if ever it is going to happen?

how long did it take for germany to recover or Japan? Not four years thats for damn sure.

Can I send you the bills?

You might have noticed that the taxpayer is footing the bill for this already. Oddly, it's the one use of my tax money I don't object to on principle.

I met high ranking Neocon Madmen in person. You don't even come to the level of their shoes because - and this might surprise you - they do have intellectual capacities.

No surprises there. Bolton is bang on.

I suppose in World Named Peet International Law is of no use but it still is in the real world.

International law is created by transnationals who have no accountability and I never got chance to elect anyone there and so speaking as a citizen of a sovereign democracy, their law means nothing to me.

 

[nino_savatte]

Who cares if the end result is a modern, stable and free Iraq?

Right, so that's what's happening now, is it? The so-called "democratically elected government of Iraq" only boasts a mandate of less than 50%.

Your knowledge of Iraq's history resembles the stuff put out by governments and media outlets as a defence for the invasion and subsequent occupation.

 

[rekil]

Last time I checked, no two sovereign democracies ever went to war.

You should check again because you don't know what you're talking about. Some examples off the top of my head. Israel V Lebanon last year, NATO v Serbia, WW1, Allies v Finland in WW2, India v Pakistan, and the US v Chile, Iran, Nicaragua and Guatemala via sponsored coups and terrorist groups.

 

[Peet]

Right, so that's what's happening now, is it? The so-called "democratically elected government of Iraq" only boasts a mandate of less than 50%.

More of a mandate than our government I bet. Again, what do you expect in less than 4 years?

Your knowledge of Iraq's history resembles the stuff put out by governments and media outlets as a defence for the invasion and subsequent occupation.

My wish is to see the intent become a reality.

 

[bluestreak]

finally, some peet posts acknowledging that basically he's completley and totally partisan. from which we can infer that he genuinely believes not in morality, justice, or humanity, but in maintaining the healthy flow of dollars from one rich man's pocket to another and fuck any poor sap who gets in the way.

another amoral scumbag outed, bring on the next one.

 

[Peet]

You should check again because you don't know what you're talking about. Some examples off the top of my head. Israel V Lebanon last year, NATO v Serbia, WW1, Allies v Finland in WW2, India v Pakistan, and the US v Chile, Iran, Nicaragua and Guatemala via sponsored coups and terrorist groups.

You have a very odd idea of what constitutes a sovereign democracy.

 

[nino_savatte]

More of a mandate than our government I bet. Again, what do you expect in less than 4 years?





My wish is to see the intent become a reality.

Hardly and besides, the mandate the current gov't has is pretty woeful. You no doubt supported the invasion and occupation and the shortsightedness that came with it. People like you talk about Iraq as though state-sponsored brutality had never existed prior to the rise of Saddam Hussein.

You're too much of a caricature to be credible.

 

[nino_savatte]

You have a very odd idea of what constitutes a sovereign democracy.

So do you....perhaps you don't look at mirrors?

 

[Peet]

Hardly and besides, the mandate the current gov't has is pretty woeful. You no doubt supported the invasion and occupation and the shortsightedness that came with it. People like you talk about Iraq as though state-sponsored brutality had never existed prior to the rise of Saddam Hussein.

You're too much of a caricature to be credible.

I did support the invasion on numerous different grounds, some of which were valid, others which proved to be entirely spurious and arrogant and ignorant.

However, now that what is done is done, there is a moral imperitive to do everything within our power to ensure that Iraq does not become an oppressive Islamic theocracy or a thugocracy and see that the damage done by half a century of war is repaired and see that oil revenues are used for Iraqis and not for some idle yob to spend on gold plated AK47's and numerous palaces.

In my view the best way to do this is to have a federation of autonimous regions ala the constitution. Letting a faction rule because of a sustained terrorism programme should not be a consideration.

For sure america has its own interests to pursue but are they REALLY any worse than what China or Russia or Iran would be doing were the US not involved?

To build an econoimy you need security and in the absence of a UN force, which would prove to be useless, as demonstrated just about everywhere, it falls on the US until the Iraqi army can do it.

The worst thing to do at this point is offer a timetable to quit because then the terrorists just play a waiting game and we see REAL bloodshed in Iraq.

 

[Peet]

So do you....perhaps you don't look at mirrors?

Well, yes, thanks to the EU, our sovereignty is very much in question.

 

[Aldebaran]

Sectarian is for want of a better word. Partisan may be a better choice. But semmantics aside it's still civilians/paramilitaries killing civilians.

Middle Eastern societies do not function teh way Western societies function. Religious sectarian affiliation isn't the primary incentive behind this, it is only thrown into it by the various interested actors to broaden their oprerational base.

I think we have differing definitions of concentrated skirmishes.

No, we most of all have different news sources. Maybe you should learn some other languages then the one(s) you obviously use now to get your information.

And so if that is the case, is it not a moral obligation to work toward a free state and repair social infrastructure?

In one of the versions of the US this agression against a sovereign nation and the and mass murdering of innocents was sold as a "moral obligation" to "free the Iraqis".
One can see the result enfolding day by day. How do you think the US can ever "repair" any of that?

Believe me it would!

No it wouldn't. You don't even rise above the jingoists I met on US boards. You are a moderate middle fielder.

How so?

mmm... How so not?
Do you live in a wood deprived of contact with the outside world or do you really believe that the US invasion of a Muslim nation showed on TV daily with the bloodshed dripping of the screens endlessly (not to talk about the internet) does not hands the ideal recruitement tools to the Radical Lunatics?

And therin lies the hypocrisy of neoconservatism.

Correction: This so exposes blindingly clear the hypocrisy of the whole West and its so called "democratic ideal" and so called "want" to "spread democracy world-wide" (Western style democracy, functioning at their profit, that is).
Why staging that comedy if a non democratic regime is just as profitable, and even much more?

Well there's an argument for invasion for starters.

Only confirms what I wrote above.

And without the US intervention there would never have been an iran iraq war huh?

I didn't research this matter in-depth (my fields of study only touch contemporan history) but I think it quite possible Saddam would not have gone into the adventure without being sure of the backing and support of the US.
In any case it couldn't have lasted that long or be so horrific in its use of WMD.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

You might have noticed that the taxpayer is footing the bill for this already.

I'm talking about the bills for taking care of my Iraqi friends who were driven out of their home and country by the hellish quagmire implemented on it by your Heroes.

International law is created by transnationals who have no accountability and I never got chance to elect anyone there and so speaking as a citizen of a sovereign democracy, their law means nothing to me.

As citizen of a country that is underscriber of International Law, you are as much bound by it as your government.

salaam.

 

[nino_savatte]

I did support the invasion on numerous different grounds, some of which were valid, others which proved to be entirely spurious and arrogant and ignorant.

However, now that what is done is done, there is a moral imperitive to do everything within our power to ensure that Iraq does not become an oppressive Islamic theocracy or a thugocracy and see that the damage done by half a century of war is repaired and see that oil revenues are used for Iraqis and not for some idle yob to spend on gold plated AK47's and numerous palaces.

In my view the best way to do this is to have a federation of autonimous regions ala the constitution. Letting a faction rule because of a sustained terrorism programme should not be a consideration.

For sure america has its own interests to pursue but are they REALLY any worse than what China or Russia or Iran would be doing were the US not involved?

To build an econoimy you need security and in the absence of a UN force, which would prove to be useless, as demonstrated just about everywhere, it falls on the US until the Iraqi army can do it.

The worst thing to do at this point is offer a timetable to quit because then the terrorists just play a waiting game and we see REAL bloodshed in Iraq.

So, instead, we have an Iraq that is being created as a neo-liberal paradise for carpetbagging corporate vultures.

 

[Peet]

One can see the result enfolding day by day. How do you think the US can ever "repair" any of that?

Slowly.

Do you live in a wood deprived of contact with the outside world

Yes actually. I live on a farm and don't own a TV.

or do you really believe that the US invasion of a Muslim nation showed on TV daily with the bloodshed dripping of the screens endlessly (not to talk about the internet) does not hands the ideal recruitement tools to the Radical Lunatics?

Depends how it's reported. I think the media have been grossly irresponsible in yping up the discipline anomolies of allied forces while ignoring the positives.

Correction: This so exposes blindingly clear the hypocrisy of the whole West and its so called "democratic ideal" and so called "want" to "spread democracy world-wide" (Western style democracy, functioning at their profit, that is).
Why staging that comedy if a non democratic regime is just as profitable, and even much more?

Because democratic states generally spekaing don't produce terrorists who demolish buildings with aircraft.

As I said, If the US really did just want to exploit Iraq it certainly wouldn't have bothered with all the pretense. They never have before... why whould they start now unless there was some truth in it?>

I didn't research this matter in-depth (my fields of study only touch contemporan history) but I think it quite possible Saddam would not have gone into the adventure without being sure of the backing and support of the US.
In any case it couldn't have lasted that long or be so horrific in its use of WMD.

salaam.

I'm not so sure. There are some dark tales from that war and while America supplied much of the weaponry, the mass slaughter was old business which had very little to do with america.

 

[Peet]

So, instead, we have an Iraq that is being created as a neo-liberal paradise for carpetbagging corporate vultures.

And why the hell not? free trade has done more for the extermination of poverty than aid or socialism ever did.