“Cheney’s fondest pipe dream” ....War with Iran

g under p

BREAKING: Lieberman-Kyl’s Iran amendment passes.By a vote 76-22, the Senate passed the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, which threatens to “combat, contain and [stop]” Iran via “military instruments.” Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) called the amendment “Cheney’s fondest pipe dream” and said it could “read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action.”

War with Iran seems almost a certanity as the Lieberman-Kyl’s Iran amendment passes.

On the Senate floor today, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) made an impassioned appeal to his fellow senators, declaring that the Lieberman-Kyl amendment on Iran should be “withdrawn” because the “proposal is Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream.” Webb cautioned that the “cleverly-worded sense of the Congress” could be “interpreted” to “declare war” on Iran. He continued:

Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach. Because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good.

“At best, it’s a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy,” said Webb. “At worst, it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate.”

Listen to Sen. J. Webb of VA as he speaks on “Cheney’s fondest pipe dream”.

Peace

DriftingByTheStorm

Someone remind me again exactly WHAT, if anything, Iran has done ... and i mean specificaly, and with some sort of referenced proof ... that warrants US aggression?

So far as i can tell, the ONLY thing this wishful war is founded on is false allegations that Iran has called to "wipe Israel off the map" and more unfounded bullshit about Iran wanting nuclear weapons ...

... also, claims, that seem to be backed only by the "research" of the wonderfuly intentioned Council On Foreign Relations, that Iran is financialy backing Hezbolla and other terrorist "networks" ... "overwhelming evidence" or overwhelming LACK of evidence? show me the proof!

Just confused.
I really don't see the need for war.
In fact i see many good reasons NOT to go to war.

:(

jlew24asu

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Someone remind me again exactly WHAT, if anything, Iran has done ... and i mean specificaly, and with some sort of referenced proof ... that warrants US aggression?

So far as i can tell, the ONLY thing this wishful war is founded on is false allegations that Iran has called to "wipe Israel off the map" and more unfounded bullshit about Iran wanting nuclear weapons ...

... also, claims, that seem to be backed only by the "research" of the wonderfuly intentioned Council On Foreign Relations, that Iran is financialy backing Hezbolla and other terrorist "networks" ... "overwhelming evidence" or overwhelming LACK of evidence? show me the proof!

Just confused.
I really don't see the need for war.
In fact i see many good reasons NOT to go to war.

:(

I see many reasons for NOT going to war also. but the main reason for war is nuclear weapons. Iran says it wants to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. the world seems to disagree.

I dont have proof but do you think Iran is not bringing weapons into Iraq to kill americans and destabilize the country? Iran could avoid any problems if it allows inspectors and agrees to a 100% transparent nuclear program. for some reason they dont want to do that.

or that they are not funding hezbolla? I was under the impression they are openly doing this.

I hope this doesnt sound like I am advocated war with Iran. it really is the last thing I want. I would like to hope it doesnt happen.

anotherclone

Oiy vey.

What a mess.

puremagic

With the French and Germany now speaking out against Iran (plus we have approval to use their airspace), an event now has to happen to draw us into a war with Iran. Everyone knows that nothing touches America more than the death of our children. I wonder if our leaders are this eager for war that they would scarfice our children, Israel's children, or UK childrens just to go into Iran?

bootlegger10

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

Edit: Needed more USA!

DriftingByTheStorm

jlew24asu wrote:

I see many reasons for NOT going to war also. but the main reason for war is nuclear weapons. Iran says it wants to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. the world seems to disagree.

I dont have proof but do you think Iran is not bringing weapons into Iraq to kill americans and destabilize the country? Iran could avoid any problems if it allows inspectors and agrees to a 100% transparent nuclear program. for some reason they dont want to do that.

Well,
i started looking in to this,
and this was the first article i came across:
MSNBC: Iran bars entry for 38 nuclear inspectors -- if you read the article it contends that the move by Iran is actually a RESPONSE to UN Security Council Resolutions that placed sanctions on Iran.

So, seems we have to go back and look why the sanctions were imposed ... my guess ... probably an attempt to get Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment program ...

... seems like a catch 22 to me ... they enrich, we sanction, we inspect, they ban inspectors as response to sanctions, we push for war ... sheesh.

:(


OKAY.
HOLD THE FUCKING PHONE.
NOW I'M LIVID:
Washington Post: U.N. Inspectors Dispute Iran Report By House Panel

U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest" and offering evidence to refute its central claims.

---

Give you one guess what they are talking about?
Yeah, the UN IS PISSED THAT BUSH IS LYING ABOUT IRAN WANTING NUKES!

---

Among the committee's assertions is that Iran is producing weapons-grade uranium at its facility in the town of Natanz. The IAEA called that "incorrect," noting that weapons-grade uranium is enriched to a level of 90 percent or more. Iran has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent under IAEA monitoring.

---

WHAT THE FUCK!?!

Seems IRAN is telling the truth (at least, as of 2006) and we are SO FULL OF SHIT it pains me to be an american.

:( :( :(


IN FACT

IRAN IS COOPERATING WITH INSPECTIONS AGAIN!
But we wouldn't know that, since they don't report REAL news in America.
Only what they want you to know!

:(

jlew24asu

good info driftin. thanks for posting, I'll read it later and respond. looks like you have been doing some homework

DriftingByTheStorm

From the UN Security Council Website -- Iran September 2007

Found the following document, which is an official communication from the Iranian government to the IAEA which addresses the current state of actions between the IAEA and Iran:

August 27th 2007 Communication Between Iran and IAEA

Section IV, clauses 1 and 4 specificaly:

Section IV - General Understandings

1. These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities

4. The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use.

---

Other great tidbits in this document include multiple references to Iran allowing inspectors back in the country, allowing them specific access to the heavywater site, and ensuring that 14 visas for entry are available for inspectors in 2008.

This gets more ridiculous the more i read.
These people ARE BEGGING US TO PLAY FAIR.
They really want nuclear power, and we really want to go to war with them.
:(

Truthmonger

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration[/b] and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest" and offering evidence to refute its central claims.

I wouldn't believe a single syllable coming from this administration.

catefrances

jlew24asu wrote:

I see many reasons for NOT going to war also. but the main reason for war is nuclear weapons. Iran says it wants to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. the world seems to disagree.

I dont have proof but do you think Iran is not bringing weapons into Iraq to kill americans and destabilize the country? Iran could avoid any problems if it allows inspectors and agrees to a 100% transparent nuclear program. for some reason they dont want to do that.

or that they are not funding hezbolla? I was under the impression they are openly doing this.

I hope this doesnt sound like I am advocated war with Iran. it really is the last thing I want. I would like to hope it doesnt happen.

NO not the world. The united states of america disagrees. and they're full of shit.

No i do not think iran is destabilising iraq. at least not to the degree that's been touted. i think the US and pals did that when they INVADED iraq for NO reason.

if you dont have proof then shut up and stop spreading rumours. just saying soemthing doesn't make it true. the US government has been lying to the world for years and years and people still listen to them. WHY WHY WHY

meme

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

From the UN Security Council Website -- Iran September 2007

Found the following document, which is an official communication from the Iranian government to the IAEA which addresses the current state of actions between the IAEA and Iran:

August 27th 2007 Communication Between Iran and IAEA

Section IV, clauses 1 and 4 specificaly:

Section IV - General Understandings

1. These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities

4. The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use.

---

Other great tidbits in this document include multiple references to Iran allowing inspectors back in the country, allowing them specific access to the heavywater site, and ensuring that 14 visas for entry are available for inspectors in 2008.

This gets more ridiculous the more i read.
These people ARE BEGGING US TO PLAY FAIR.
They really want nuclear power, and we really want to go to war with them.
:(

This kind of seriousness makes me hopeful for the future of this country.
Thank you for the information and for the hope.

jlew24asu

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

From the UN Security Council Website -- Iran September 2007

all good stuff driftin. this is from that doc. these need to be addressed.

Key Issues

The main issue is whether or not to proceed with additional sanctions against Iran. On the one hand, the agreement between the IAEA and Iran does not address the issue of suspension of uranium-enrichment-which the Council has demanded. On the other hand, the IAEA track does have the potential to address some of the other underlying issues. It is unclear whether ElBaradei's report will be able to persuade the P3 (France, the UK and the US) that the agreement is a satisfactory alternative that has the potential over time to build confidence that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.

Current Outstanding Issues (to be resolved according the agreement)

* Enrichment Programme at the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant
* Heavy water research reactor in Arak
* Designation of new IAEA inspectors and granting of multiple entry visas for them

Past Outstanding Issues (questions resolved in July 2007)

* Clarification about Iran's plutonium separation experiments. The depleted uranium targets which had been irradiated in the course of the plutonium experiments are stored in containers. On 8 August 2005, the Agency had taken environmental samples and discovered the presence of high enriched uranium particles.
* Iran's acquisition of P-1 and P-2 centrifuge technology.
* Clarification about the particles of high enriched uranium found in samples taken from equipment at a technical university in Tehran in January 2006, and about Iran's statement that they are of foreign origin.
* Documentation concerning uranium metal and its casting (allegedly provided to Iran by the AQ Khan network).

jlew24asu

catefrances wrote:

NO not the world. The united states of america disagrees. and they're full of shit.

its not only the US. do you really believe the US is the ONLY country to oppose Iran have nuclear material?? France for example...http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=85387

catefrances wrote:

No i do not think iran is destabilising iraq. at least not to the degree that's been touted.

not that its been touted? so you believe it is happening on some level then?

catefrances wrote:

i think the US and pals did that when they INVADED iraq for NO reason.

I agree

catefrances wrote:

if you dont have proof then shut up and stop spreading rumours. just saying soemthing doesn't make it true. the US government has been lying to the world for years and years and people still listen to them. WHY WHY WHY

whoooaaa slow down hunny. I dont have proof because I have never been there. but I have read multiple reports from multiple sources that Iran is smuggling weapons into Iraq. I'm not making this up as I go.

you have no proof either that they are not doing it.

Truthmonger

catefrances wrote:

NO not the world. The united states of america disagrees. and they're full of shit.

No i do not think iran is destabilising iraq. at least not to the degree that's been touted. i think the US and pals did that when they INVADED iraq for NO reason.

if you dont have proof then shut up and stop spreading rumours. just saying soemthing doesn't make it true. the US government has been lying to the world for years and years and people still listen to them. WHY WHY WHY

Cate, many Americans (and the U.S. gov't) are simply incapable of coming to terms with their own actions. They refuse to realize just how extensively they've fucked things up in the middle east - and themselves in the process. Millions of Iraqi refugees have fled to neighbouring mideast countries, making life unbearable for these Iraqis, and burdening these other countries that can ill-afford the influx of these desperate people. Its just one example......

SPEEDY MCCREADY

nuke em..........

jlew24asu

Truthmonger wrote:

Cate, many Americans (and the U.S. gov't) are simply incapable of coming to terms with their own actions. They refuse to realize just how extensively they've fucked things up in the middle east - and themselves in the process. Millions of Iraqi refugees have fled to neighbouring mideast countries, making life unbearable for these Iraqis, and burdening these other countries that can ill-afford the influx of these desperate people. Its just one example......

how does this have anything to do about the discussion about Iran?

catefrances

jlew24asu wrote:

whoooaaa slow down hunny. I dont have proof because I have never been there. but I have read multiple reports from multiple sources that Iran is smuggling weapons into Iraq. I'm not making this up as I go.

you have no proof either that they are not doing it.

i didnt say they weren't doing it. i said i dont believe it to be at the level that the so called free press are saying. the press is saying what the government is wanting them to say in order to convince the masses of their righteous cause.
and why shouldnt the iranians help. iraq was invaded by a foreign country.

g under p

AMY GOODMAN: Nir, what about Iran? What about the whole Bush-Cheney push to attack Iran? And what is the significance of this? And how does it play out in these countries?

NIR ROSEN: Well, I think we’re dealing with a mentality on the part of our administration that nobody else is going to have the guts to take on Iran in the future, the next president, so if we don’t do it, who’s going to do it, and we’ll be vindicated in the future just like Reagan was vindicated, allegedly, for bringing down the Soviet Union. So they have this long-term view of how history will treat them, and if they don’t take down Iran, nobody else will, which is probably the case, although they can’t take down Iran, either.

Iran is not Iraq. You can bomb it, but I think you’d only basically strengthen the support for the government, as always happens when you bomb a country. We saw this in Yugoslavia and elsewhere. And they’ve been blaming Iran for everything under the sun lately, for supporting Sunni radicals in Iraq or attacking the Iranian-backed leadership in Iraq, for attacking -- and then they blame Iran for supporting the Taliban, who, of course, were bitter enemies of Iran. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

AMY GOODMAN: And interestingly, the president of Afghanistan, Karzai, coming in and saying Iran is a partner and then receiving Ahmadinejad in Afghanistan, and President Bush at the same time attacking Iran.

NIR ROSEN: Well, the countries in the region know that they can’t lose Iran as an ally and as a neighbor. The US can easily alienate Iran, without suffering too many consequences. But Iraq does depend on Iran as a friendly neighbor, likewise Afghanistan. And if you were to antagonize Iran, of course, the consequences would be much more severe than antagonizing Iraq, which had a very weak army.

AMY GOODMAN: What are the politics? Why is Bush doing this, escalating the rhetoric?

NIR ROSEN: Well, there is a general aversion on the part of the US administration towards any Islamist movement or government. This is why they brought down the Islamic Courts in Somalia, this is why they overthrew the Hamas democratically elected government in Palestine, this is why they refuse to deal with Hezbollah, an overwhelmingly popular movement in Lebanon: I think a fear of any successful Islamist model. And then, we’ve had a long animosity with Iran. We haven’t forgiven them, I think, for the hostage crisis a few decades ago.

And I think we’re now in search of a new enemy. When I wrote my book, I was doing research on LexisNexis, and I found that in May 2003 universally the US press was talking about when do we got to war against Iran? Iraq has been such a success. We brought down Saddam’s regime so quickly. So now, Iran is next, obviously. And everybody was behind this, of course.

AMY GOODMAN: The Lieberman-sponsored resolution condemning Iranians fighting in Iraq for killing US soldiers, but then the report coming out that there are more Saudi fighters in Iraq than Iranian fighters.

NIR ROSEN: It’s difficult for me to understand why the Shias would need Iranian fighters. Iraqis are very good at killing, as we’ve seen. Shias were in the army. They were the majority of the army. Shias were in the Fedayeen Saddam, as well. And they’ve been very eager to fight the Americans -- the Mahdi Army, other groups.

So Iran might be sponsoring various Shia militias, of course. It has its own proxies in Iraq: the Supreme Council, one of our main allies, the Dawa Party, one of our main allies, the Sadr Movement to a lesser extent, and, of course, some of the Kurdish parties, as well. Iran has a very good relationship with various Iraqi movements.

I am skeptical that they are actually sending fighters to Iraq. I just don’t see the need for it. Iraqis are very well trained. They might be sending some weapons. But then again, there’s also a black market in weapons, so just because a weapon is Iranian doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily been sold by Iran. Various groups use American weapons. It doesn’t mean that the Americans are arming people, although, in fact, we are arming militias.

I mean, it’s very hypocritical for the US to complain about any foreign intervention in Iraq in the first place, given that we occupied Iraq and destroyed it, and now we’re arming Sunni militias in various neighborhoods, making the situation much worse. In various Sunni neighborhoods of Baghdad, we’re creating our own militias. We are the ones who armed the police and the army, who are, in effect, controlled by a sectarian Shia militia. So it’s absurd to take the American accusations seriously, except that they are intending to go to war against Iran.

AMY GOODMAN: On that issue, Nir Rosen, Time magazine ran an article this week called “Prelude to an Attack on Iran.” It ends with a quote from an unnamed US official: “There will be an attack on Iran,” he said.

NIR ROSEN: I mean, this is just such a foolish game to play. American soldiers are basically held hostage in Iraq. They can’t leave, and they can’t stay. And Iran has the ability to make things much more difficult for the Americans. Until now, while we are fighting Shia militias, Shia resistance groups, it’s not a sort of universal uprising on the part of Shias. We did face that a little bit in 2004, and it was very difficult for the Americans. But Iran does have the ability to mobilize Iraqi Shias, of course, against the Americans and, if it wanted to, to sponsor other groups that might want to fight the Americans.

Iran, until now, I think, has been the primary beneficiary of the US war in Iraq, in that their people are the ones in charge, and their main enemy, or one of them after Israel, Saddam Hussein, was removed. So we could have seen Iran as an ally in all this, and I think that we could have seen them as an ally in Afghanistan, as well. But we’ve chosen to invent an enemy where we didn’t have one before.

"Iraq Does Not Exist Anymore": Journalist Nir Rosen on How the U.S. Invasion of Iraq Has Led to Ethnic Cleansing, a Worsening Refugee Crisis and the Destabilization of the Middle East

An excerpt from an inteview with Nir Rosen who is an independent journalist and the author of "In the Belly of the Green Bird: The Triumph of the Martyrs in Iraq." He is a fellow at the New America Foundation and has reported extensively from Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003. [includes rush transcript]
Earlier this year Rosen wrote a cover story for the New York Time Sunday Magazine called "The Flight from Iraq." He estimated that up to 50,000 Iraqis were leaving their homes each month.

Peace

Truthmonger

jlew24asu wrote:

how does this have anything to do about the discussion about Iran?

I was basically agreeing with her when she was refering to Driftin's post(s) about bullshit reasons for war. The fact is, Iran's progress in making nuclear bombs is debatable. But here is the U.S. spreading shit that is "outrageous and dishonest", and in so doing, is only creating more shit for itself when people realize, if they haven't already, that the language is self-serving for the American bombing of Iran.

When is the U.S. going to get it - it is its own worst enemy sometimes. Here we go again with the Bush Doctrine, which has been thoroughly devalued as a proposition vis-a-vis Iraq.

And Cate, I really liked that Pilger sig.

jlew24asu

catefrances wrote:

and why shouldnt the iranians help. iraq was invaded by a foreign country.

are you american?

I certainly dont think its ok for Iran to assist in killing US troops.

g under p

Robert Fisk is a veteran war correspondent and one of the world"s most experienced journalists covering the Middle East. He has reported from across the Arab world for the past thirty years. He was in Iraq in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war, in the early 1990s during the Persian Gulf War and most recently during the U.S. invasion and occupation. He has also reported on the civil wars in Algeria and Lebanon, the Iranian revolution, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and Israel"s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.

AMY GOODMAN: Robert Fisk, we have thirty seconds. What would happen if the US attacked Iran?

ROBERT FISK: Hell disaster again. You try to get out of one war by starting another. I think the Iranians would find some way of hitting back, and it would not be the same kind of war, you see. We're not talking about a land war. We're talking about bombarding it. And the Iranians, both as a people, as well as all the mullahs, they would want to hit back again. It would be a war. It wouldn't stop there. You can't say, “OK, we're going to stop bombarding. It will carry on.” That's a problem.

Taken from an interview with Robert Fisk on Osama bin Laden at 50, Iraqi Death Squads and Why the Middle East is More Dangerous Now Than in Past 30 Years

I find it odd that a majority of the terrorist attackers on 9/II our greatest attack on the homeland were from Saudi Arabia and nowhere can I find something saying we may consider attacking or to investigate Saudi Arabia.

We went straight to Afghanistan then Saddam in IRAQ and now IRAN. The US is looking so very impressive in the eyes of the world.

PEACE SELLS.......BUT WHO"S BUYING???.....Megadeth

Peace

catefrances

jlew24asu wrote:

are you american?

I certainly dont think its ok for Iran to assist in killing US troops.

no im not american. and i fail to see what that has to do with anything anyway. if you dont want your troops shot at, blown up or killed then you don't invade countries. tis so so simple.

and i don't think it's ok for american troops, or any other country's troops for that matter, to be killing iraqis.

jlew24asu

catefrances wrote:

no im not american. and i fail to see what that has to do with anything anyway. if you dont want your troops shot at, blown up or killed then you don't invade countries. tis so so simple.

and i don't think it's ok for american troops, or any other country's troops for that matter, to be killing iraqis.

it matters because I do not think its ok for Iran to be assiting in killing american troops. since we invaded, you think its ok.

we didnt invade Iran, we invaded Iraq. why is it ok for Iran to interfere?

it truly sickens me that you dont see that as a problem. hell, even eddie supports the troops.

g under p

jlew24asu wrote:

it matters because I do not think its ok for Iran to be assiting in killing american troops. since we invaded, you think its ok.

we didnt invade Iran, we invaded Iraq. why is it ok for Iran to interfere?

it truly sickens me that you dont see that as a problem. hell, even eddie supports the troops.

Again why don't we go after Saudi Arabia they're fighters coming from that coutry who are killing Ameicans too. I don't see us attacking SA.

Just because a weapon found in Iraq that supposedly says it's from Iran doesn't mean Iran sent it to Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: The Lieberman-sponsored resolution condemning Iranians fighting in Iraq for killing US soldiers, but then the report coming out that there are more Saudi fighters in Iraq than Iranian fighters.

NIR ROSEN: It’s difficult for me to understand why the Shias would need Iranian fighters. Iraqis are very good at killing, as we’ve seen. Shias were in the army. They were the majority of the army. Shias were in the Fedayeen Saddam, as well. And they’ve been very eager to fight the Americans -- the Mahdi Army, other groups.

So Iran might be sponsoring various Shia militias, of course. It has its own proxies in Iraq: the Supreme Council, one of our main allies, the Dawa Party, one of our main allies, the Sadr Movement to a lesser extent, and, of course, some of the Kurdish parties, as well. Iran has a very good relationship with various Iraqi movements.

I am skeptical that they are actually sending fighters to Iraq. I just don’t see the need for it. Iraqis are very well trained. They might be sending some weapons. But then again, there’s also a black market in weapons, so just because a weapon is Iranian doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily been sold by Iran. Various groups use American weapons. It doesn’t mean that the Americans are arming people, although, in fact, we are arming militias.

I mean, it’s very hypocritical for the US to complain about any foreign intervention in Iraq in the first place, given that we occupied Iraq and destroyed it, and now we’re arming Sunni militias in various neighborhoods, making the situation much worse. In various Sunni neighborhoods of Baghdad, we’re creating our own militias. We are the ones who armed the police and the army, who are, in effect, controlled by a sectarian Shia militia. So it’s absurd to take the American accusations seriously, except that they are intending to go to war against Iran.

Peace

RolandTD20Kdrummer

shoe...

other foot..

put...

jlew24asu

g under p wrote:

Again why don't we go after Saudi Arabia they're fighters coming from that coutry who are killing Ameicans too. I don't see us attacking SA.

Just because a weapon found in Iraq that supposedly says it's from Iran doesn't mean Iran sent it to Iraq.


Peace

thats a very good point. fuck the saudis. those saudi fighters should be killed when they enter Iraq.. but I dont want war with saudia arabia. or Iran.

meme

jlew24asu wrote:

it matters because I do not think its ok for Iran to be assiting in killing american troops. since we invaded, you think its ok.

we didnt invade Iran, we invaded Iraq. why is it ok for Iran to interfere?

it truly sickens me that you dont see that as a problem. hell, even eddie supports the troops.

Are you an American?
Did you know you owe your independence largely to the intervention of another country?
France, go figure...

catefrances

jlew24asu wrote:

it matters because I do not think its ok for Iran to be assiting in killing american troops. since we invaded, you think its ok.

we didnt invade Iran, we invaded Iraq. why is it ok for Iran to interfere?

it truly sickens me that you dont see that as a problem. hell, even eddie supports the troops.

why is it okay for the US to invade iraq?

i do see a problem. US interference.

i don't give a fucking shit what eddie vedder supports. that's his prerogative. and nothing whatsoever to do with me.

jlew24asu

meme wrote:

Are you an American?
Did you know you owe your independence largely to the intervention of another country?
France, go figure...

Iran is denying it is involved in Iraq. the US and Iraq government claim to have evidence to prove it. he said she said. but the fact remains US troops are getting killed by forces other than pissed off Iraqis.

and France openly helped America...... 300 hundred years ago.

nice comparison

jlew24asu

catefrances wrote:

why is it okay for the US to invade iraq?
i do see a problem. US interference.

i don't give a fucking shit what eddie vedder supports. that's his prerogative. and nothing whatsoever to do with me.

it's not. no one is saying it is.
i'm done talking to you. you make me sick