• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Officials: Discovery of Weapons Cache Suggests Iranian Meddling in Afghan War

just admit that you don't really have a clue and you just lik ****ing with me.

Like Osama bin Laden likes ****ing with us....perhaps with misinformation....


teehee
 
You'll have to--duties in my life will take precedent over playing on the interwebs for the next several hours. :2razz:

But some else named a few items already.

I figured you would weasle out of it.
 
Ok, let me get this straight. A large contingent of the insurgency in Iraq was armed and in many cases even lead by Iranians, yet if we went to that "source" the insurgency we would deal with would not be as bad??

They were led by Iranians in most cases? I didn't know that and if it's true, it's all the more reason to invade Iran.

In case you haven't noticed, there are millions of Iranians that are ready for their government to be overthrown. The right plan, right now, would make invading Iran a cake walk.
 
They were led by Iranians in most cases? I didn't know that and if it's true, it's all the more reason to invade Iran.

In case you haven't noticed, there are millions of Iranians that are ready for their government to be overthrown. The right plan, right now, would make invading Iran a cake walk.

All every boneheaded mistakes Bush ever made, his military strategy for Iraq has got to be the worst. "They will greet us with flowers" ranks up their as the worst military strategy of all time.

99% of the time you invade someone's country, the populace will hate you for it. While they may get rid of their current leader, than sure as hell doesn't mean they want a foreign power coming in and taking over.
 
And now we have over 4,000 dead American soldiers and 10's up 10's of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians for the trouble. Good job, you doubled our dead. And for what? A war with two countries that is still going on and arguments for entering war with another country. Awesome.

You're using isolated cases to endorse forever war. Guess what? There will always be terrorists. So long as there are oppressed, pissed off people somewhere we'll spawn terrorists. We deal with it. They didn't frequently attack us on the soil of the 50 States, it was a low probability event. Still is. 9/11 was the most successful terrorist attack ever, they won't repeat it. And even then, they didn't kill as many as cars do in 1 year in this country. Should we launch a war on cars? I'll start worrying when we get above that rate.

Terrorism is not spawned from oppressed pissed off people; it is spawned from ignorance. :doh
 
All every boneheaded mistakes Bush ever made, his military strategy for Iraq has got to be the worst. "They will greet us with flowers" ranks up their as the worst military strategy of all time.

99% of the time you invade someone's country, the populace will hate you for it. While they may get rid of their current leader, than sure as hell doesn't mean they want a foreign power coming in and taking over.

Once again these statements are historically inaccurate; the case for Iraq was not made on the assumption that we would be "greeted with flowers." But the facts bear out that a vast majority greeted us as liberators after Saddam’s despotic regime was destroyed. The best video testament to that would be the tearing down of Saddam’s statue in the public square.

What occurred post defeat was due to the efforts of a tiny band of extremists and terrorists who knew that they could sway public opinion by murdering innocent people and blowing up markets, mosques and police stations.

The Iraqi people turned against us not due to any effort on our part, but due tot heir own ignorance and stupidity thinking that we should do all their fighting for them while they sat back and watched and remained silent.

Freedom and Democracy is not won by doing nothing and it certainly cannot be won without sacrifice.

The emotional bile we continue seeing from those like you who want to continue the farcical talking point that we have somehow taken over their country is the realm of the same ignorance we see coming from the terrorists talking points; it also presumes that the terrorists and thugs had something better to offer than the coalition troops with Democracy. But of course, that is just stupid isn't it?

:doh

Another look at these unhappy Iraqis:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wss_urnuB7o"]YouTube - taking down saddam[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SneP29XbOw"]YouTube - Toppling Saddam's Statue[/ame]

Oh look, Iraqi's desperately trying to prevent the American "occupation":

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVeUEABXDfg"]YouTube - Liberation of Iraq[/ame]

Carry on; reality is never a friend of those who prefer to distort facts, lie and impugn the efforts of the coalition troops to remove a despot who defied the agreements he made to stay in power for over a decade and whom many on the Liberal side think should have been left in power to continue threatening his neighbors, defying the UN and murdering his own people. After all, the terrorists already learned the lessons of Vietnam haven't they; that the Western nations citizens are full of spineless whimps who think that wars can be fought as if they were going to a fast food restaurant with little cost and sacrifice and without any commitment.
 
Terrorism is not spawned from oppressed pissed off people; it is spawned from ignorance. :doh

You're both right. Oppression and ignorance spawn terrorism, with some blind faith thrown in.
 
Well there is the second Iraq war. And of course, all the death squad/black ops sort of thing we did back in the day, particularly the 60's-80's. And of course, we are currently occupying Iraq. But yeah...besides a few decades of our most recent behavior...we're good one that point.

How typical to see you make farcical claims in an effort to suggest that the US intentions are bad.

Also...the first Iraq war, Iraq attacked Kuwait because they were side drilling into Iraqi territory. Of course, that does not justify invasion; but it's not like Saddam woke up one day and was like, "You know...today is a good day to invade Kuwait!"

Wow; so now you attempt to rationalize the behavior of a despot. I cannot say that I am surprised by this.

They are rightfully concerned because they saw us just **** up two countries, and one for no good legitimate reason.

This is of course another of your famous; “because you say so’s.” But the FACTS do not support your typical emotional hysterics.

They've never been terribly friendly with us, they know we're kinda looking for reasons.

I see you continue confusing the citizens of a country with the despotic leadership. Once again, I cannot say I am surprised.

They want us out of the region and out of their hair. Understandable I say. I wouldn't want other people over here ****ing with my **** and trying to use military force to make me obey their will.

Another false assertion in a vacuum of the facts; but since when have you ever really concerned yourself with facts.

The amusing thing here is the assertion that allowing them to elect their own representative Government for the first time in centuries is somehow a BAD thing to you.


Of course they're arming the terrorists. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And we did it too, Iran Contra mean anything to you? ****, we trained those terrorists in the ME to fight the terrorists the Russians were training. The whole of that area is messed up due to the Western intervention for decades upon decades. They don't hate us for our freedom or any other bull**** like that. The region hates the west because we've ****ed with them for so long.

I see that you continue to confuse the notion that arming terrorists is a bad thing, arming citizens attempting to rid their nations of depots and dictators a good thing. But again, dealing with reality has never been a strong suit for you just as it is in the above statements where you attempt to rationalize the terrorists purposes.



No, we took that one away with Iraq II. People best fear us, we can and will eliminate countries and governments if we don't like. That's the lesson to the governments in that area from Iraq II.

Again, only people speaking from historical ignorance can come to such conclusions. There is not historical fact other than your emotional hysterics that suggests that the US just goes around destroying countries just because it suits us; unless of course you are someone like Bin Laden spreading vile disinformation for propaganda purposes.

But alas, people like you prefer to ignore history and consequence and use abusrd rationale that they hate us for our freedom or other crap. Pretending instead that the US has had a stellar history full of doing nothing wrong and that our interventionist policies cannot possibly have consequence or blowback.

What profound irony that you would even suggest that I am the one ignoring history while you spew emotional hysterical terrorist like propaganda to rationalize the behavior of terrorists and despots; it begs the question: “you have got to be kidding me right?”

Once again you use distortions and lies to support your absurd positions; I would like you to find ONE time where I have ever made a case that terrorists hate us for our freedom. I have no idea where you fabricate such nonsense. They hate us because they are ignorant; and much like you, fall for the hyperbolic lies and distortions being spread to them about how evil the US is and how we want to kill them because we hate Islam.

Another equally absurd distortion and lie you keep spewing is the notion that I, or anyone else for that matter, has ever suggested that the US has a stellar historic record. But again, you seldom actually comprehend what you read just as you seldom deal with reality or actual historical facts. You prefer to select only those portions that support your pre-conceived and farcical notions.

It is as asinine as suggesting that the reason our troops are dying is because we are fighting for the democracy of another country instead of there for personal reasons and trying to establish a foothold in an area where we don't belong.

Once more you end with a lie; that we went into Iraq to fight for Democracy. Do you never get tired of fabricating arguments that have not been made in your desperate efforts to remain uninformed?

I love this one: “for personal reasons and trying to establish a foothold in an area where we don't belong.”

It pretty much sums up the ideology of Osama Bin Laden’s arguments rather well don’t you think?
 
You're both right. Oppression and ignorance spawn terrorism, with some blind faith thrown in.

Again the suggestion that oppression is a cause of terrorism is patently wrong; if oppression spawned terrorism, the Jewish people would be the biggest terrorists of all time; no other culture in the history of man that I can think of has suffered more oppression over the centuries.

Of course, there may be some who wallow in ignorance and claim that they are; but that is just asinine blather based on ignorance.

Indians were oppressed by the British; but in the long run and through peaceful protests which suffered sometimes brutal responses, they succeeded in winning their independence. They didn't succeed by blowing up their own people or blowing up places of religion; they overcame such ignorance.

Ignorance, being raised to believe that violence is a means to an end, is the singular differentiating factor of why terrorism exists and how it thrives in certain cultures that preach violence.
 
Once again these statements are historically inaccurate; the case for Iraq was not made on the assumption that we would be "greeted with flowers."

Than why didn't we have a long term plan for fighting the insurgency? Knowing that it would be a hard struggle and not planning for it is even stupider.

What occurred post defeat was due to the efforts of a tiny band of extremists and terrorists who knew that they could sway public opinion by murdering innocent people and blowing up markets, mosques and police stations.

The Iraqi people turned against us not due to any effort on our part, but due tot heir own ignorance and stupidity thinking that we should do all their fighting for them while they sat back and watched and remained silent.

The insurgents were a huge problem and one that the executive branch never planned for. As the instigator of the war and the ones responsible for its planning, they should have anticipated such an obvious turn of events. They failed, and they deserve to be blamed for their incompetence.

Regardless of whether you supported the war now or not, it is laughable to claim that it was well executed. Even assuming the war was righteous, it was terribly mishandled right from the beginning.
 
Again the suggestion that oppression is a cause of terrorism is patently wrong; if oppression spawned terrorism, the Jewish people would be the biggest terrorists of all time; no other culture in the history of man that I can think of has suffered more oppression over the centuries.

Of course, there may be some who wallow in ignorance and claim that they are; but that is just asinine blather based on ignorance.

Indians were oppressed by the British; but in the long run and through peaceful protests which suffered sometimes brutal responses, they succeeded in winning their independence. They didn't succeed by blowing up their own people or blowing up places of religion; they overcame such ignorance.

Ignorance, being raised to believe that violence is a means to an end, is the singular differentiating factor of why terrorism exists and how it thrives in certain cultures that preach violence.

Good point. Oppression can spawn terrorism, but doesn't necessarily do that. Ignorance can spawn terrorism, but doesn't necessarily do that either. Same with blind faith.

There are plenty of ignorant people in the U.S.A. and we don't go around bombing countries.....wait...:)
 
Than why didn't we have a long term plan for fighting the insurgency? Knowing that it would be a hard struggle and not planning for it is even stupider.

Why do you keep insisting that there wasn’t a long term plan?

The insurgents were a huge problem and one that the executive branch never planned for.

Once again you make an assertion that cannot be supported by any facts; how do you know the executive branch never planned for an insurgency? When did it become the executive branches job to make war plans?

As the instigator of the war and the ones responsible for its planning, they should have anticipated such an obvious turn of events.

This is another fantastic assertion; that we were the ones who instigated the war and not Saddam’s actions. In my opinion, the only way to make such absurd assertions is to be living in some parallel universe and perhaps attests to the reasons you come to such absurd conclusions about this war, how it was planned and how it should be fought.

They failed, and they deserve to be blamed for their incompetence.

The only thing we have here is your desperate assertions as to what constitutes a failure when the fight is still ongoing. Again, just because you say it is so doesn’t make it so.

Regardless of whether you supported the war now or not, it is laughable to claim that it was well executed.

Please show me where I, or anyone in the previous administration made this claim?

Even assuming the war was righteous, it was terribly mishandled right from the beginning.

This is nothing more than another of your “because you say so’s.” The facts do not support your conlusions.

I want you to provide me with some historical facts to support any previous war that was handled perfectly from start to finish. Just show me ONE time where a battle or war was fought with no mistakes, no casualties and without being mishandled in some way or fashion.

I find the fantastical claims that wars can be handled perfectly without mistakes to be desperately in search of credible facts to support it. I find it equally absurd to suggest that our military somehow mishandled the war from the get-go when it defeated a huge ME massed military and managed the takeover of a vast nation in less than four weeks.

Your selective outrage and use of the historic facts suggests more of an agenda than an attempt at honest discourse.
 
Good point. Oppression can spawn terrorism, but doesn't necessarily do that. Ignorance can spawn terrorism, but doesn't necessarily do that either. Same with blind faith.

There are plenty of ignorant people in the U.S.A. and we don't go around bombing countries.....wait...:)

You continue to make it much harder to take anything you say seriously with such farcical analogies.

This is more for a school playground that a debate forum. But alas, when you are confronted with your own foolishness, resorting to hyperbolic nonsense is all that you have left isn’t it?

Carry on; I won’t waste any more of my time thinking you want a serious debate. :2wave:
 
Good point. Oppression can spawn terrorism, but doesn't necessarily do that. Ignorance can spawn terrorism, but doesn't necessarily do that either. Same with blind faith.

There are plenty of ignorant people in the U.S.A. and we don't go around bombing countries.....wait...:)

I suppose ignorance can be blamed for a great many things (including voting for Bush, hahahahahha). But pissed off, oppressed, with no other option is a strong motivator. Also I guess it can be spawned by assholes too. I wonder where the IRA is on that spectrum.
 
Doing nothing while Iran kills our troops isn't the answer. I would rather kill a few thousand Iranian civilians than lose one American soldier.

WHAT? Aside from the obvious moral objection of placing one innocent life above thousands of others simply on grounds of common origin, that's not even an effective military policy because it would provoke far too strong a retaliation from Muslims and nations who wouldn't have been our enemies, including key trading partners like Saudi Arabia. Ultimately, more American soldiers would be killed because of such over-sensitivity.
 
Last edited:
It is no big surprise that Iran is causing problems in the area since they allways have. I had said a long time ago that Bush missled us very badly by ignoring Iran and taking his eyes off of Afghanistan and of going into Iraq.

Now we want President Obama to solve the "problem" in a few months after Busg ignored it for years and missdirected our resources.
 
WHAT? Aside from the obvious moral objection of placing one innocent life above thousands of others simply on grounds of common origin, that's not even an effective military policy because it would provoke far too strong a retaliation from Muslims and nations who wouldn't have been our enemies, including key trading partners like Saudi Arabia. Ultimately, more American soldiers would be killed because of such over-sensitivity.

So, at the end of the day, we're worried about what the Muslims think? We're actually worried about pissing off a religion?
 
So, at the end of the day, we're worried about what the Muslims think? We're actually worried about pissing off a religion?

Consider the following: Islam has somewhere between 1.3 and 1.8 Billion followers. If even 10% of them turn into radical terrorists, well, we have a big friggin problem.
 
This Article forgets a VERY important point:

Iran, before we got into a **** fight with them, was HELPING us fight Al Queda in Afghanistan. You see, we share something in common with Iran, and that is that Al Queda hates us both. Some would say equally. And we all know the Talaban's opinion about Al Queda (aka, a positive one). I really doubt that Iran would be helping the Talaban, even if it is to strike at Americans. I bet these weapons are either left-overs from when Iran was helping us, or they were smuggled into Afghanistan without the Iranian Government's knowledge.

I'm quoting my post again because those posting in this thread are making a big mistake. They are assuming that Iran would help the Taliban.
 
I'm quoting my post again because those posting in this thread are making a big mistake. They are assuming that Iran would help the Taliban.

From the article:

Additional intelligence suggests that Iranians have been providing support directly to the Taliban.
 
Seeing as my country intervened in Afghanistan even though it is halfway around the world I'm not too outraged if Iran is intervening in a country next door.

Your country had the justification of being part of NATO, which responded an attack on one of its members (9/11) by taking out the Taliban who sheltered the terrorists who did it.

Iran has no justification for helping out a group that sheltered terrorists.
 
First off, in the process of killing jihadists we're going to take out many civilians. Second, the culture in the ME most amicable towards western style republic is most probably Iran. They have the demographics and education for it, I think it can be more highly encouraged there and adopted there than any other country in the ME.

Amazing isn't it? The civilian population of Tehran is probably the most pro-American seven million or so people to be found anywhere in the middle east. Yet our "conservative" friends here are just itching to bomb them into oblivion.

And they wonder why it is that they are virtually powerless and irrelevant in the current scheme of things. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom