They’d laugh and egg us on. And Israel wouldn’t be dumb enough to do our work for us, especially since we are dumb enough to do their work for them.
While I agree that we should leave, mass murder and devastating their country is not “welfare”.
Ya gotta love how the article loosely connects two items. One thing I am sure of, is that Iran is NOT training the suicide bombers in Anbar Province. Iran is training the Shia. Anbar is Sunni. Iran would like to see Anbar either gone, or Shia.
Note that Petraeus is blaming the Syrians for that without actually explicitly blaming them.
Is this just another one of those attempts to discredit this guys handling of the war?
Or a joke.
Further evidence that the right wing has no sense of humor. How’s that Daily Show ripoff coming, anyway?
-Joe
Because I’m the right wing of course. Burn all Homosexuals, and make Jesus the honourary President. 
As for the daily show rip off, why bother doing that when I can just lounge around in my arm chair being a General of the living room? 
The adorable thing about this is that the U.S. military is protecting and hosting the Mujahedin e-Khalq, a terrorist group dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian government, on a base in Iraq.
Here’s the story in today’s Washington Post.
I’m sure they are.
The question is, how much of a difference does it make?
For the past few years, we have been supporting the same groups inside Iraq that Iran has historically supported.
And we’ve been trying to fight the groups that our Sunni allies in the region support.
The strategic incoherence of our Middle East policy is truly impressive.
I ‘suspect’ they are as well. The interesting thing here is the automatic (one could say reflexive) denial without even bothering to look at the deeper situation. Not that this administration hasn’t brought that on itself by screwing the pooch with the WMD thingy, mind you…
-XT
I found very little denial in the thread. Some “Don’t knows”, “Don’t care”, and some skepticism. And I must say that you really must admit that skepticism is the default position with Bush, Inc. And WMD is only one example of the duplicity, evasion, half-truth and on and on.
Or maybe you don’t admit that such skepticism is warrented.
Dunno…what does the above mean to you? Since you quoted me and all…
-XT
Ditto.
And as I said, the main thing isn’t whether or not the charges are true, but whether they’re meaningful if true, in terms of their effect on the nonexistent stability of Iraq. We’ve been arming more or less the same people Iran’s supposedly been helping; have we been destabilizing Iraq?
Well, yes, of course, but how much of a difference has Iran supposedly been making on top of our contribution, plus that of the Sunni insurgency, feuds between different Shi’ite groups, criminal gangs, and the like?
Like it or not, Iraq didn’t descend into its present state of violent chaos due to Iranian interference. Our intervention, together with the internal elements already present in Iraq, plus the occasional young Sunni from elsewhere in the region with the willingness to turn himself into a suicide bomb, pretty much accounts for everything already.
Yes, I remember the post in which you said you eyes had been opened *re[/] George W. Bush, and I applaud you for it.
The point I was trying to make is that because Bush/US is bad/wrong, doesn’t mean the other guys (in this case the Iranians) are good/right…as well as because Bush et al was wrong (or dishonest, or whatever) about one thing doesn’t make them automatically wrong about EVERYTHING. We live in a complex world here…not a black and white comic book world. The US can be the bad guy and wrong about some things, and Iran can be the bad guy too…and in the wrong. Because the US fucked up on Iraq doesn’t make us automatically ALWAYS wrong.
Certainly some skepticism is warrented (we ARE talking about Bush and his merry men here :))…but some skepticism is also warrented when looking at things with an eye to what the Iranians are doing (and have been doing) as well. Some people are reflexively in denial about Iran…because of Iraq. And while I can certainly understand were some of that comes from, its no more wise than believing whatever this adminstration serves up as gospel either. Both attitudes are, IMHO, stupid…and frankly unhelpful.
Perhaps the above doesn’t look like attempts to poison the well or reflexive denile to you, but it sure looks like it to me…no real attempt to discuss the merrits of the statement, just a lot of statements like this: “Uranium cakes in Nigeria, WOMD, Connections to Al-Qaeda, etc… These fuckers don’t know shit.” All true…and all besides the point. What has this got to do with what the Iranians might or might not be doing?
Some folks in this thread are attempting to simply relate the two things (invasion of Iraq and subsequent relations with Iran) together, poison the well, and then handwave the whole discussion away as if it doesn’t even merrit debate. Saddam didn’t have WMD, Bushco lied and people died, etc etc, so therefore Iran is either A) innocent or B) justified in whatever they do.
Perhaps there really IS nothing to any of this and Iran really IS innocent and this is more BS (I don’t know to be honest…I SUSPECT the Iranians are up to a hell of a lot under the cover of our fuckup in Iraq). But to prove that position one shouldn’t be lazy and serve up the kind of tripe thus far in this thread. Or let me put it another way…is this a debate here or just another Bush bashing circle jerk? Because if its the former, I haven’t seen much convincing as yet…and if the later it should be in the Pit, not here.
-XT
You need to make some allowance for the plain fact that Bush doesn’t believe he needs to heed Congress. Why should people take seriously the idea that a lot of time should be spent figuring out what advice to put forth regarding what we think should be done about it?
Iran is probably helping their Shia neighbors in Iraq. Whether or not those Iraqi Shia are attacking US forces isn’t open and shut, and if they are, well, as the administration loves to point out, war is Hell. I would love to stop such activities but as long as we are occupying Iraq I don’t see how that will take place. My impression is that the Shia militias are mostly killing Sunnis who happen to be in Shia areas.
Shutting down the border is not practical as long as we are also having to maintain a large presence in Baghdad to prop up the Iraq “army” and “police force.”
To be fair or clear the article says “U.S.-led troops,” which could be somewhat vague. Also “That’s indisputable and again it’s a very, very problematic situation four[sic] our soldiers and Iraqi soldiers.”