because some of you people are trying to act like you're something other than what you are



just another person banging away at the keys of a computer on a college message board

you've impressed no one with the terminology


just be real... no big deal

2/14/2007 3:46:28 PM

Quote :

"Dude, what fox news channels are you watching? There is nothing that exists saying it's iranians doing the bombing. The article guth posted mentions TWICE references to groups giving the bombs to IRAQIS for them to do the bombing."

Quote :

"The timing of the arrest of two Iranian officials in Iraq by US forces has triggered controversy in Tehran, Baghdad, and Washington."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/838CF982-7E19-42C3-AEE5-42094584C5AC.htm




And that's from al jazeera... so stfu

2/14/2007 3:47:26 PM

they are what they are. treating something as unimportant doesnt make it not exist. has it occured to you that some people actually do study these sorts of things and have learned about debate terminology?

so you'd prefer that we dumb down the terminology for you, because "thats who we are", right? Geeze, stop letting it bug you. Not everyone is you.

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 3:51 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2007 3:49:55 PM

Bush doesn't so much make me mad as worried.

It has been admitted that intel he has used was knowingly flawed, so we're pulled into this unwinable war.

He ignores battlefield commanders during the conflict, so we're vastly underprepared for what the commanders thought would likely (and did) happen.

He declares victory in a war that really hadn't even begun.

Now he's saying that a resolution from congress is non-binding, so basically he's saying I'll do what I want (he might as well throw the I'm an out of control president in there).

At this point I wouldn't have faith in the guy to run a grocery store, much less our country.

2/14/2007 3:50:12 PM

none of us know whats going on behind the scenes

all we do is speculate and listen to/read what the media says and jump to conclusions

2/14/2007 3:51:26 PM

^^to be fair, the resolution is non-binding by its own words.

2/14/2007 3:53:34 PM

Quote :

"And that's from al jazeera... so stfu"

What is your point? I'm not debating an Iranian influence. I'm debating the statement that Iranians are entering the country and whole sale bombing as implied by pwstrkf150.

2/14/2007 3:59:05 PM

we have caught the motherfuckers in iraq. What more do you want? DNA tests on the bloody remains of a bomber?

2/14/2007 4:01:46 PM

^ yes, there are iranians in iraq, who cares? the issue is government support. having nationals there doesn't mean the government supports their actions, it means their border isn't protected, and we'd be inappropriate telling them that they need to fix their border. ;P

2/14/2007 4:03:20 PM

^ You mean the diplomats (which is what you're link is referring to)?

I doubt they bombed anyone.

I've googled and can't find any reports that there is some large supply of Iranians conducting bombing missions in Iraq in recent weeks, as was stated by 250.

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 4:06 PM. Reason : a]

2/14/2007 4:05:41 PM

^^^There are insurgents in Iraq from countless countries

Quote :

"to be fair, the resolution is non-binding by its own words."

I know, but his attitude is one of "if you don't want to do what i want, your wrong, and i'll do it anyway."

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 4:06 PM. Reason : ^^]

2/14/2007 4:06:33 PM

State409c how are you debating that there have been Iranians that set off bombs?

Werent you just saying a few months ago that because of the unjust war in Iraq, terrorists from all over the region (including Iran) have come to Iraq to fight the US troops?

2/14/2007 4:06:42 PM

^it's like the wmd's argument. He thinks that Saddam had WMDs when it is politically convenient for him to do so. Or the argument of "THERE ARE AL QAEDAS IN THE MIDDLE EAST BUT NONE IN IRAK!!!"

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 4:08 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2007 4:07:49 PM

Quote :

"I'm debating the statement that Iranians are entering the country and whole sale bombing as implied by pwstrkf150."

I didn't imply anything of that sort

Quote :

"I've googled and can't find any reports that there is some large supply of Iranians conducting bombing missions in Iraq in recent weeks, as was stated by 250."

once again, I didn't say or imply anything of the sort, I guess reading comprhension isn't your game...

maybe we should play another game that might be more on your level

Lets play count to ten, if you do well we can go for 15

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 4:11 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 4:11 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2007 4:09:08 PM

Quote :

"Werent you just saying a few months ago that because of the unjust war in Iraq, terrorists from all over the region (including Iran) have come to Iraq to fight the US troops?"

I don't remember saying that, but if you take the time to find the comment, I won't mind eating crow.

Quote :

"^it's like the wmd's argument. He thinks that Saddam had WMDs when it is politically convenient for him to do so."

What? I think you must have me confused with someone else. I've never thought he had WMDs.

2/14/2007 4:09:38 PM

right, except when he gassed the Kurds.

2/14/2007 4:10:28 PM

Quote :

"none of us know whats going on behind the scenes all we do is speculate and listen to/read what the media says and jump to conclusions"

exactly, but I think this guy is pretty informed, not to mention actual military experience (It's kind of looney to want someone with experience in what they're dealing with, huh )

Quote :

"In comments Tuesday, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also appeared to question the assertions about Iran's role in Iraq. “That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this,” Pace said"

I just don't understand why Bush insists on taking such a hard line on things when other experienced officials obviously feel differently.

2/14/2007 4:13:18 PM

Of course there are people coming from Iran. The question is; is Iran as a government and corporate body arming insurgents, or is it just individuals?

The distinction between those two possibilities decides whether or not military action against Iran is warranted, and it's a distinction that Bush is trusting his "gut" on (and we all know how well his gut works).

2/14/2007 4:13:33 PM

^^^^even if you didnt say that verbatim, do you disagree with it? do you not agree that insurgents from all over the middle east, including iran, have come to fight against the US in Iraq?

cause if you acknowledge that there are non-Iraqi insurgents fighting in Iraq, most people would think that there are probably some Iranians in the mix

Quote :

"The question is; is Iran as a government and corporate body arming insurgents, or is it just individuals?"

the same Iranian govt that funds Hezbollah and whose leader has declared death to all of our children? Must be just a few rogue individuals, dont blame Iran, they are peaceful, the US is bad!

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 4:15 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2007 4:13:38 PM

Quote :

"even if you didnt say that verbatim, do you disagree with it? do you not agree that insurgents from all over the middle east, including iran, have come to fight against the US in Iraq? "

should we take first hand military action against all those countries?

2/14/2007 4:15:53 PM

^^ You're right, it's good to infer these sorts of things.

All this time I've been acting as if war was a big deal. How silly.

2/14/2007 4:17:50 PM

^^if Iran is heavily involved then its certainly something to consider doing

^you like to infer a lot about global warming and how dumb bush is...why wouldnt you infer about something more logical like iranians going to iraq to fight americans?

I mean you certainly agreed with the theory that Iranians and other non-Iraqis went to Iraq to fight US troops when people would claim that Iraq had terrorists before the war started

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 4:28 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2007 4:22:57 PM

Quote :

"if Iran is heavily involved then its certainly something to consider doing"

i agree, but again,

Quote :

"In comments Tuesday, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also appeared to question the assertions about Iran's role in Iraq. “That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this,” Pace said"

casts serious doubt about heavy involvement, yet Bush seems hell bent.

2/14/2007 4:27:26 PM

Global warming:

1. Based on harder evidence than Iran (in fact, it's based on evidence, period)

2. Acting on it is win-win.

Making fun of Bush

1. Inconsequential

2/14/2007 4:28:44 PM

^^i figure Pace would say something vague anyway

its not exactly strategically sound to give out all your behind-the-scenes evidence at public press conferences

^its evident to everyone but you that there have been iranians who have fought in iraq over the last couple years

2. making fun of bush for being dumb = old, played out, lacking creative thought

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 4:31 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2007 4:30:28 PM

nor is it a great strategic move to get into an all out 3 fronted war with adversaries who have millions of people itching to die killing americans.

2/14/2007 4:37:33 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: its evident to everyone but you that there have been iranians who have fought in iraq over the last couple years"

Quote :

"Boone: Of course there are people coming from Iran. The question is; is Iran as a government and corporate body arming insurgents, or is it just individuals?"

gg

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 4:55 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2007 4:41:20 PM

Quote :

"http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/838CF982-7E19-42C3-AEE5-42094584C5AC.htm And that's from al jazeera... so stfu"

the men arrested almost 2 months ago were invited by iraq, as said so by the president of iraq. iran has a major interest in the outcome of iraq, its silly to think that they wont be involved. the issue at hand is the supply of weapons that have been used to kill us soldiers. president bush has implied that the iranian government is supplying them, but the evidence doesnt support this. the evidence seems to suggest that at one time factions inside iran were supplying some materials to iraq that were then used to make the deadlier types of bombs. now many analysts are suggesting that this bomb making industry has moved to iraq as it does not require sophisticated machining capabilities to produce these weapons. even if these factions are still supplying weapons to iraq there is no evidence to suggest that the iranian government is participating in this, complacent, nor is there even any evidence to suggest that they know about it (i would imagine that they do know about it, but theres not even any evidence for that)

so, what was really the point of posting that link?

2/14/2007 4:49:00 PM

Exactly Tree, nobody is really debating that there might be Iranians...or Syrians, or Jordanians, or Saudis, or Bosnians, or...

in Iraq fighting. That isn't the point of this debate. The point is, will our government try to falsify evidence to get support for attacking Iran?

2/14/2007 4:52:47 PM

^I think Bush will give it a damn good shot, but thankfully (hopefully) we actually have checks and balances again with the Dems in power.

2/14/2007 4:55:05 PM

Quote :

"The point is, will our government try to falsify evidence to get support for attacking Iran? "

the point is do we think the govt will try to falsify evidence? thats the point? what us TWWers think will happen?

am i to assume that you have dismissed the possibility that iran actually ordered these attacks? even though none of us know one way or the other?

[Edited on February 14, 2007 at 5:01 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2007 5:00:36 PM

oh jesus christ just leave

2/14/2007 5:01:19 PM

^another quality post

hey how many guys is your dad gonna go down on tonight for valentine's day?

2/14/2007 5:03:46 PM

Quote :

"am i to assume that you have dismissed the possibility that iran actually ordered these attacks? even though none of us know one way or the other?"

No, I haven't dismissed the possibility.

2/14/2007 5:05:51 PM

Quote :

"am i to assume that you have dismissed the possibility that iran actually ordered these attacks? even though none of us know one way or the other? "

i dont think anyone is dismissing the possibility, we are saying that there is no evidence that indicates it. that may be good enough for you and the president but i think the american people will want evidence before getting into another war.

2/14/2007 5:18:54 PM

There is no doubt in my mind that Iranians have been supplying weapons to and probably fighting some in Iraq.

As far as the Iranian government being the source of all this...I don't know. It definitely seems likely considering that's what countries do. That's what we do. That's what almost everyone does. Do I think we should do anything about it? We do not want to fight Iran, but once we have proof, we pretty much fucking have to. Fuck Bush and fuck this fucking mess.

2/14/2007 5:21:43 PM

fool us once, shame on... shame on you. Fool us... you can't get fooled again.

2/14/2007 5:22:58 PM

AHAHAHAHAHAHA

2/14/2007 5:26:18 PM

^^classic

Quote :

"that may be good enough for you and the president "

good enough for what!? we havent gone to war with iran...you're acting like we have

2/14/2007 11:32:29 PM

WE WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN

2/15/2007 12:08:56 AM

Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard
Thursday, June 26, 2003 Posted: 6:47 AM EDT (1047 GMT)

Parts of a gas centrifuge system for enriching uranium were dug up in Baghdad.

CNN's Mike Boettcher spoke to the Iraqi scientist who led U.S. officials to the nuclear centrifuge buried in his back yard.

WHY THE CENTRIFUGE IS IMPORTANT
Uranium hexafluoride gas is placed in a series of rotating drums or cylinders that run at high speeds to extract weapon grade uranium.

(CNN)--The CIA has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology--parts needed to develop a bomb program--that were dug up in a back yard in Baghdad, CNN has learned.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/

2/15/2007 12:14:27 AM

^

Quote :

"Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard U.S. officials: Find is not smoking gun"

Quote :

"U.S. officials emphasized this was not evidence Iraq had a nuclear weapon -- but it was evidence the Iraqis concealed plans to reconstitute their nuclear program as soon as the world was no longer looking."

2/15/2007 12:51:42 AM

^ Duh.

And now he's dead. So, I guess he won't be reconstituting anything.

[Edited on February 15, 2007 at 2:02 AM. Reason : .]

2/15/2007 1:59:58 AM

^Dude, you left the fucking subtitle of the article out. You left the first paragraphs of the article out.

I apologize for posting them for others so they wouldn't be mislead by your bullshit.

Except I don't apologize at all.

Bitch.

2/15/2007 2:21:31 AM

^ I included the link to the COMPLETE article.

2/15/2007 2:33:55 AM

^That's right. You quoted the date and time it was posted. But you didn't quote the subtitle. You dragged your cursor over the title, copy and pasted it...then you skipped the subtitle and moved on to copy/paste the date/time.

Since you neglected to post those things, I was just doing other folks a favor so they could see beyond the tone you wanted to create.

Go fuck yourself.

[Edited on February 15, 2007 at 2:57 AM. Reason : sss]

2/15/2007 2:55:43 AM

^ Sometimes I only copy and paste the information that I find interesting or that makes the point I'm trying to make. It's up to the reader to click on the link, which I dutifully provide, and read the full article--if he or she chooses to do so.

BTW, I didn't see the word "bitch" anywhere in the article. I guess that was a freebie, huh?

2/15/2007 3:04:48 AM

Talk about having sand in your vagina...

What is so wrong about quoting the parts of an article that you find interesting or relevent? Who gives a shit about subtitles or cutting and pasting the whole story, good grief talk about getting pissed over nothing.

2/15/2007 3:11:09 AM

^ Shit, she fucking trolls me all the time.

2/15/2007 3:21:28 AM

I disliked the two of you already so don't pretend I'm all upset over this article. You both already made me sick...in different ways, of course (don't worry, you're both very special).

2/15/2007 3:22:17 AM