Lieberman: U.S. should consider military strike against Iran

Sorry ROX there really is nothing this administration can say that would convince me that a strike against Iran is warrented or in the best interest of America.

 

ROX, if you've followed my posts over time in regards to Iran, you'll notice that I have no liking at all for the theocratic regime. They are definitely up to mischief, to put it mildly. However, I also believe that there should be no military action until we have a NEW PRESIDENT, who is not crossly incompetent like George W. "The Living Embodiment of the Peter Principal" Bush. Sanctions, talks, Special Forces operations to keep them off balance and prepare some some possible future action, yes, but no way in hell do I want this idiot in the White House ****ing up another military action, especially if there is any chance of it being avoided.



D&D. Replicant Democrat.

 

lots of countries, including the united states. but what does any of this have to do with the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from saudi?

lots of countries, including the united states. but what does any of this have to do with the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from saudi?

are you trying to say that iran is responsible for the 15 saudi hijackers? again, you really need to educate yourself on the middle east. did you know that iran and saudi arabia are enemies? do you know the difference b/t a sunni and a shiite?

i do find it funny that you continue to ignore the info regarding the jundullah.

 

nonsense.. blame america and its president..duh

 

*crickets*

 

so you take the word of a respondent to the story without providing sources or links, but not the u.s. and pakistani intelligence officials quoted in the story or the u.s. government official who actually says that the jundullah are "helpful"?

...ok

nice half truth there. as the article states, "U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "finding" as well as congressional oversight." do you have any articles, links or sources to confirm anything this person is saying?

and even if you believe this than that means that our allies (saudi arabia) are supporting a terrorist group made up of former taliban members, drug smugglers and founded by the mastermind of 9/11. should we "kill" them instead of having our president going around holding hands with their princes?

but hey, if you want to take the word of a responder to the article and dismiss any u.s. intelligence officials, senior government officials, senior fellows on counter-terrorism and cia agents that the article sites then more power to you!

and im sure the cia hates the competition.

 

if i may throw your words back at you...

and speaking of crickets, there are alot of them over in the "secret prison camps" thread.

 

i dont condone any of this, but none of it poses any threat to the u.s. plus, lots of countries are doing the same thing in the region and some of them are even our allies.

and saudi arabia is arming sunni militants. i do give you credit for recognizing which side is which though. props dude!

lots of countries, including the united states, demonstrate acceptance of terrorist groups. should we "kill" ourselves?

that is a very good question which has never been properly addressed. when the victims families tried to sue the saudi government the bush friend james baker served as the saudis lawyer and blocked all attempts by the families to get some real answers.

egypt and syria if im not mistaken. none were from iran. i dont even get the second question you are asking?

no, but they are arming shiites iraq who are killing americans.

do you what wahhabism is?

 

abc news quoted u.s. intelligence, pakistani intelligence, Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant, and a senior U.S. government official. you on the other hand "named" some random respondent to the story. if you have any info, links or proof to back up what the random respondent said im all ears. if you think the story has no merit, but some random internet person responding to it does than there is nothing i can do for you.

exactly - do you have anything to back up what the random respondent that you are clinging to is saying? the abc article at least has sources.

lol, again, if you want to discount a mainstream media article in favor of some random internet person who responds to it and offers no proof to back up their assertions than more power to you. if you have anything to verify what they are saying im all ears.

 

maybe debating over which article is more correct is the wrong approach...

i know its a popular thing to do, post quotes and articles and such but why not try to think for yourself a little?

 

yes, countries other than iran are arming hezbollah and hamas. do you really not know this? anyway, i was speaking to the bigger picture of countries in the region, some being our allies, arming different groups.

link?

are you denying that the saudis are supporting the sunnis, like the iranians are arming the shiites?

your denial of the fact that the united states has demonstrated acceptance of terrorist groups shows that you really dont know much about american history or foreign policy. it would behoove you to do some research on the issue.

maybe the coffee hasnt set in yet, but this doesnt even make any sense. what exactly are you trying to say/ask here? are you saying that the victims families did not deserve answers on the roll of saudi arabia in 9/11? or that even though there were no iranians involved w/ 9/11 that iranians are responsible?

you say iran is the only country supporting hezbollah and hamas? you are wrong. it would do you some good to do some research on this.

you asked where the other 4 hijackers came from. i answered your question. the fact that i have to tell you where the hijackers came from shows that you really dont know very much about the subject. you should probably do some reading on the subject. its pretty basic info.

even though 15 of the 19 hijackers were saudis? islamic fanaticism is not unique to iran - if you believe this than you are just as brainwashed as they are.

how so?

i asked if you know what wahhabism is - i will take this as a "no". you should really educate yourself on the subject.

 

i know it is a very difficult concept for you to understand, but see, articles are posted w/ info relevant to discussion and often used to back up an argument.

which articles are we debating over? i have yet to see any other articles to contradict the abc one.

if i may throw your words back at you though...

 

jo mama, you always menion that the hijackers were saudis but im not sure what exactly your point is when you say that. Do you think the saudis should be attacked? do you think that saudis are the root of terrorism? what exactly does that prove, or do you hope to prove by constantly reciting that?