Iran Behind Rocket Attack On Green Zone! Death to Iran! Bomb Iran NOW!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341108,00.html

Petraeus: Iran Behind Rocket Attack On Green Zone

Monday, March 24, 2008

Gen. David Petraeus, commanding general of the Multi-National Forces in

Iraq, says he has evidence that Iran trained, equipped and funded insurgents

who fired a volley of mortars and rockets at the protected Green Zone in

Baghdad.

Petraeus, in an interview Monday with the BBC, said Iran's Quds Force, a

branch of the Revolutionary Guards, was behind the insurgent attack.

"The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for example...

were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said, adding that the

groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds Force.

"All of this in complete violation of promises made by President Ahmadinejad

and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts," he

told the BBC.

Some rockets meant for the Green Zone missed their targets, killing 15 Iraqi

civilians, officials said.

In article <47e82921$0$30683$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,

"Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:

> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341108,00.html

>

> Petraeus: Iran Behind Rocket Attack On Green Zone

> Monday, March 24, 2008

>

> Gen. David Petraeus, commanding general of the Multi-National Forces in

> Iraq, says he has evidence that Iran trained, equipped and funded insurgents

> who fired a volley of mortars and rockets at the protected Green Zone in

> Baghdad.

>

> Petraeus, in an interview Monday with the BBC, said Iran's Quds Force, a

> branch of the Revolutionary Guards, was behind the insurgent attack.

>

> "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for example...

> were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said, adding that the

> groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds Force.

>

> "All of this in complete violation of promises made by President Ahmadinejad

> and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts," he

> told the BBC.

>

> Some rockets meant for the Green Zone missed their targets, killing 15 Iraqi

> civilians, officials said.

What is this a sign of?

Obviously, something is up. Just as obviously, the NIE (where Iran was

declared nuclear weapons free since 2003) was part of a deal. The

cessation of violence since the surge had to be partly a result of this

deal.

Last I checked, al-Sadr is still telling his thugs to lay low.

Since Iraqi Hizbullah (headquartered in Najaf) has kept itself almost

invisible to the West since the very beginning--we can't really compare

its activities today as opposed to last year or the year before.

One would expect the the Iranians to shift to Afghanistan, Pakistan and

the Occupied Territories. Maybe a Mubarak assassination. Who knows? But

least likely would be for Tehran to shift emphasis back into Iraq. At

least not at this juncture.

The elections in Iran obviously are part of the mix.

The elections in the US aren't likely to be part of it. The meaning of

the primaries must be at least as hard for Tehran to decipher as it is

for us--it's just too early for them to be attempting to influence them.

--

NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg

"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:cognac756-D6A7DC.21241724032008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...

> In article <47e82921$0$30683$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,

> "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:

>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341108,00.html

>> Petraeus: Iran Behind Rocket Attack On Green Zone

>> Monday, March 24, 2008

>> "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for

>> example...

>> were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said, adding that the

>> groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds Force.

>> "All of this in complete violation of promises made by President

>> Ahmadinejad

>> and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts,"

>> he

>> told the BBC.

>> Some rockets meant for the Green Zone missed their targets, killing 15

>> Iraqi

>> civilians, officials said.

> What is this a sign of?

Somebody queered the deal.

> Obviously, something is up. Just as obviously, the NIE (where Iran was

> declared nuclear weapons free since 2003) was part of a deal. The

> cessation of violence since the surge had to be partly a result of this

> deal.

> Last I checked, al-Sadr is still telling his thugs to lay low.

Yep. But his thugs have been severely attrited. He's got plenty of warm

bodies left but not that many that can shoot straight or actually want to...

He knows you can't be much of a religious leader without a vocal and

obedient following.

> One would expect the the Iranians to shift to Afghanistan, Pakistan and

> the Occupied Territories. Maybe a Mubarak assassination. Who knows? But

> least likely would be for Tehran to shift emphasis back into Iraq. At

> least not at this juncture.

Well... The first thought is something like a mini-mutiny in Iran.

Although extremely obvious its basically a dumb thought because the reprisal

would be swift.

I'm thinking Iran's influence doesn't extend to the street level in Iraq and

that's where there was a breakdown in orders. This last attack was a lot of

inventory.

Of course we have to remember that we started with a powerful self-motivated

self-sufficient madman (Zarqawi) running Al Qaeda in Iraq and have

successively turned that into basically the weakest dumbass who missed the

last meeting and got appointed to be the next target.

Its definitely time, past time, for somebody to get popped. We have a

reliable guy running Pakistan's military, the Bhutto thing is over and gone,

and Afghanistan is again largely an isolated shooting-fish-in-a-barrel type

of deal.

> The elections in Iran obviously are part of the mix.

A-Jad didn't do well and there was a very low turnout which spells serious

trouble for the ruling Ayatollahs behind then scenes. Not immediate trouble

but big trouble down range. Once they begin to ignore you its the same as

not being there at all.... The problem with running things from behind the

scenes is that you only know they think you matter when they obey you.

> The elections in the US aren't likely to be part of it. The meaning of

> the primaries must be at least as hard for Tehran to decipher as it is

> for us--it's just too early for them to be attempting to influence them.

I don't consider them dumb enough to make moves right now. They were always

going to have an enemy and from their perspective it doesn't matter who it

is. McAmnesty, Mitt, whomever, doesn't matter. And by proving their

enemy's comments correct they harm themselves and further allow their

potential friend (which, again, doesn't matter who it is) to take heat.

In article <47e8fba0$0$17361$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,

"Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:

> "Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:cognac756-D6A7DC.21241724032008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...

> > In article <47e82921$0$30683$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,

> > "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:

> >> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341108,00.html

> >> Petraeus: Iran Behind Rocket Attack On Green Zone

> >> Monday, March 24, 2008

> >> "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for

> >> example...

> >> were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said, adding that the

> >> groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds Force.

> >> "All of this in complete violation of promises made by President

> >> Ahmadinejad

> >> and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts,"

> >> he

> >> told the BBC.

> >> Some rockets meant for the Green Zone missed their targets, killing 15

> >> Iraqi

> >> civilians, officials said.

> > What is this a sign of?

>

> Somebody queered the deal.

The Iranians don't queer deals. Ollie North sells them 200 TOW missiles,

and, sure enough, they have Lebanese Hizbullah release all of its

American hostages.

Their word is their currency. And they follow through--and their ability

to follow through is also their currency. It's how they've gotten this

far in the region.

They do retaliate for wrongs, however. The Lockerbie thingy was

supposedly retaliation for the "accidental" shooting down of an Iranian

airliner by the USS Vincennes.

(For those following along at home, yes we know it was thought to be a

Libyan job and Qadaffi even paid reparations. Nevertheless, Qadaffi

hasn't been behind any attacks against the US since Reagan bombed his

personal compound and killed his adopted baby daughter in 1986. He was

one of the first Middle Eastern heads of state to condemn the 9/11

attacks. Court proceedings indicate the Lockerbie bombing was cooked up

by Tehran and Damascus--without quite connecting all the dots. Since the

two idiot perps who planted the "boom" boxes happened to be Libyan,

Qadaffi was left holding the bag. He paid reparations for the same

reason a bookie donates money to the "police retirement fund.")

If someone queered the deal, it might indicate a loss of control on the

Iraq street, yes. Just as you say below.

But the IRGC is all over the Shi'ite provinces, and Iraq Hizbullah has a

military arm estimated at over 30,000--which prolly means their

political arm is twice that big. The Die Hard Ba'athists are funded by

Damascus--which we should spell "Tehran." Same for so-called "al-Qaeda

in Mesopotamia" and the related revolutionary salafist groups. By all

appearances, Iran had cornered the Insurgency Market in Iraq--playing

both sides of the deal. Either directly or indirectly, they've all been

taking their orders from Ali Khameine'i.

Either a sub-commander left the reservation, or Iran is retaliating for

something.

>

> > Obviously, something is up. Just as obviously, the NIE (where Iran was

> > declared nuclear weapons free since 2003) was part of a deal. The

> > cessation of violence since the surge had to be partly a result of this

> > deal.

> > Last I checked, al-Sadr is still telling his thugs to lay low.

>

> Yep. But his thugs have been severely attrited. He's got plenty of warm

> bodies left but not that many that can shoot straight or actually want to...

> He knows you can't be much of a religious leader without a vocal and

> obedient following.

I see this morning where Mukie is calling for a sit-in.

Obviously he doesn't have the teeth. Not only are his soldiers dead or

in jail, but I don't think the Persian Gravy Train is running on time

anymore.

>

> > One would expect the the Iranians to shift to Afghanistan, Pakistan and

> > the Occupied Territories. Maybe a Mubarak assassination. Who knows? But

> > least likely would be for Tehran to shift emphasis back into Iraq. At

> > least not at this juncture.

>

> Well... The first thought is something like a mini-mutiny in Iran.

> Although extremely obvious its basically a dumb thought because the reprisal

> would be swift.

>

> I'm thinking Iran's influence doesn't extend to the street level in Iraq and

> that's where there was a breakdown in orders. This last attack was a lot of

> inventory.

>

> Of course we have to remember that we started with a powerful self-motivated

> self-sufficient madman (Zarqawi) running Al Qaeda in Iraq and have

> successively turned that into basically the weakest dumbass who missed the

> last meeting and got appointed to be the next target.

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Sounds/Evil%20laugh.mp3

>

> Its definitely time, past time, for somebody to get popped. We have a

> reliable guy running Pakistan's military, the Bhutto thing is over and gone,

> and Afghanistan is again largely an isolated shooting-fish-in-a-barrel type

> of deal.

I keep thinking Tehran is reaching the same conclusion.

And I keep thinking the Occupied Territories rather than Afghanistan.

Assassinate Mubarak, move al-Zawahiri back into Egypt. Then a HAMAS

attack on Golan--force Israel into overreacting--give her absolutely no

choice.

THEN Iran could "retaliate" with a WMD attack on Tel Aviv. Israel is

about as weak at her helm as she's ever been. A Shahab tipped with VX

prolly would make it if Tehran launched 30 or 40 of them in quick

succession. If IDF gets caught shooting kids on too many phone cameras,

then Tehran might even bring out her nukes.

The key for Tehran is justification.

They may not fully understand American politics, but they know that if

you bring Israel into the War on Terror, you're gonna take away a lot of

the moral high ground America enjoys today. And, of course, despite the

opinions of Uncle Jerimiah, and Barack Obomination and the millions of

Usenet loonies they represent, America very much enjoys the moral high

ground in the Middle East right now.

>

> > The elections in Iran obviously are part of the mix.

>

> A-Jad didn't do well and there was a very low turnout which spells serious

> trouble for the ruling Ayatollahs behind then scenes. Not immediate trouble

> but big trouble down range. Once they begin to ignore you its the same as

> not being there at all.... The problem with running things from behind the

> scenes is that you only know they think you matter when they obey you.

Yes yes and yes. Trouble down the road. Desperate enough for an

Operation: Northwoods, at least. Desperate enough to hurt Israel badly

and therefore invite a retaliatory strike from her. An enemy at the

gates is how Ruhollah consolidated his power during the Iran-Iraq War.

The trick is to A) pull it off, and B) survive pulling it off. Tall

orders, but it's what they've been working towards for generations now.

If they've lost Iraq and Afghanistan. If they can't make gains in

Azerbaijan. If Bosnia and Albania can't be turned to the dark side. If

their economy slides father down the toilet. And, most importantly, IF A

TWO STATE SOLUTION WERE TO SUDDENLY BECOME A REAL POSSIBILITY, well,

then I think we know what Tehran would decide.

Tehran would decide that it's finally time to take the kid gloves off.

And the mask.

>

> > The elections in the US aren't likely to be part of it. The meaning of

> > the primaries must be at least as hard for Tehran to decipher as it is

> > for us--it's just too early for them to be attempting to influence them.

>

> I don't consider them dumb enough to make moves right now. They were always

> going to have an enemy and from their perspective it doesn't matter who it

> is. McAmnesty, Mitt, whomever, doesn't matter. And by proving their

> enemy's comments correct they harm themselves and further allow their

> potential friend (which, again, doesn't matter who it is) to take heat.

Yes, they certainly realize this.

The key for Tehran is justification.

--

NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg

On Mar 24, 6:20 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

[ The same hysterical ranting he's been raving since early December

2006. ]

YAWN

"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:cognac756-F7F0FE.10063925032008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...

> In article <47e8fba0$0$17361$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,

> "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:

>> "Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:cognac756-D6A7DC.21241724032008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...

>> > In article <47e82921$0$30683$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,

>> > "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:

>> >> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341108,00.html

>> >> Petraeus: Iran Behind Rocket Attack On Green Zone

>> >> Monday, March 24, 2008

>> >> "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for

>> >> example...

>> >> were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said, adding that the

>> >> groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds Force.

>> >> "All of this in complete violation of promises made by President

>> >> Ahmadinejad

>> >> and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi

>> >> counterparts,"

>> >> he

>> >> told the BBC.

>> >> Some rockets meant for the Green Zone missed their targets, killing 15

>> >> Iraqi

>> >> civilians, officials said.

>> > What is this a sign of?

>> Somebody queered the deal.

> The Iranians don't queer deals. Ollie North sells them 200 TOW missiles,

> and, sure enough, they have Lebanese Hizbullah release all of its

> American hostages.

> Their word is their currency. And they follow through--and their ability

> to follow through is also their currency. It's how they've gotten this

> far in the region.

I really can't argue that BUT it sure looks like one or more elements of an

agreement were unfulfilled and said agreement became null and void...

> They do retaliate for wrongs, however. The Lockerbie thingy was

> supposedly retaliation for the "accidental" shooting down of an Iranian

> airliner by the USS Vincennes.

> (For those following along at home, yes we know it was thought to be a

> Libyan job and Qadaffi even paid reparations. Nevertheless, Qadaffi

> hasn't been behind any attacks against the US since Reagan bombed his

> personal compound and killed his adopted baby daughter in 1986.

It was an accident! I swear it! (Sure got his attention!)

> He was

> one of the first Middle Eastern heads of state to condemn the 9/11

> attacks. Court proceedings indicate the Lockerbie bombing was cooked up

> by Tehran and Damascus--without quite connecting all the dots. Since the

> two idiot perps who planted the "boom" boxes happened to be Libyan,

> Qadaffi was left holding the bag. He paid reparations for the same

> reason a bookie donates money to the "police retirement fund.")

> If someone queered the deal, it might indicate a loss of control on the

> Iraq street, yes. Just as you say below.

> But the IRGC is all over the Shi'ite provinces, and Iraq Hizbullah has a

> military arm estimated at over 30,000--which prolly means their

> political arm is twice that big. The Die Hard Ba'athists are funded by

> Damascus--which we should spell "Tehran." Same for so-called "al-Qaeda

> in Mesopotamia" and the related revolutionary salafist groups. By all

> appearances, Iran had cornered the Insurgency Market in Iraq--playing

> both sides of the deal. Either directly or indirectly, they've all been

> taking their orders from Ali Khameine'i.

> Either a sub-commander left the reservation, or Iran is retaliating for

> something.

It would be unusual for them to mess up this deal because of something not

included in this deal. So I'm guessing that something IN this deal went

bad. Maybe we were suppossed to do something and didn't, maybe the Iraqis

renegged on something?

>> Yep. But his thugs have been severely attrited. He's got plenty of warm

>> bodies left but not that many that can shoot straight or actually want

>> to...

>> He knows you can't be much of a religious leader without a vocal and

>> obedient following.

> I see this morning where Mukie is calling for a sit-in.

> Obviously he doesn't have the teeth. Not only are his soldiers dead or

> in jail, but I don't think the Persian Gravy Train is running on time

> anymore.

Hahahaha!! He's been a big disappointment to them! They didn't expect a

military acumen from him but they DID expect him to recruit some and he

didn't and that led to a lot of his guys getting dead. Then, when they

expected strength and leadership from him he FLED into hiding. Then, while

in hiding, issued the Sadr-version of "Can't we all just get along?"

Basically he's done nothing right for them.

We didn't suck as an urban counter-insurgency force before this but after

Fallujah (twice) and dealing with Sadr we are BY FAR the preeminent urban

counter-insurgency force on the planet. Sadr's inability to deliver what

his master's wanted was our training ground and our success has been

exclusively at his expense. That "Persian Gravy Train" can't be too happy.

It wouldn't surprise me if that "Persian Gravy Train" put on Sadr ballcaps,

launched an non-trivial attack, changed clothes and snuck back to Tehran to

watch Sadr take a beating!

>> Its definitely time, past time, for somebody to get popped. We have a

>> reliable guy running Pakistan's military, the Bhutto thing is over and

>> gone,

>> and Afghanistan is again largely an isolated shooting-fish-in-a-barrel

>> type

>> of deal.

> I keep thinking Tehran is reaching the same conclusion.

> And I keep thinking the Occupied Territories rather than Afghanistan.

They need to stay away from Afghanistan. If they get outted in Afghanistan

they're in big trouble, which puts the Russians in big trouble. We've got a

tipping point in Afghanistan coming. Again, the Taliban are barking about a

Spring Offensive. Their last Spring Offensive was a disaster for them. So

they will either launch another disaster and be whooped like junkyard dogs

OR they won't launch another disaster and be viewed as junkyard dogs.

Either way this is extremely likely to be the Afghan version of Anbar

Province. If the only currency the Taliban have is fear and we eliminate

that they're toast. Tehran doesn't want to be around when this happens.

> Assassinate Mubarak, move al-Zawahiri back into Egypt. Then a HAMAS

> attack on Golan--force Israel into overreacting--give her absolutely no

> choice.

The Russians would be unhappy with that... (Not that that matters...)

Israel has shown extraordinary restraint. But that just can't last forever.

> THEN Iran could "retaliate" with a WMD attack on Tel Aviv. Israel is

> about as weak at her helm as she's ever been. A Shahab tipped with VX

> prolly would make it if Tehran launched 30 or 40 of them in quick

> succession. If IDF gets caught shooting kids on too many phone cameras,

> then Tehran might even bring out her nukes.

> The key for Tehran is justification.

Its a plausible scenario. I can well imagine that the next Israeli

smackdown will be big just because they've got to be getting pretty fed up

with all the nitpicking! But a cleansing of the Golan isn't proper

justification for Tehran to attack. The "world" won't accept that. If YOU

aren't attacked then YOU cannot retaliate. Tehran would have to do in Golan

(or somewhere) what they're doing in Iraq, they would have to proxy this

until Israel has had enough and attacks them. THEN Tehran could beserk on

Israel.

But you know what would happen.... Tehran's missles would still be in

flight and Israel would let everything go and we'd certainly jump in! Its

suicide but then that's how they think anyway...

> They may not fully understand American politics, but they know that if

> you bring Israel into the War on Terror, you're gonna take away a lot of

> the moral high ground America enjoys today. And, of course, despite the

> opinions of Uncle Jerimiah, and Barack Obomination and the millions of

> Usenet loonies they represent, America very much enjoys the moral high

> ground in the Middle East right now.

Sure. Most Americans are light years opposite Uncle Jerimiah and Buckwheat!

The biggest problem is Israel can't finish the fight. Doesn't matter who

starts it or even why, WE are the only folks that will finish it. And,

(you're 100% correct) we don't want to be put in a position to finish it if

that means we have to get dung on our boots doing it. In their own

individual way the White House, half of Congress, 7/8ths of the Pentagon,

and at least half of America would LOVE the Iranians to make the first move

so we could utterly wipe them out while still being the Good Guys in White

Hats!

> Yes yes and yes. Trouble down the road. Desperate enough for an

> Operation: Northwoods, at least. Desperate enough to hurt Israel badly

> and therefore invite a retaliatory strike from her. An enemy at the

> gates is how Ruhollah consolidated his power during the Iran-Iraq War.

> The trick is to A) pull it off, and B) survive pulling it off. Tall

> orders, but it's what they've been working towards for generations now.

Really, really, really tall orders! "B" is mostly a fantasy.

> If they've lost Iraq and Afghanistan. If they can't make gains in

> Azerbaijan. If Bosnia and Albania can't be turned to the dark side. If

> their economy slides father down the toilet. And, most importantly, IF A

> TWO STATE SOLUTION WERE TO SUDDENLY BECOME A REAL POSSIBILITY, well,

> then I think we know what Tehran would decide.

And that's what happenning. Each of those worst-case scenarios for Iran is

happenning at this very moment. I can easily see them freaking out. But

the cost of freaking out is gonna be massive.

> Tehran would decide that it's finally time to take the kid gloves off.

> And the mask.

Please, please, please, please.... I'm an impatient person but I can shut

up and let diplomacy happen even if it takes a while so long as we think it

might work and we're seeing forward motion. But there just is NOT a

diplomatic solution here. So let's just get it over with!? The Mullahs

will NEVER go away. Israel will NEVER go away. Somebody has to lose and

somebody has to win and all we're doing now is stalling the inevitable and

hoping that some magic happens. Ain't gonna be no magic.... Its a straight

up fight and the sooner we do it the sooner its done.

> The key for Tehran is justification.

They're not gonna get it from us. They are responsible for over 70% of our

casualities in the last 18 months in Iraq. And we are apparently going to

report that while doing nothing about it. Don't ask me to explain it.

So, as you said, they will have to get that justification from Israel.

If they can.

>"All of this in complete violation of promises made by President Ahmadinejad

>and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts," he

>told the BBC.

Does he mean there are actually people alive today that believe anything Ahmadinejad

and other Iranian leaders say?....AAC

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:20:20 -0400, "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:

>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341108,00.html

>

>Petraeus: Iran Behind Rocket Attack On Green Zone

>Monday, March 24, 2008

>

>Gen. David Petraeus, commanding general of the Multi-National Forces in

>Iraq, says he has evidence that Iran trained, equipped and funded insurgents

>who fired a volley of mortars and rockets at the protected Green Zone in

>Baghdad.

>

>Petraeus, in an interview Monday with the BBC, said Iran's Quds Force, a

>branch of the Revolutionary Guards, was behind the insurgent attack.

>

>"The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for example...

>were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said, adding that the

>groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds Force.

>

>"All of this in complete violation of promises made by President Ahmadinejad

>and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts," he

>told the BBC.

>

>Some rockets meant for the Green Zone missed their targets, killing 15 Iraqi

>civilians, officials said.

>

On Mar 26, 6:12 pm, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

<talkradiotruth...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 25, 11:14 am, "Tom Sr." <tomswif...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Mar 24, 6:20 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

> > [ The same hysterical ranting he's been raving since early December

> > 2006. ]

> -

> > YAWN

> -

> Why do you even bother with your boring yawns?

I'm "yawning" because I'm bored.

Why do you continue to beat a dead horse, Mr. Mental Disorder?

> You can't even make a

> sensical argument anyway,

"Sensical" is not a word in modern English:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sensical

The word, however, was in use in the mid-1800s --

http://www.vocaboly.com/forums/ftopic5468.html

-- which is apparently the same time period your politcial beliefs are

from.

I suspect you mean "sensible".

You're reading comprehension is very poor, Mr. Mental Disorder. I

made a "sensical" arguement. For well over a year, Games has been

repeatedly screaming "Bomb Iran NOW!" -- and Iran has not been bombed;

I find that very boring.

Notice Games has never suggested what would happen or what the United

States would do afterwards IF it bombed Iran. Such short-term

thinking is that of a pathetic moron.

> nor can you excuse your ignorance about

> Venezuela's membership in OPEC.

Whenever you now reply to me, it is merely to beat that very dead

horse.

YAWN!

Again:

You find a leaf and think it the forest.

Do try to understand the meaning of my reply this time. Mr. Mental

Disorder. It does answer you.

> What a pathetic moron you are.

It is you, I suspect, most readers would think is not "sensical".

Have a NICE day!

-Tom Sr.

On Mar 24, 4:20 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341108,00.html

>

> Petraeus: Iran Behind Rocket Attack On Green Zone

> Monday, March 24, 2008

>

> Gen. David Petraeus, commanding general of the Multi-National Forces in

> Iraq, says he has evidence that Iran trained, equipped and funded insurgents

> who fired a volley of mortars and rockets at the protected Green Zone in

> Baghdad.

>

> Petraeus, in an interview Monday with the BBC, said Iran's Quds Force, a

> branch of the Revolutionary Guards, was behind the insurgent attack.

>

> "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for example...

> were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said, adding that the

> groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds Force.

The US and Iran both want Iraq. Neither of us has a right to it. The

question is, whose tactics are superior in this fight? It looks like

Iran's "supply insurgents and wait" tactic is more effective. It costs

a lot less to slip weapons across the border than it does for us to

try to hold on from half way around the world. Of course we have

nukes, but we can't use them.

Lobster

"Johnny Lobster" <jstarret@sdc.org> wrote in message

news:3eda4374-b7cf-459a-9f81-b4a45c89bca3@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 24, 4:20 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341108,00.html

>>

>> Petraeus: Iran Behind Rocket Attack On Green Zone

>> Monday, March 24, 2008

>>

>> Gen. David Petraeus, commanding general of the Multi-National Forces in

>> Iraq, says he has evidence that Iran trained, equipped and funded

>> insurgents

>> who fired a volley of mortars and rockets at the protected Green Zone in

>> Baghdad.

>>

>> Petraeus, in an interview Monday with the BBC, said Iran's Quds Force, a

>> branch of the Revolutionary Guards, was behind the insurgent attack.

>>

>> "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for

>> example...

>> were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said, adding that the

>> groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds Force.

>

> The US and Iran both want Iraq. Neither of us has a right to it. The

> question is, whose tactics are superior in this fight? It looks like

> Iran's "supply insurgents and wait" tactic is more effective. It costs

> a lot less to slip weapons across the border than it does for us to

> try to hold on from half way around the world. Of course we have

> nukes, but we can't use them.

>

> Lobster

And your expertise in foreign policy comes from where?

--

NewsProxy used here. Crossposters

and multiple addressees blocked.

JC

>> Gen. David Petraeus, commanding general of the Multi-National

>> Forces in Iraq, says he has evidence that Iran trained, equipped

>> and funded insurgents who fired a volley of mortars and rockets

>> at the protected Green Zone in Baghdad.

Like Bush had "evidence" of WMDs in Baghdad?

>> Petraeus, in an interview Monday with the BBC, said Iran's Quds

>> Force, a branch of the Revolutionary Guards, was behind the

>> insurgent attack.

"Behind" is a weasel word, like "linked to."

>> "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for

>> example... were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said,

>> adding that the groups that fired them were funded and trained by

>> the Quds Force.

We supply most of the world with weapons. Are we responsible for

every use of them? Or is this a trick to get us into a war with Iran?

> The US and Iran both want Iraq. Neither of us has a right to it.

There is no reason to think that Iran "wants" Iraq.

> The question is, whose tactics are superior in this fight? It

The questio is, what is the right thing to do? The answer is: bring

our troops home.

> looks like Iran's "supply insurgents and wait" tactic is more

An assumption, created to justify an invasion and occupation of Iran.

> effective. It costs a lot less to slip weapons across the border

> than it does for us to try to hold on from half way around the

> world.

Maybe we should have thought of that six years ago?

> Of course we have nukes, but we can't use them. Lobster

How disappointing for you and the other nazis.

JC wrote:

> "Johnny Lobster" <jstarret@sdc.org> wrote in message

> news:3eda4374-b7cf-459a-9f81-b4a45c89bca3@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

> > On Mar 24, 4:20 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

> >> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341108,00.html

> >>

> >> Petraeus: Iran Behind Rocket Attack On Green Zone

> >> Monday, March 24, 2008

> >>

> >> Gen. David Petraeus, commanding general of the Multi-National Forces in

> >> Iraq, says he has evidence that Iran trained, equipped and funded

> >> insurgents

> >> who fired a volley of mortars and rockets at the protected Green Zone in

> >> Baghdad.

> >>

> >> Petraeus, in an interview Monday with the BBC, said Iran's Quds Force, a

> >> branch of the Revolutionary Guards, was behind the insurgent attack.

> >>

> >> "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for

> >> example...

> >> were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said, adding that the

> >> groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds Force.

> >

> > The US and Iran both want Iraq. Neither of us has a right to it. The

> > question is, whose tactics are superior in this fight? It looks like

> > Iran's "supply insurgents and wait" tactic is more effective. It costs

> > a lot less to slip weapons across the border than it does for us to

> > try to hold on from half way around the world. Of course we have

> > nukes, but we can't use them.

> >

> > Lobster

>

> And your expertise in foreign policy comes from where?

What in my post did you disagree with?

Lobster

"Johnny Lobster" <jstarret@sdc.org> wrote in message

news:25d35a7a-c644-4577-ad2d-ae8da5847a7f@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

>

>

> JC wrote:

>> "Johnny Lobster" <jstarret@sdc.org> wrote in message

>> news:3eda4374-b7cf-459a-9f81-b4a45c89bca3@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

>> > On Mar 24, 4:20 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

>> >> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341108,00.html

>> >>

>> >> Petraeus: Iran Behind Rocket Attack On Green Zone

>> >> Monday, March 24, 2008

>> >>

>> >> Gen. David Petraeus, commanding general of the Multi-National Forces

>> >> in

>> >> Iraq, says he has evidence that Iran trained, equipped and funded

>> >> insurgents

>> >> who fired a volley of mortars and rockets at the protected Green Zone

>> >> in

>> >> Baghdad.

>> >>

>> >> Petraeus, in an interview Monday with the BBC, said Iran's Quds Force,

>> >> a

>> >> branch of the Revolutionary Guards, was behind the insurgent attack.

>> >>

>> >> "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for

>> >> example...

>> >> were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said, adding that the

>> >> groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds Force.

>> >

>> > The US and Iran both want Iraq. Neither of us has a right to it. The

>> > question is, whose tactics are superior in this fight? It looks like

>> > Iran's "supply insurgents and wait" tactic is more effective. It costs

>> > a lot less to slip weapons across the border than it does for us to

>> > try to hold on from half way around the world. Of course we have

>> > nukes, but we can't use them.

>> >

>> > Lobster

>>

>> And your expertise in foreign policy comes from where?

>

> What in my post did you disagree with?

>

> Lobster

I'm not interested.

On Mar 27, 11:17 am, "JC" <dontbot...@imouttatown.net> wrote:

> "Johnny Lobster" <jstar...@sdc.org> wrote in message

>

> news:25d35a7a-c644-4577-ad2d-ae8da5847a7f@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

>

>

>

>

>

> > JC wrote:

> >> "Johnny Lobster" <jstar...@sdc.org> wrote in message

> >>news:3eda4374-b7cf-459a-9f81-b4a45c89bca3@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

> >> > On Mar 24, 4:20 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

> >> >>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341108,00.html

>

> >> >> Petraeus: Iran Behind Rocket Attack On Green Zone

> >> >> Monday, March 24, 2008

>

> >> >> Gen. David Petraeus, commanding general of the Multi-National Forces

> >> >> in

> >> >> Iraq, says he has evidence that Iran trained, equipped and funded

> >> >> insurgents

> >> >> who fired a volley of mortars and rockets at the protected Green Zone

> >> >> in

> >> >> Baghdad.

>

> >> >> Petraeus, in an interview Monday with the BBC, said Iran's Quds Force,

> >> >> a

> >> >> branch of the Revolutionary Guards, was behind the insurgent attack.

>

> >> >> "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for

> >> >> example...

> >> >> were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said, adding that the

> >> >> groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds Force.

>

> >> > The US and Iran both want Iraq. Neither of us has a right to it. The

> >> > question is, whose tactics are superior in this fight? It looks like

> >> > Iran's "supply insurgents and wait" tactic is more effective. It costs

> >> > a lot less to slip weapons across the border than it does for us to

> >> > try to hold on from half way around the world. Of course we have

> >> > nukes, but we can't use them.

>

> >> > Lobster

>

> >> And your expertise in foreign policy comes from where?

>

> > What in my post did you disagree with?

>

> > Lobster

>

> I'm not interested.

I understand. It is too difficult to come up with a cogent reply. You

made the right decision.

Lobster

In article <47ea63a3$0$30693$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,

"Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:

> "Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:cognac756-F7F0FE.10063925032008@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...

> > In article <47e8fba0$0$17361$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,

> > "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:

> >> "Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >> news:cognac756-D6A7DC.21241724032008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...

> >> > In article <47e82921$0$30683$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,

> >> > "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:

> >> >> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341108,00.html

> >> >> Petraeus: Iran Behind Rocket Attack On Green Zone

> >> >> Monday, March 24, 2008

> >> >> "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for

> >> >> example...

> >> >> were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said, adding that the

> >> >> groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds Force.

> >> >> "All of this in complete violation of promises made by President

> >> >> Ahmadinejad

> >> >> and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi

> >> >> counterparts,"

> >> >> he

> >> >> told the BBC.

> >> >> Some rockets meant for the Green Zone missed their targets, killing 15

> >> >> Iraqi

> >> >> civilians, officials said.

> >> > What is this a sign of?

> >> Somebody queered the deal.

> > The Iranians don't queer deals. Ollie North sells them 200 TOW missiles,

> > and, sure enough, they have Lebanese Hizbullah release all of its

> > American hostages.

> > Their word is their currency. And they follow through--and their ability

> > to follow through is also their currency. It's how they've gotten this

> > far in the region.

>

> I really can't argue that BUT it sure looks like one or more elements of an

> agreement were unfulfilled and said agreement became null and void...

>

> > They do retaliate for wrongs, however. The Lockerbie thingy was

> > supposedly retaliation for the "accidental" shooting down of an Iranian

> > airliner by the USS Vincennes.

> > (For those following along at home, yes we know it was thought to be a

> > Libyan job and Qadaffi even paid reparations. Nevertheless, Qadaffi

> > hasn't been behind any attacks against the US since Reagan bombed his

> > personal compound and killed his adopted baby daughter in 1986.

>

> It was an accident! I swear it! (Sure got his attention!)

>

> > He was

> > one of the first Middle Eastern heads of state to condemn the 9/11

> > attacks. Court proceedings indicate the Lockerbie bombing was cooked up

> > by Tehran and Damascus--without quite connecting all the dots. Since the

> > two idiot perps who planted the "boom" boxes happened to be Libyan,

> > Qadaffi was left holding the bag. He paid reparations for the same

> > reason a bookie donates money to the "police retirement fund.")

> > If someone queered the deal, it might indicate a loss of control on the

> > Iraq street, yes. Just as you say below.

> > But the IRGC is all over the Shi'ite provinces, and Iraq Hizbullah has a

> > military arm estimated at over 30,000--which prolly means their

> > political arm is twice that big. The Die Hard Ba'athists are funded by

> > Damascus--which we should spell "Tehran." Same for so-called "al-Qaeda

> > in Mesopotamia" and the related revolutionary salafist groups. By all

> > appearances, Iran had cornered the Insurgency Market in Iraq--playing

> > both sides of the deal. Either directly or indirectly, they've all been

> > taking their orders from Ali Khameine'i.

> > Either a sub-commander left the reservation, or Iran is retaliating for

> > something.

>

> It would be unusual for them to mess up this deal because of something not

> included in this deal. So I'm guessing that something IN this deal went

> bad. Maybe we were suppossed to do something and didn't, maybe the Iraqis

> renegged on something?

>

> >> Yep. But his thugs have been severely attrited. He's got plenty of warm

> >> bodies left but not that many that can shoot straight or actually want

> >> to...

> >> He knows you can't be much of a religious leader without a vocal and

> >> obedient following.

> > I see this morning where Mukie is calling for a sit-in.

> > Obviously he doesn't have the teeth. Not only are his soldiers dead or

> > in jail, but I don't think the Persian Gravy Train is running on time

> > anymore.

>

> Hahahaha!! He's been a big disappointment to them! They didn't expect a

> military acumen from him but they DID expect him to recruit some and he

> didn't and that led to a lot of his guys getting dead. Then, when they

> expected strength and leadership from him he FLED into hiding. Then, while

> in hiding, issued the Sadr-version of "Can't we all just get along?"

> Basically he's done nothing right for them.

>

> We didn't suck as an urban counter-insurgency force before this but after

> Fallujah (twice) and dealing with Sadr we are BY FAR the preeminent urban

> counter-insurgency force on the planet. Sadr's inability to deliver what

> his master's wanted was our training ground and our success has been

> exclusively at his expense. That "Persian Gravy Train" can't be too happy.

>

> It wouldn't surprise me if that "Persian Gravy Train" put on Sadr ballcaps,

> launched an non-trivial attack, changed clothes and snuck back to Tehran to

> watch Sadr take a beating!

>

> >> Its definitely time, past time, for somebody to get popped. We have a

> >> reliable guy running Pakistan's military, the Bhutto thing is over and

> >> gone,

> >> and Afghanistan is again largely an isolated shooting-fish-in-a-barrel

> >> type

> >> of deal.

> > I keep thinking Tehran is reaching the same conclusion.

> > And I keep thinking the Occupied Territories rather than Afghanistan.

>

> They need to stay away from Afghanistan. If they get outted in Afghanistan

> they're in big trouble, which puts the Russians in big trouble. We've got a

> tipping point in Afghanistan coming. Again, the Taliban are barking about a

> Spring Offensive. Their last Spring Offensive was a disaster for them. So

> they will either launch another disaster and be whooped like junkyard dogs

> OR they won't launch another disaster and be viewed as junkyard dogs.

> Either way this is extremely likely to be the Afghan version of Anbar

> Province. If the only currency the Taliban have is fear and we eliminate

> that they're toast. Tehran doesn't want to be around when this happens.

>

> > Assassinate Mubarak, move al-Zawahiri back into Egypt. Then a HAMAS

> > attack on Golan--force Israel into overreacting--give her absolutely no

> > choice.

>

> The Russians would be unhappy with that... (Not that that matters...)

>

> Israel has shown extraordinary restraint. But that just can't last forever.

>

> > THEN Iran could "retaliate" with a WMD attack on Tel Aviv. Israel is

> > about as weak at her helm as she's ever been. A Shahab tipped with VX

> > prolly would make it if Tehran launched 30 or 40 of them in quick

> > succession. If IDF gets caught shooting kids on too many phone cameras,

> > then Tehran might even bring out her nukes.

> > The key for Tehran is justification.

>

> Its a plausible scenario. I can well imagine that the next Israeli

> smackdown will be big just because they've got to be getting pretty fed up

> with all the nitpicking! But a cleansing of the Golan isn't proper

> justification for Tehran to attack. The "world" won't accept that. If YOU

> aren't attacked then YOU cannot retaliate. Tehran would have to do in Golan

> (or somewhere) what they're doing in Iraq, they would have to proxy this

> until Israel has had enough and attacks them. THEN Tehran could beserk on

> Israel.

>

> But you know what would happen.... Tehran's missles would still be in

> flight and Israel would let everything go and we'd certainly jump in! Its

> suicide but then that's how they think anyway...

>

> > They may not fully understand American politics, but they know that if

> > you bring Israel into the War on Terror, you're gonna take away a lot of

> > the moral high ground America enjoys today. And, of course, despite the

> > opinions of Uncle Jerimiah, and Barack Obomination and the millions of

> > Usenet loonies they represent, America very much enjoys the moral high

> > ground in the Middle East right now.

>

> Sure. Most Americans are light years opposite Uncle Jerimiah and Buckwheat!

> The biggest problem is Israel can't finish the fight. Doesn't matter who

> starts it or even why, WE are the only folks that will finish it. And,

> (you're 100% correct) we don't want to be put in a position to finish it if

> that means we have to get dung on our boots doing it. In their own

> individual way the White House, half of Congress, 7/8ths of the Pentagon,

> and at least half of America would LOVE the Iranians to make the first move

> so we could utterly wipe them out while still being the Good Guys in White

> Hats!

>

> > Yes yes and yes. Trouble down the road. Desperate enough for an

> > Operation: Northwoods, at least. Desperate enough to hurt Israel badly

> > and therefore invite a retaliatory strike from her. An enemy at the

> > gates is how Ruhollah consolidated his power during the Iran-Iraq War.

> > The trick is to A) pull it off, and B) survive pulling it off. Tall

> > orders, but it's what they've been working towards for generations now.

>

> Really, really, really tall orders! "B" is mostly a fantasy.

>

> > If they've lost Iraq and Afghanistan. If they can't make gains in

> > Azerbaijan. If Bosnia and Albania can't be turned to the dark side. If

> > their economy slides father down the toilet. And, most importantly, IF A

> > TWO STATE SOLUTION WERE TO SUDDENLY BECOME A REAL POSSIBILITY, well,

> > then I think we know what Tehran would decide.

>

> And that's what happenning. Each of those worst-case scenarios for Iran is

> happenning at this very moment. I can easily see them freaking out. But

> the cost of freaking out is gonna be massive.

>

> > Tehran would decide that it's finally time to take the kid gloves off.

> > And the mask.

>

> Please, please, please, please.... I'm an impatient person but I can shut

> up and let diplomacy happen even if it takes a while so long as we think it

> might work and we're seeing forward motion. But there just is NOT a

> diplomatic solution here. So let's just get it over with!? The Mullahs

> will NEVER go away. Israel will NEVER go away. Somebody has to lose and

> somebody has to win and all we're doing now is stalling the inevitable and

> hoping that some magic happens. Ain't gonna be no magic.... Its a straight

> up fight and the sooner we do it the sooner its done.

>

> > The key for Tehran is justification.

>

> They're not gonna get it from us. They are responsible for over 70% of our

> casualities in the last 18 months in Iraq. And we are apparently going to

> report that while doing nothing about it. Don't ask me to explain it.

>

> So, as you said, they will have to get that justification from Israel.

>

> If they can.

It may come.

There is even more going on there than I originally thought. These may

well be Iranian directed attacks, and they may be by-passing Mukie,

I gotta look into this some more...

--

NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg

"AnAmericanCitizen" <NoAmnesty@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:t4hlu3hing91p7df20eqsnau8tm5kc3rob@4ax.com...

>>"All of this in complete violation of promises made by President

>>Ahmadinejad

>>and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts," he

>>told the BBC.

> Does he mean there are actually people alive today that believe anything

> Ahmadinejad

> and other Iranian leaders say?....AAC

We have to pretend like we do!

I don't exactly know why.

"Johnny Lobster" <jstarret@sdc.org> wrote in message

news:3eda4374-b7cf-459a-9f81-b4a45c89bca3@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 24, 4:20 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341108,00.html

>> Petraeus: Iran Behind Rocket Attack On Green Zone

>> Monday, March 24, 2008

> The US and Iran both want Iraq. Neither of us has a right to it.

We don't want Iraq. We want Iraq to be Democratic and militarily secure.

That's it, nothing more.

The more control we have over Iraq the more responsibility we have to Iraq.

> The question is, whose tactics are superior in this fight? It looks like

> Iran's "supply insurgents and wait" tactic is more effective. It costs

> a lot less to slip weapons across the border than it does for us to

> try to hold on from half way around the world.

It called a Proxy War. This is becoming VERY similar to Vietnam. In

Vietnam we were fighting the Chinese. In Iraq we're fighting Iran. One

CANNOT win a Proxy War if you DON'T take the fight DIRECTLY to the Proxy.

> Of course we have nukes, but we can't use them.

Not yet....

"Johnny Lobster" <jstarret@sdc.org> wrote in message

news:dd8abcd0-d383-4860-9d75-0f20f9730d5b@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 27, 11:17 am, "JC" <dontbot...@imouttatown.net> wrote:

>> "Johnny Lobster" <jstar...@sdc.org> wrote in message

>> news:25d35a7a-c644-4577-ad2d-ae8da5847a7f@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

>> > JC wrote:

>> >> "Johnny Lobster" <jstar...@sdc.org> wrote in message

>> >>news:3eda4374-b7cf-459a-9f81-b4a45c89bca3@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

>> >> > On Mar 24, 4:20 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

>> >> >>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341108,00.html

>> >> >> Petraeus: Iran Behind Rocket Attack On Green Zone

>> >> >> Monday, March 24, 2008

>> >> >> Gen. David Petraeus, commanding general of the Multi-National

>> >> >> Forces

>> >> >> in

>> >> >> Iraq, says he has evidence that Iran trained, equipped and funded

>> >> >> insurgents

>> >> >> who fired a volley of mortars and rockets at the protected Green

>> >> >> Zone

>> >> >> in

>> >> >> Baghdad.

>> >> >> Petraeus, in an interview Monday with the BBC, said Iran's Quds

>> >> >> Force,

>> >> >> a

>> >> >> branch of the Revolutionary Guards, was behind the insurgent

>> >> >> attack.

>> >> >> "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for

>> >> >> example...

>> >> >> were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said, adding that

>> >> >> the

>> >> >> groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds Force.

>> >> > The US and Iran both want Iraq. Neither of us has a right to it. The

>> >> > question is, whose tactics are superior in this fight? It looks like

>> >> > Iran's "supply insurgents and wait" tactic is more effective. It

>> >> > costs

>> >> > a lot less to slip weapons across the border than it does for us to

>> >> > try to hold on from half way around the world. Of course we have

>> >> > nukes, but we can't use them.

>> >> And your expertise in foreign policy comes from where?

>> > What in my post did you disagree with?

>> I'm not interested.

> I understand. It is too difficult to come up with a cogent reply. You

> made the right decision.

I'd bet he saw "The US and Iran both want Iraq" and promptly determined that

you're another drooling liberal fool.

"Bert Byfield" <bertbyfield@nospam.not> wrote in message

news:Xns9A6E6BD5C63C2bbyfield34caravelaxy@66.250.146.128...

>>> Gen. David Petraeus, commanding general of the Multi-National

>>> Forces in Iraq, says he has evidence that Iran trained, equipped

>>> and funded insurgents who fired a volley of mortars and rockets

>>> at the protected Green Zone in Baghdad.

> Like Bush had "evidence" of WMDs in Baghdad?

>>> Petraeus, in an interview Monday with the BBC, said Iran's Quds

>>> Force, a branch of the Revolutionary Guards, was behind the

>>> insurgent attack.

> "Behind" is a weasel word, like "linked to."

"Behind" was written by the author of the article. Try to keep up.

>>> "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for

>>> example... were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said,

>>> adding that the groups that fired them were funded and trained by

>>> the Quds Force.

> We supply most of the world with weapons. Are we responsible for

> every use of them?

Iran is PROHIBITED from buying or selling military weaponry by UN Sanctions.

Why didn't you know that?

> Or is this a trick to get us into a war with Iran?

Whatever works...

>> The US and Iran both want Iraq. Neither of us has a right to it.

> There is no reason to think that Iran "wants" Iraq.

>> The question is, whose tactics are superior in this fight? It

> The questio is, what is the right thing to do? The answer is: bring

> our troops home.

That's the coward's answer.

>> looks like Iran's "supply insurgents and wait" tactic is more

> An assumption, created to justify an invasion and occupation of Iran.

Feel free to cite JUST ONE American official who has EVER mentioned an

"invasion" and/or "occupation" of Iran.

We DO want to bomb the SHIT out of them. But that's NOT the same as an

invasion or occupation.

>> effective. It costs a lot less to slip weapons across the border

>> than it does for us to try to hold on from half way around the

>> world.

> Maybe we should have thought of that six years ago?

>> Of course we have nukes, but we can't use them. Lobster

> How disappointing for you and the other nazis.

We know who the Nazis are:

Who oppressed Jewish religious freedom in Germany? Nazis.

Who oppressed Christian religious freedom in America? Democrats.

Who consolidated all state security organizations in Germany? Nazis.

Who consolidated all state security organizations in America? Democrats.

Who confiscated firearms in Germany? Nazis.

Who confiscated firearms in America? Democrats.

Who banned firearms in Germany? Nazis.

Who banned firearms in America? Democrats.

Who wants to ban firearms in America, again? Democrats.

Now we know who the REAL Nazis are.

Democrats = Nazis.

Remember that next time you vote.

"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:cognac756-4D14D5.01212228032008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...

> In article <47ea63a3$0$30693$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,

> "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote:

>> > The key for Tehran is justification.

>> They're not gonna get it from us. They are responsible for over 70% of

>> our

>> casualities in the last 18 months in Iraq. And we are apparently going

>> to

>> report that while doing nothing about it. Don't ask me to explain it.

>> So, as you said, they will have to get that justification from Israel.

There's no other source.

>> If they can.

> It may come.

> There is even more going on there than I originally thought. These may

> well be Iranian directed attacks, and they may be by-passing Mukie,

> I gotta look into this some more...

IF they were going around Mukie and getting some of his followers all riled

up it looks like Mukie figured that out!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343231,00.html

Iraqi Government Welcomes Al-Sadr's Orders to Pull Fighters From Streets

Sunday, March 30, 2008

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Iraqi government has welcomed an order by Shiite cleric

Muqtada al-Sadr to pull his fighters off the streets.

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told FOX News that the decision is

"positive and responsive."

Al-Dabbagh said the move would "help the government confront those who are

violating the law" and that it would help to "isolate those who are trying

to destroy the government effort".

He said Iraqi security operations in Basra would not end until the "criminal

elements" operating there are removed.

Also praising al-Sadr's orders was Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who

said it was "a step in the right direction."

Al-Sadr ordered those loyal to him and his Mahdi Army Sunday off the streets

in Basra and cities across Iraq, saying that whoever carries arms against

Iraqi forces is not one of his followers.

Al-Sadr also called on the government to stop what he calls haphazard raids

and release security detainees who haven't been charged.

Sunday's offer was contained in a nine-point statement issued by his

headquarters in Najaf.

Al-Sadr is demanding that the government issue a general amnesty and release

all detainees. The statement said he also "disavows" anyone who carries

weapons and targets government institutions, charities and political party

offices.

Clashes between the government and al-Sadr's supporters came to a head after

hundreds of arrests by U.S. and Iraqi forces of al-Sadr supporters that U.S.

commanders say are members of Iran-linked cells attacking American soldiers.

On Mar 28, 10:15 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

> "Johnny Lobster" <jstar...@sdc.org> wrote in message

>

> news:dd8abcd0-d383-4860-9d75-0f20f9730d5b@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

>

>

>

> > On Mar 27, 11:17 am, "JC" <dontbot...@imouttatown.net> wrote:

> >> "Johnny Lobster" <jstar...@sdc.org> wrote in message

> >>news:25d35a7a-c644-4577-ad2d-ae8da5847a7f@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

> >> > JC wrote:

> >> >> "Johnny Lobster" <jstar...@sdc.org> wrote in message

> >> >>news:3eda4374-b7cf-459a-9f81-b4a45c89bca3@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

> >> >> > On Mar 24, 4:20 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

> >> >> >>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341108,00.html

> >> >> >> Petraeus: Iran Behind Rocket Attack On Green Zone

> >> >> >> Monday, March 24, 2008

> >> >> >> Gen. David Petraeus, commanding general of the Multi-National

> >> >> >> Forces

> >> >> >> in

> >> >> >> Iraq, says he has evidence that Iran trained, equipped and funded

> >> >> >> insurgents

> >> >> >> who fired a volley of mortars and rockets at the protected Green

> >> >> >> Zone

> >> >> >> in

> >> >> >> Baghdad.

> >> >> >> Petraeus, in an interview Monday with the BBC, said Iran's Quds

> >> >> >> Force,

> >> >> >> a

> >> >> >> branch of the Revolutionary Guards, was behind the insurgent

> >> >> >> attack.

> >> >> >> "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for

> >> >> >> example...

> >> >> >> were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said, adding that

> >> >> >> the

> >> >> >> groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds Force.

> >> >> > The US and Iran both want Iraq. Neither of us has a right to it. The

> >> >> > question is, whose tactics are superior in this fight? It looks like

> >> >> > Iran's "supply insurgents and wait" tactic is more effective. It

> >> >> > costs

> >> >> > a lot less to slip weapons across the border than it does for us to

> >> >> > try to hold on from half way around the world. Of course we have

> >> >> > nukes, but we can't use them.

> >> >> And your expertise in foreign policy comes from where?

> >> > What in my post did you disagree with?

> >> I'm not interested.

> > I understand. It is too difficult to come up with a cogent reply. You

> > made the right decision.

>

> I'd bet he saw "The US and Iran both want Iraq" and promptly determined that

> you're another drooling liberal fool.

Maybe he did, but he would be mistaken. I am a conservative, and have

always been so.

Lobster

"Johnny Lobster" <jstarret@sdc.org> wrote in message

news:8658eace-1138-4c01-b2f3-4ee27ceb7636@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 28, 10:15 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

>> "Johnny Lobster" <jstar...@sdc.org> wrote in message

>> news:dd8abcd0-d383-4860-9d75-0f20f9730d5b@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

>> > On Mar 27, 11:17 am, "JC" <dontbot...@imouttatown.net> wrote:

>> >> "Johnny Lobster" <jstar...@sdc.org> wrote in message

>> >>news:25d35a7a-c644-4577-ad2d-ae8da5847a7f@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

>> >> > JC wrote:

>> >> >> "Johnny Lobster" <jstar...@sdc.org> wrote in message

>> >> >>news:3eda4374-b7cf-459a-9f81-b4a45c89bca3@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

>> >> >> > On Mar 24, 4:20 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

>> >> >> >>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341108,00.html

>> >> >> >> Petraeus: Iran Behind Rocket Attack On Green Zone

>> >> >> >> Monday, March 24, 2008

>> >> >> >> Gen. David Petraeus, commanding general of the Multi-National

>> >> >> >> Forces

>> >> >> >> in

>> >> >> >> Iraq, says he has evidence that Iran trained, equipped and

>> >> >> >> funded

>> >> >> >> insurgents

>> >> >> >> who fired a volley of mortars and rockets at the protected Green

>> >> >> >> Zone

>> >> >> >> in

>> >> >> >> Baghdad.

>> >> >> >> Petraeus, in an interview Monday with the BBC, said Iran's Quds

>> >> >> >> Force,

>> >> >> >> a

>> >> >> >> branch of the Revolutionary Guards, was behind the insurgent

>> >> >> >> attack.

>> >> >> >> "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for

>> >> >> >> example...

>> >> >> >> were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said, adding

>> >> >> >> that

>> >> >> >> the

>> >> >> >> groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds

>> >> >> >> Force.

>> >> >> > The US and Iran both want Iraq. Neither of us has a right to it.

>> >> >> > The

>> >> >> > question is, whose tactics are superior in this fight? It looks

>> >> >> > like

>> >> >> > Iran's "supply insurgents and wait" tactic is more effective. It

>> >> >> > costs

>> >> >> > a lot less to slip weapons across the border than it does for us

>> >> >> > to

>> >> >> > try to hold on from half way around the world. Of course we have

>> >> >> > nukes, but we can't use them.

>> >> >> And your expertise in foreign policy comes from where?

>> >> > What in my post did you disagree with?

>> >> I'm not interested.

>> > I understand. It is too difficult to come up with a cogent reply. You

>> > made the right decision.

>> I'd bet he saw "The US and Iran both want Iraq" and promptly determined

>> that

>> you're another drooling liberal fool.

> Maybe he did, but he would be mistaken. I am a conservative, and have

> always been so.

When you say completely stupid fucking shit like "The US and Iran both want

Iraq" you will more often be assummed to be another drooling liberal fool.

The US does not want Iraq.

The US wants Iraq to step up and handle ALL of their security problems so we

can get the fuck outta there.

On Apr 3, 9:46 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

> "Johnny Lobster" <jstar...@sdc.org> wrote in message

>

> news:8658eace-1138-4c01-b2f3-4ee27ceb7636@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...

>

>

>

> > On Mar 28, 10:15 am, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

> >> "Johnny Lobster" <jstar...@sdc.org> wrote in message

> >>news:dd8abcd0-d383-4860-9d75-0f20f9730d5b@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

> >> > On Mar 27, 11:17 am, "JC" <dontbot...@imouttatown.net> wrote:

> >> >> "Johnny Lobster" <jstar...@sdc.org> wrote in message

> >> >>news:25d35a7a-c644-4577-ad2d-ae8da5847a7f@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

> >> >> > JC wrote:

> >> >> >> "Johnny Lobster" <jstar...@sdc.org> wrote in message

> >> >> >>news:3eda4374-b7cf-459a-9f81-b4a45c89bca3@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

> >> >> >> > On Mar 24, 4:20 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:

> >> >> >> >>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341108,00.html

> >> >> >> >> Petraeus: Iran Behind Rocket Attack On Green Zone

> >> >> >> >> Monday, March 24, 2008

> >> >> >> >> Gen. David Petraeus, commanding general of the Multi-National

> >> >> >> >> Forces

> >> >> >> >> in

> >> >> >> >> Iraq, says he has evidence that Iran trained, equipped and

> >> >> >> >> funded

> >> >> >> >> insurgents

> >> >> >> >> who fired a volley of mortars and rockets at the protected Green

> >> >> >> >> Zone

> >> >> >> >> in

> >> >> >> >> Baghdad.

> >> >> >> >> Petraeus, in an interview Monday with the BBC, said Iran's Quds

> >> >> >> >> Force,

> >> >> >> >> a

> >> >> >> >> branch of the Revolutionary Guards, was behind the insurgent

> >> >> >> >> attack.

> >> >> >> >> "The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for

> >> >> >> >> example...

> >> >> >> >> were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said, adding

> >> >> >> >> that

> >> >> >> >> the

> >> >> >> >> groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds

> >> >> >> >> Force.

> >> >> >> > The US and Iran both want Iraq. Neither of us has a right to it.

> >> >> >> > The

> >> >> >> > question is, whose tactics are superior in this fight? It looks

> >> >> >> > like

> >> >> >> > Iran's "supply insurgents and wait" tactic is more effective. It

> >> >> >> > costs

> >> >> >> > a lot less to slip weapons across the border than it does for us

> >> >> >> > to

> >> >> >> > try to hold on from half way around the world. Of course we have

> >> >> >> > nukes, but we can't use them.

> >> >> >> And your expertise in foreign policy comes from where?

> >> >> > What in my post did you disagree with?

> >> >> I'm not interested.

> >> > I understand. It is too difficult to come up with a cogent reply. You

> >> > made the right decision.

> >> I'd bet he saw "The US and Iran both want Iraq" and promptly determined

> >> that

> >> you're another drooling liberal fool.

> > Maybe he did, but he would be mistaken. I am a conservative, and have

> > always been so.

>

> When you say completely stupid fucking shit like "The US and Iran both want

> Iraq" you will more often be assummed to be another drooling liberal fool.

>

> The US does not want Iraq.

You are full of it. You don't know squat about the situation, despite

your years of military service. I take that back... you do know some

things about it, because I have seen some semi-intelligent talk from

you on another occasion. However in this case, you are blind

ignorant.

The US desperately wants Iraq for the positions of our military bases.

It's part of AFRICOM. Why are we building the most expensive building

in history there, the US Embassy? Why did we spend all the money on

military bases? Why have we spent trillions in cash and credit and

thousands of lives? To "free the Iraqi people"? Don't even try to

argue that we did it for that reason: that is absurd. They aren't

worth what it has cost and you know it. You have to know that. We did

it for military reasons. You have so much invested in your Bush

administration fancom that you can't think straight.

Stop "thinking" like a "good soldier" and start thinking like a guy

with some power. They NEVER thought "what's in it for the Iraqi

people?" They thought "What's in it for us?"

Lobster