English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The New Front: Iranians in Iraq
By: Nicole Belle on Monday, January 15th, 2007 at 6:49 AM - PST
We all remember in the months following 9/11 how the nomenclature changed. Sneaky, almost imperceptible if you weren't paying attention (and polls at that time showed that most people weren't), the dialogue changed from Al Qaeda and the Taliban to Saddam and Iraq. And we know where that got us: two miserable failures for wars. *

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/15/the-new-front-iranians-in-iraq/

2007-02-02 12:37:29 · 14 answers · asked by WORD UP G 1 in Politics & Government Politics

14 answers

Hi,

I would vote that it has, as have ten's of thousands who took active part in protesting bush's illegal war in Iraq this past Saturday in Washington DC, and on the West coast.

And remembering the outcome of mid term elections, the vast majority of American voters, both Democrats and Republicans, casting a vote of no confidence in bush by putting the Democrats in the majority in both houses and the senate.

Bush is no stranger to failure, as how many of daddy's business's did baby bush put into total disarray and bankruptcy. I can think of nothing this man has done that has even closely resembled a success.

Take a look at how he either totally ignored or totally botched providing aid and assistance to the survivors of hurricane Katrina.

The best way I can think to paraphrase the whole situation, would be to repeat the predictions made by Michelle Nostradamus, over 500 years ago when he proclaimed that:

"In the new world, (America), the village Idiot would step forward to lead the people." and I know of no better way to describe what has happened to our great country.

Iran is not responding to bush's attempts to be bully of the block, and if bush is not stopped, he will mouth his way into a nuclear conflict with Iran and North Korea soon to follow.

I know of some mid term democrats that are going to looking for jobs come 2008 if they do not do what they were ellected to do, and that was to put a stop to bush's oil war, and impeachment. To see 10 articles of impeachment now before congress, click on:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/88
and while you're there, send a message to your congressman and let your voice be heard.

Excellent question,

Darryl S.

2007-02-02 13:08:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

I don't buy such an argument. Iran has had a nuclear development program for quite some time and only recently has there been an uproar over it. I reiterate that the real case for an attack against Iran would be under a "terrorism" pretext (as with the invasion and current occupation of Iraq), as Congress has passed a resolution urging the State Dept to name Iran's Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist" entity. Again, many Americans are wary of any excuse the Bush adminstration will concoct in order to justify the use of force against Iran, eventually creating a third front in their failing War on Terror (tm).

2016-05-24 06:38:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Friday's newly declassified portions of a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq concluded that Iraq's security situation is likely to get worse over the next 18 months unless the slide toward sectarian polarization and a weakening government is halted. Security forces_particularly the police_will be "hard pressed" to handle their new responsibilities because of divisions that are tearing apart Iraqi society, the assessment said. (Does this sound like success in the making?)

2007-02-02 12:57:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Iraq is a very big failure for liberals, because it is so successful for the citizens of Iraq and the world. Iran will probably continue this trend for liberals, because Iran is starting to cow-tail to the Pressure being put on it by the rest of the world.

2007-02-02 13:03:11 · answer #4 · answered by jack_scar_action_hero 3 · 2 2

Bush is going to have to do something BIG to distract the US people from the ever worsening Iraq and that means invading attacking Iran which will only make the whole situation in the Mideast much, much worse as Bush digs a deeper and deeper hole for himself (& he may bring the entire US with him)

2007-02-02 12:43:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Now it is slowly turning to Iran. There seems to be a trend here to invade Muslim countries. I predicted an invasion of Iran months ago, the Syria.

This trend wouldn't have something to do wiyh Isreal would it?

2007-02-02 12:44:49 · answer #6 · answered by Nemesis 7 · 1 1

If President Bush has the audacity to go into Iran, his own party will be calling for his removal. Not the yo yos on here, his fellow republican elected officials.

2007-02-02 12:47:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

When Saddam was being hanged he said Bush had failed, but everyone there laughed at Saddam. Maybe Ahmadinajad will say the same thing. In the mean time, I laugh at liberals.

2007-02-02 13:30:37 · answer #8 · answered by mountainclass 3 · 0 2

Bush does what his Israeli masters tell him to do. First Iraq then Iran ...... then when the next servant of Israel is "elected" to office she will attack Syria for Israel.

Israel in turn handles the necessary propaganda with their well placed Zionist Propaganda disseminators in "American" media.

2007-02-02 12:55:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

As soon as we pull out of Iraq, Iran will be there to finish the job and set up another terrior state. Thats why we have to use to Big Boy Bomb on both of them. I say wipe them all off the face of mother earth. Men, women and child. Thats what they would do.

2007-02-02 12:43:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

fedest.com, questions and answers