Mistyping of words. I'm sure you are familiar with it. I was pointing out who the author of the admendment was. Misleading, as usual. I don't have a problem with Austria selling to your buds, per se. The problem, which apparenly was over your head, is that Iran is turning them around in 45 days to your buds in Iraq. That's what I have a problem with. Further, I had a problem with the way you worded your initial post in giving aid and comfort to Iran, as if to suggest there is *no involvement* by Iran. Doing my best to keep you honest. You do make it a challenge
The author of amendment for the ban was a democrat and republicans defeated it, so these type of rifles can be exported. What part of this you didn't understand? That was funny when dishonest Gtech starts talking about honesty. First of all you have to prove that those rifles were given to Iraq by approval of Iran government, do you have any such proof? USA has misplaced 8.5 billion dollars in Iraq which is also most likely used by terrorists, does this mean USA is supporting terrorists? Also can you tell me what is the difference between Shia insurgents and Iraq government when is the same people who support prime minister and make up his political base?
Surely the UN knows. They knew about the Oil for Food problem scandal and promptly solved it. They knew Saddam was slaughtering his own people and promptly stopped it. The knew about Rwanda and promptly stopped it. They were right on top of Iran's nuke ambitions. The UN is irrelavent. They've indicated time and time again they have no idea what is going on and/or don't care.
The part that ties it into Iran arming your buds in Iraq. I don't have to prove anything. Just because you demand special treatment for your buds doesn't mean I have to. Would you demand such of an American soldier? No, you'd convict them without a trial. Missing funds doesn't explain away your buds in Iran arming your buds in Iraq. Just another red herring. I don't give a damn if the weapons are going to shia, sunni or your family members there, they are coming in from Iran, 45 days after a sale. Your defense strategy is weak. You won't be earning many virgins with this one!
Did our government actually assert that the IRANIAN GOVERNMENT was supplying the Iraqii insurgency? From what I heard, I believe it was just asserted that it came through Iran...and wasn't necessarily a product of the government. They have their concerns but they're not entirely sure. Someone please supply a quote that our government directly asserts the Iranian government is supplying the insurgency, please.
Dishonest Gtech is getting desperate, just admit that you didn't understand and ASSumed it was a democrat who was against the ban instead of a democrat suggested the ban and republicans defeated it. Did anyone even mentioned UN? Republicans desperate answer to any problem, it is UN fault. How much money disappeared in Iraq while it was controlled by USA? At least 8.5 billion dollars and how much money was oil for food scandal?
have you lost all your marbels. mainly it is about the integrity of our inteligence and is most certainly about our troops. what the hell gworld has got to do with it. please get real. i hope there are rifles plus manifest from the company that sold it. with serial numbers and enough proof that they were sold to the iranians. let me tell you that even all of these are true i still do not support an attack on iran at this time
I don't lust after marbles. I could really care less what or who you support nor do I believe you have the intellect to make a reasonable argument either way.
Iran is the new Iraq which was the new Afghanistan. You guys are so 2006, get with the times, time to move to the next country.
Sure, right after you say a bad word about your terrorist buds who are receiving sniper rifles from Iran. Let me know when you are ready
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201537_pf.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251345,00.html?sPage=fnc.world/iran this doesnt help the credibility of our intelligence
Why is it that unless you throw caution to the wind and wave a big stick in the air, your are said to be friends with terrorists? This could possibly be the end of the world. We dont even have enough troups for Iraq, how are we suppose to go into Iran which is much larger in size?
Why is it that some actually do wave a big stick in the air and support terrorists? Why is it that some directly do this, but are offended when others point it out? Why can't those who call for a grievance theater note when others are actually supporting terrorists, despite the fact they don't like Bush? Who is calling for troops in Iran? Does Iran deserve a pass?
I think they have reason to review what's going on, perhaps not the overall ability to directly assert. A quote from the first link: The question is why are these individuals there, and why are these sophisticated weapons available? This of coarse doesn't directly connect one to the other, but it's a valid question, and should be deeply reviewed. The admin just needs to keep people's mouth shut, and only allow clearly visible facts to be allowed outward. It doesn't seem that's the current policy or it's just not being enforced.
do uou know who said see the similarity with the neocons tactic.do you think they know who said it check this out very intresting
rick if this is true then we have not learned anything in the past few years Edit. they have to make sure what they say is correct before they say it. i agree
I like quotes too, pizza boy. Here are a few that seem fitting: "While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security." "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." Anything ring a bell?
This doesn't mean the end all and be all of an investigation. It merely implies that a general views are of that time and place. Such views change at a drop of dime. In fact that same general thought a 'surge' would be inappropriate a few months before...but he said in front of the Senate hearing that his view had changed due to the situation and knowledge he was confronted with. So quotes and thoughts are limited to their coarse in time. I would not say it's an open and shut case just because you have a uneven match of views.