As Iraq Winds Down, Time for some Ridiculous WMD Quotes

[Jimbeaux]

Marf said:

Thanks Jim, interesting article.

I'm not sure though that I'd lay the blame at Barry O's feet for pulling out early(oo er) if civil war does become a reality.

Ultimately, and I realise I may be simplifying things here, the problems that face Iraq now are in large part due to the meddling of us(the british) when we carved it up, drawing arbitrary borders, ignoring tribal areas and just hoping things would work out.

I understand. However, I am not so sure the UK is to blame in that regard. I suspect that the "carving" could have been done in any other way and the result would have been generally the same, don't you think?

[Marf]

Jimbeaux said:

Marf said:

Thanks Jim, interesting article.

I'm not sure though that I'd lay the blame at Barry O's feet for pulling out early(oo er) if civil war does become a reality.

Ultimately, and I realise I may be simplifying things here, the problems that face Iraq now are in large part due to the meddling of us(the british) when we carved it up, drawing arbitrary borders, ignoring tribal areas and just hoping things would work out.

I understand. However, I am not so sure the UK is to blame in that regard. I suspect that the "carving" could have been done in any other way and the result would have been generally the same, don't you think?

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not laying the blame at the feet of our incumbents, nor suggesting they should apologise for actions that they had nothing to do with, I'm just aware that the middle east exists today as it does because we drew the boundaries.

Realistically Iraq should have been three countries, Kurds, Shia and Sunni, though I admit my history isn't perfect so I don't know the rationale behind the borders as we see them today.

Edited by Marf on Thursday 15th December 16:57

[collateral]

doogz said:

Perhaps i'm being incredibly naive, or cruel here, but it's their country. If they want to fight amongst themselves, what the fk has that got to do with the Americans? The threat to other countries has pretty much gone, leave them to it?

There was no threat to other countries, but I agree with the rest.

As I said on the first page of the thread, the Faux news echo-chamber will be sharpening their knives to blame Obama for anything bad that happens, while probably screaming for Iran to be next. And so it goes.


Jim, who ya got for the GOP? Wife abandoner? Pizza gropeist? Rapture woman? W's replacement?

[jimmyjimjim]

collateral said:

Jim, who ya got for the GOP? Wife abandoner? Pizza gropeist? Rapture woman? W's replacement?

Given the number of people I know who voted for Barack and are now wondering quite what they were smoking(their comments as well), I think "has a pulse and isn't Barack" are the only things necessary for a resounding Republican majority.

[Jimbeaux]

Marf said:

Jimbeaux said:

Marf said:

Thanks Jim, interesting article.

I'm not sure though that I'd lay the blame at Barry O's feet for pulling out early(oo er) if civil war does become a reality.

Ultimately, and I realise I may be simplifying things here, the problems that face Iraq now are in large part due to the meddling of us(the british) when we carved it up, drawing arbitrary borders, ignoring tribal areas and just hoping things would work out.

I understand. However, I am not so sure the UK is to blame in that regard. I suspect that the "carving" could have been done in any other way and the result would have been generally the same, don't you think?

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not laying the blame at the feet of our incumbents, nor suggesting they should apologise for actions that they had nothing to do with, I'm just aware that the middle east exists today as it does because we drew the boundaries.

Realistically Iraq should have been three countries, Kurds, Shia and Sunni, though I admit my history isn't perfect so I don't know the rationale behind the borders as we see them today.

Edited by Marf on Thursday 15th December 16:57

All true, good points Marf. Due to the religious intolerance among the various sects of Islam, had the nation been carved into three, they would surely have fought it out nonetheless, but your point is still valid.

[Jimbeaux]

collateral said:

doogz said:

Perhaps i'm being incredibly naive, or cruel here, but it's their country. If they want to fight amongst themselves, what the fk has that got to do with the Americans? The threat to other countries has pretty much gone, leave them to it?

There was no threat to other countries, but I agree with the rest.

As I said on the first page of the thread, the Faux news echo-chamber will be sharpening their knives to blame Obama for anything bad that happens, while probably screaming for Iran to be next. And so it goes.


Jim, who ya got for the GOP? Wife abandoner? Pizza gropeist? Rapture woman? W's replacement?

None of the above, Romney.

[Victor McDade]

Jimbeaux said:

Victor McDade said:

Jimbeaux said:

With that politically motivated pullout, far quicker than the generals recommended, we will soon see a civil war in Iraq. One faction or more battling the one that Iran backs.

There has been one form or another of civil war in Iraq for the last decade regardless of American troops being there. If civil war was the main thing troubling the Generals then they may as well stay there for the next 50 years.

This is true but it is who the players are now and to what extent they may be involved that is a bit different.

Indeed - we're back to Iran again. Given we now have a Shiite led government in Iraq what can anyone realistically do to stop them aligning with Iran?

Apart from proping up an unpopular pro western Sunni leader (which always comes back to bite us in the arse), I don't see how America, Britain etc can keep Iran away.

Edited by Victor McDade on Thursday 15th December 19:51

[mko9]

If we had done Iran as soon as we finished kicking Iraq's backside, we could have redrawn the lines to make more sense.

[Jimbeaux]

Victor McDade said:

Jimbeaux said:

Victor McDade said:

Jimbeaux said:

With that politically motivated pullout, far quicker than the generals recommended, we will soon see a civil war in Iraq. One faction or more battling the one that Iran backs.

There has been one form or another of civil war in Iraq for the last decade regardless of American troops being there. If civil war was the main thing troubling the Generals then they may as well stay there for the next 50 years.

This is true but it is who the players are now and to what extent they may be involved that is a bit different.

Indeed - we're back to Iran again. Given we now have a Shiite led government in Iraq what can anyone realistically do to stop them aligning with Iran?

Apart from proping up an unpopular pro western Sunni leader (which always comes back to bite us in the arse), I don't see how America, Britain etc can keep Iran away.

Edited by Victor McDade on Thursday 15th December 19:51

We won't. It will just make the next war larger I fear. There is the more likely possibility that those disenfranchised by such an alignment (and there always is in the tribal/sect style conflict) will begin their own Arab Spring and it all begins again.

[Ozzie Osmond]

So already the real stories, or at least credible stories, are beginning to emerge which put into context the massive loss of Iraqi lives due to American action with relatively limited loss of American lives. I guess that's the way it works out evey time if you have the biggest weapons and make sure you shoot first.

Ah well, just a few million more people in the middle east who recognise USA for what it is.

[pete a]

Jimbeaux said:

"Neo-Cons"; aren't you a bit tired of harping on that yet? This thread is a sad attempt at keeping the "boogeyman" alive. Why not spend your energy beating on the current idiot in the Whitehouse instead of looking for every weak angle to keeping bhing about a past administration? Just a thought.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 30th August 14:31

ooh look at the republican!

[collateral]

Jimbeaux said:

collateral said:

doogz said:

Perhaps i'm being incredibly naive, or cruel here, but it's their country. If they want to fight amongst themselves, what the fk has that got to do with the Americans? The threat to other countries has pretty much gone, leave them to it?

There was no threat to other countries, but I agree with the rest.

As I said on the first page of the thread, the Faux news echo-chamber will be sharpening their knives to blame Obama for anything bad that happens, while probably screaming for Iran to be next. And so it goes.


Jim, who ya got for the GOP? Wife abandoner? Pizza gropeist? Rapture woman? W's replacement?

None of the above, Romney.

I'm surprised - would've assumed he was a bit too north-eastern and health care-y for you.

Interesting to see some of the same lot who crucified Kerry for changing his mind about things getting behind Mitt... I don't have much love for him because he changed the law in MA to 'stick it to the immigrants' so I couldn't renew my drivers license.

[Jimbeaux]

Ozzie Osmond said:

So already the real stories, or at least credible stories, are beginning to emerge which put into context the massive loss of Iraqi lives due to American action with relatively limited loss of American lives. I guess that's the way it works out evey time if you have the biggest weapons and make sure you shoot first.

Ah well, just a few million more people in the middle east who recognise USA for what it is.

Somebody lend me a violin.

[Jimbeaux]

pete a said:

Jimbeaux said:

"Neo-Cons"; aren't you a bit tired of harping on that yet? This thread is a sad attempt at keeping the "boogeyman" alive. Why not spend your energy beating on the current idiot in the Whitehouse instead of looking for every weak angle to keeping bhing about a past administration? Just a thought.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 30th August 14:31

ooh look at the republican!

Hardly, rather someone who would rather watch a fresh episode instead of viewing a rerun and expecting a different outcome.

[Jimbeaux]

collateral said:

Jimbeaux said:

collateral said:

doogz said:

Perhaps i'm being incredibly naive, or cruel here, but it's their country. If they want to fight amongst themselves, what the fk has that got to do with the Americans? The threat to other countries has pretty much gone, leave them to it?

There was no threat to other countries, but I agree with the rest.

As I said on the first page of the thread, the Faux news echo-chamber will be sharpening their knives to blame Obama for anything bad that happens, while probably screaming for Iran to be next. And so it goes.


Jim, who ya got for the GOP? Wife abandoner? Pizza gropeist? Rapture woman? W's replacement?

None of the above, Romney.

I'm surprised - would've assumed he was a bit too north-eastern and health care-y for you.

Interesting to see some of the same lot who crucified Kerry for changing his mind about things getting behind Mitt... I don't have much love for him because he changed the law in MA to 'stick it to the immigrants' so I couldn't renew my drivers license.

I don't care if they're from the moon and sport two dicks. The economy is the main topic here and, IMO, he is the best experienced to handle that. He also knows what he does not know and has the sense to surround himself with those who do.

[968]

Jimbeaux said:

collateral said:

Jimbeaux said:

collateral said:

doogz said:

Perhaps i'm being incredibly naive, or cruel here, but it's their country. If they want to fight amongst themselves, what the fk has that got to do with the Americans? The threat to other countries has pretty much gone, leave them to it?

There was no threat to other countries, but I agree with the rest.

As I said on the first page of the thread, the Faux news echo-chamber will be sharpening their knives to blame Obama for anything bad that happens, while probably screaming for Iran to be next. And so it goes.


Jim, who ya got for the GOP? Wife abandoner? Pizza gropeist? Rapture woman? W's replacement?

None of the above, Romney.

I'm surprised - would've assumed he was a bit too north-eastern and health care-y for you.

Interesting to see some of the same lot who crucified Kerry for changing his mind about things getting behind Mitt... I don't have much love for him because he changed the law in MA to 'stick it to the immigrants' so I couldn't renew my drivers license.

I don't care if they're from the moon and sport two dicks. The economy is the main topic here and, IMO, he is the best experienced to handle that. He also knows what he does not know and has the sense to surround himself with those who do.

Let's hope the republican party supporters aren't as stupid as they look (by the opinion polls) where Gingrich was in the lead.

[Jimbeaux]

968 said:

Jimbeaux said:

collateral said:

Jimbeaux said:

collateral said:

doogz said:

Perhaps i'm being incredibly naive, or cruel here, but it's their country. If they want to fight amongst themselves, what the fk has that got to do with the Americans? The threat to other countries has pretty much gone, leave them to it?

There was no threat to other countries, but I agree with the rest.

As I said on the first page of the thread, the Faux news echo-chamber will be sharpening their knives to blame Obama for anything bad that happens, while probably screaming for Iran to be next. And so it goes.


Jim, who ya got for the GOP? Wife abandoner? Pizza gropeist? Rapture woman? W's replacement?

None of the above, Romney.

I'm surprised - would've assumed he was a bit too north-eastern and health care-y for you.

Interesting to see some of the same lot who crucified Kerry for changing his mind about things getting behind Mitt... I don't have much love for him because he changed the law in MA to 'stick it to the immigrants' so I couldn't renew my drivers license.

I don't care if they're from the moon and sport two dicks. The economy is the main topic here and, IMO, he is the best experienced to handle that. He also knows what he does not know and has the sense to surround himself with those who do.

Let's hope the republican party supporters aren't as stupid as they look (by the opinion polls) where Gingrich was in the lead.

I am not a Newt supporter but I would be interested in what it is about him you despise?

[968]

Jimbeaux said:

I am not a Newt supporter but I would be interested in what it is about him you despise?

He's a wife abandoning hypocrit for one? A right wing hysteric, with a volcanic temper that is totally unsuitable to being president of any nation, let alone the worlds largest military power.

[Jimbeaux]

968 said:

Jimbeaux said:

I am not a Newt supporter but I would be interested in what it is about him you despise?

He's a wife abandoning hypocrit for one? A right wing hysteric, with a volcanic temper that is totally unsuitable to being president of any nation, let alone the worlds largest military power.

OK. Thanks.

[968]

Jimbeaux said:

OK. Thanks.

Am I wrong to think that he was a hypocrite for railing against Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, whilst having his own extra-marital affair and abandoning his cancer struck wife? Not the most honourable man, don't you think?