Iran Supplying Weapons to Iraq?

I meant to Afghanistan around 1980. That was about the time when the Russians were occupying Afghanistan.Are you saying that we should not have helped AFghanistan ( in providing weapons) when fighting Russa and communism?

What we SHOULD do is send a strong message to Iran now...enough of this U.N. diplomacy thathas proven to not only fail, but actually helps strengthen the enemies by giving them more time to stock up and prepare. We should bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, which will:

1. Say "we're serious...if you help kill Americans, we'll kill you."
2. Take away their ability to retaliate or go after Israel with nukes, which is something they would defiinately do.
3. Prevent terrorists anywhere from getting nukes.
4. Reinforce the fact that we are the world's military superpower, not a "paper tiger" like bin Laden called us during the Clinton years.

Is anyone looking at this from their point of view? In the 9/11 attacks we lose 2,819 people (New York Magazine (http://nymag.com/news/articles/wtc/1year/numbers.htm)). In Iraq, over the course of this war they've lost between 56,023 and 61,736 civilians. I'm sorry if this sounds brash, but we've been damn lucky that a) 9/11 only killed 2,819 people, and that attacks like that don't happen on a more regular basis. 9/11 happens in these countries every couple months, and often we're involved in some way. I don't think it takes rocket science to see why these people hate us. Most of them were living their lives, and yes Saddam wasn't a great ruler by any stretch, but most families weren't losing children, mothers, and fathers from a bomb that goes off course or the escalated violence in the area, this is why they hate us. Their towns are in ruins, many of their family members are dead, and we are directly responsible.

How would you guys support it if, lets say... France, decided that George W. Bush was a dictator and not fit to run the country. The first thing they do is bomb the shit out of our infrastructure. Goodbye power grid, goodbye bridges, cut the fiber-optic backbones going into the country (much like we did in Iraq), kill the telephone lines. Then bomb military outposts. You'd be enraged, a violation of our 'civil rights'. I guess at some point, we need to stop forcing our ways on others. We're the world's Jehovah's witnesses, going door to door, uninvited, and pushing our agenda on someone else.

Then people bitch about car bombs, etc. It's how you win when you're undermanned. They can't just gear up and fight us, they'd get crushed. If we want to go rolling into war, especially with groups instead of sovereign states, we need to expect guerrilla warfare. It's the only effective means for people to fight back, and we can't start a war and expect everyone to drop their weapons and convert to us.

This isn't meant to offend anyone, I'm just asking you to step back from being an American, and put yourself in someone else's shoes. 9/11 was a tragedy, but the loss of human life wasn't near what many countries see on a regular basis. We've been extremely lucky with thwarting such attacks, and in my opinion, pissing more people off isn't the best way to stop them. Many experts say that the Iraq war has done little but breed more terrorists.

Are you saying that we should not have helped AFghanistan ( in providing weapons) when fighting Russa and communism?

At the time, it was the right move. The USSR was our biggest threat and they had vowed to take over the world, INCLUDING us with Communism. That's why there are so many South and Central American nations with Communist governments, they were working their way up to us. At the time, our only Arab enemy was Iran (hostages during Carter administration) and we were trying to prevent the growth of our main enemy, the USSR.

In hindsight, hey, nothing is perfect. Saying we shouldn't have helped them in the 80s would be the same as rejecting all help from the British, Japanese or Germans today...because circumstances made them our enemies once upon a time.

The world situation constantly changes and we must do what's right in the current situations without holding grudges about the past or making predictions about the future.

What we SHOULD do is send a strong message to Iran now...enough of this U.N. diplomacy thathas proven to not only fail, but actually helps strengthen the enemies by giving them more time to stock up and prepare. We should bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, which will:

1. Say "we're serious...if you help kill Americans, we'll kill you."
2. Take away their ability to retaliate or go after Israel with nukes, which is something they would defiinately do.
3. Prevent terrorists anywhere from getting nukes.
4. Reinforce the fact that we are the world's military superpower, not a "paper tiger" like bin Laden called us during the Clinton years.

Buster, two years ago I would have agreed with you. But we've emboldened terrorists around the globe. Every day this war in Iraq lingers, more terrorists come out of the woodwork.

Our miscalculation in Iraq has caused us to lose a lot of credibilty within the international community, and it's damn near impossible to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on nukes these days.

Next on deck, North Korea?

Buster, does that mean America helped kill Americans? We dismantled our F-14 Tomcat jets. Guess where we ended up selling the parts to? Whoops? Maybe we should do our homework and stop selling fighter jets to Iran?
Lawmaker says Pentagon's suspension of F-14 part sales falls short - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-31-pentagon-surplus_x.htm)

Are you saying that we should not have helped AFghanistan ( in providing weapons) when fighting Russa and communism?

Sheesh. You're not following the conversation too well.

First, he said it's hypocritical that we provided help to Afghanistan against the Russians, and now we're pissed that Iran is doing it to us in Iraq.

Then, I said I don't care if it's hypocritical, I just want the US to do what's in the best interests of our citizens/troops' lives.

Then you asked how far back are you going?

Then I said in 1980 we gave help to Afghanistan against the Russians.

I'm glad we helped the Afghanis then. With the Cold War, Russia was a major threat to us.

Is anyone looking at this from their point of view? In the 9/11 attacks we lose 2,819 people (New York Magazine (http://nymag.com/news/articles/wtc/1year/numbers.htm)). In Iraq, over the course of this war they've lost between 56,023 and 61,736 civilians. I'm sorry if this sounds brash, but we've been damn lucky that a) 9/11 only killed 2,819 people, and that attacks like that don't happen on a more regular basis. 9/11 happens in these countries every couple months, and often we're involved in some way. I don't think it takes rocket science to see why these people hate us. Most of them were living their lives, and yes Saddam wasn't a great ruler by any stretch, but most families weren't losing children, mothers, and fathers from a bomb that goes off course or the escalated violence in the area, this is why they hate us. Their towns are in ruins, many of their family members are dead, and we are directly responsible.

How would you guys support it if, lets say... France, decided that George W. Bush was a dictator and not fit to run the country. The first thing they do is bomb the shit out of our infrastructure. Goodbye power grid, goodbye bridges, cut the fiber-optic backbones going into the country (much like we did in Iraq), kill the telephone lines. Then bomb military outposts. You'd be enraged, a violation of our 'civil rights'. I guess at some point, we need to stop forcing our ways on others. We're the world's Jehovah's witnesses, going door to door, uninvited, and pushing our agenda on someone else.

Then people bitch about car bombs, etc. It's how you win when you're undermanned. They can't just gear up and fight us, they'd get crushed. If we want to go rolling into war, especially with groups instead of sovereign states, we need to expect guerrilla warfare. It's the only effective means for people to fight back, and we can't start a war and expect everyone to drop their weapons and convert to us.

This isn't meant to offend anyone, I'm just asking you to step back from being an American, and put yourself in someone else's shoes. 9/11 was a tragedy, but the loss of human life wasn't near what many countries see on a regular basis. We've been extremely lucky with thwarting such attacks, and in my opinion, pissing more people off isn't the best way to stop them. Many experts say that the Iraq war has done little but breed more terrorists.

You make a good point about Sadaam. Although his leadership was questionable and to some intolerable, can we really say that Iraq is better of now that he's removed?

Buster, two years ago I would have agreed with you. But we've emboldened terrorists around the globe. Every day this war in Iraq lingers, more terrorists come out of the woodwork.

Our miscalculation in Iraq has caused us to lose a lot of credibilty within the international community, and it's damn near impossible to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on nukes these days.

Next on deck, North Korea?

Do you think backing out of Iraq would really un-embolden them??

No matter whether we stay or go, they're going to try to kill us. It's a war. Kill them, or kill us. It takes two sides to end a war. Just because we leave Iraq doesn't mean they'll stop the war.

Is anyone looking at this from their point of view? In the 9/11 attacks we lose 2,819 people (New York Magazine (http://nymag.com/news/articles/wtc/1year/numbers.htm)). In Iraq, over the course of this war they've lost between 56,023 and 61,736 civilians. I'm sorry if this sounds brash, but we've been damn lucky that a) 9/11 only killed 2,819 people, and that attacks like that don't happen on a more regular basis. 9/11 happens in these countries every couple months, and often we're involved in some way. I don't think it takes rocket science to see why these people hate us. Most of them were living their lives, and yes Saddam wasn't a great ruler by any stretch, but most families weren't losing children, mothers, and fathers from a bomb that goes off course or the escalated violence in the area, this is why they hate us. Their towns are in ruins, many of their family members are dead, and we are directly responsible.

How would you guys support it if, lets say... France, decided that George W. Bush was a dictator and not fit to run the country. The first thing they do is bomb the shit out of our infrastructure. Goodbye power grid, goodbye bridges, cut the fiber-optic backbones going into the country (much like we did in Iraq), kill the telephone lines. Then bomb military outposts. You'd be enraged, a violation of our 'civil rights'. I guess at some point, we need to stop forcing our ways on others. We're the world's Jehovah's witnesses, going door to door, uninvited, and pushing our agenda on someone else.

Then people bitch about car bombs, etc. It's how you win when you're undermanned. They can't just gear up and fight us, they'd get crushed. If we want to go rolling into war, especially with groups instead of sovereign states, we need to expect guerrilla warfare. It's the only effective means for people to fight back, and we can't start a war and expect everyone to drop their weapons and convert to us.

This isn't meant to offend anyone, I'm just asking you to step back from being an American, and put yourself in someone else's shoes. 9/11 was a tragedy, but the loss of human life wasn't near what many countries see on a regular basis. We've been extremely lucky with thwarting such attacks, and in my opinion, pissing more people off isn't the best way to stop them. Many experts say that the Iraq war has done little but breed more terrorists.

And, I'm not offended by your post or opinion. However, I think much of what America thinks is what is delivered by the media spin. Our media would have you believe that the mainstream Iraqi does not want us there. We are not helping. They don't need us. That our troops do not think this war is just, they are ill-prepared, etc.
As far as I know to say Sadaam was not the greatest leader may a bit understated, as to how many of his own people is credited with killing?? 100,000+? Are you suggesting that US troops have killed 60k innocent civilians?
When you get outside the mainstream media party line, the story changes a bit. I have read (like many of you) many accounts from US troops, and Iraqi civilians that tell a story that not only do they want us there, that the large percentage of Iraqi's say they need us. That Sadaam was a satanical madman, and murderer who thought nothing of killing his own.
So to suggest that we invaded a country full of regular Joe's, and deposed a leader that was ???????? misunderstood, may not be an accurate description.
Frankly, I don't care what the radical forces that opposed us in that region think. They are the reason we are there