Terror storm

[Spytheweb]

You never know what a government is up to. If you watch this video keep an open mind. Pick a topic that interests you and check the facts on it. Did England and the CIA plot against Iran's President in 1953 because he nationalized the oil fields and wouldn't let England's BP gas control the oil. The Brits and US setup the shaw of Iran to take power and his secret Savak police. Until the people revolted and the shaw had to leave. It this why the US has had such a hardon for Iran?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230

 

[StevieD]

Spy be careful posting that stuff. Someone might call you ugly.

 

[TonyTT]

Spy,

I thought that was pretty much historical fact that OPERATION AJAX was indeed our CIA toppeling Mosedq of Iran...using terrorist tactics and making it look like Mosedeq was responsible. That of course ushered in our guy the shah. I mentioned that before on here and one guy accused me of mixing up "terrorist acts' with "covert operations". It was a classic case of a "false flag operation." If someone has any information that this is false please list it.
TT

 

[gardenweasel]

Spy,

I thought that was pretty much historical fact that OPERATION AJAX was indeed our CIA toppeling Mosedq of Iran...using terrorist tactics and making it look like Mosedeq was responsible. That of course ushered in our guy the shah. I mentioned that before on here and one guy accused me of mixing up "terrorist acts' with "covert operations". It was a classic case of a "false flag operation." If someone has any information that this is false please list it.
TT

first off,stw,it`s the "shah"...not the "shaw"....

secondly,truman was pro-iranian nationalism until it became apparent that mossadeq was becoming extremely autocratic and the iranian communists were gaining influence(the toudeh)...some very involved cloak and dagger b.s. that is interpreted differently depending on what you read and who you believe...

and as far as i know,the absolute truth about "operation ajax' is supposedly still classified...

the commie`s,the brits afraid of losing the iranian oil foothold,,theocratic factions and the "shaw"...lol...

....we were in the early stages of the cold war and soviet influence in iran was very bad for business....you think the soviets weren`t playing their games?...

tony,you seem like an intelligent guy and i enjoy your posts for the most part....but,is the consistently anti-american slant absolutely necessary?....

you`re(probably unintentionally) encouraging the spy-the-web`s....

we did what we thought was in our best interests at the time....period....everything`s not always black and white.....it`s a tough world...

and if not for idealist "jimmah" carter,we might not be dealing with with the mullahs,ahmadinajad and a nuclear threat as we speak.....

and stw... you`re still a moron in search of a pronoun....

 

[TonyTT]

GW,

Sorry you think I'm "anti-American". I'm really extremely patriotic. I merely point out what I see as some pretty underhanded things our govt has done in the past and I believe present. And for the record I'M NOT ALWAYS AGAINST THEM DOING IT to maintain our lifestyle. As I've mentioned before it's some calls that I'm glad I don't have to make.
GW, I know that you and some others see things quite differently, but the bottom line is that we're all AMERICANS, and I'm sure that the vast majority on this board want to maintain this great nation. I'm sure you'll continue posting your right leaning conservitive anti left material and the left leaning guys will do likewise..and you know what I absolutely love it that way, in the end I think it's good for our system!

 

[gardenweasel]

GW,

Sorry you think I'm "anti-American". I'm really extremely patriotic. I merely point out what I see as some pretty underhanded things our govt has done in the past and I believe present. And for the record I'M NOT ALWAYS AGAINST THEM DOING IT to maintain our lifestyle. As I've mentioned before it's some calls that I'm glad I don't have to make.
GW, I know that you and some others see things quite differently, but the bottom line is that we're all AMERICANS, and I'm sure that the vast majority on this board want to maintain this great nation. I'm sure you'll continue posting your right leaning conservitive anti left material and the left leaning guys will do likewise..and you know what I absolutely love it that way, in the end I think it's good for our system!

thats fine...i sense that you get the fact that geopolitics isn`t a board game and that it isn`t done under the marquis of queensbury rules.....like our providing geneva convention protections to those that don`t for one second meet the criteria set forth to merit that consideration.....while not even considering extending these protections to our soldiers....

if i projected my sincere dislike of "spy the web" in your direction,i apologize....

i have an open and oozing abscess when it comes to this oxygen thief...

thanks for the response...

 

[Spytheweb]

GardenWeasel it's Americans like you who don't care

GardenWeasel it's Americans like you who don't care

that America's young people are dying for a buck. Your leader GW Bush who mocked a woman on deathrow who begged for her life, Bush who bragged about never spending more than 20 minutes on a clemency hearing. This guy does not care about Americans lives, he wants the oil and he does not care how many Americans he has to kill to get it. People like you back him up on this. Doesn't just make you sick to see Bush speaking on a military base, hey like they support him. How dare he show his face on a military base, His chicken ass went to the NG, got in the same day while there was a 2 year waiting list to get in and on top of that disappeared for a year. Never saw Vietnam but was a big supporter of the war. Dick Cheney said a few weeks ago that some Americans don't have the stomach for war. Like he didn't have when he got 5 military deferments. With these guys in office a American life against a dollar does not stand a chance.

 

[gardenweasel]

yeah,we`re really getting rich off that oil......

look,i think we already did the thread that exposed your pathetic anti-american ass...

it`s time for YOU to reconsider transporting those poor blind people`s guide dogs in your taxi-cab.....

who knows,maybe they`ll be going to the next "hate america" protest....

wouldn`t that be loverly?....
.

 

[The Sponge]

that America's young people are dying for a buck. Your leader GW Bush who mocked a woman on deathrow who begged for her life, Bush who bragged about never spending more than 20 minutes on a clemency hearing. This guy does not care about Americans lives, he wants the oil and he does not care how many Americans he has to kill to get it. People like you back him up on this. Doesn't just make you sick to see Bush speaking on a military base, hey like they support him. How dare he show his face on a military base, His chicken ass went to the NG, got in the same day while there was a 2 year waiting list to get in and on top of that disappeared for a year. Never saw Vietnam but was a big supporter of the war. Dick Cheney said a few weeks ago that some Americans don't have the stomach for war. Like he didn't have when he got 5 military deferments. With these guys in office a American life against a dollar does not stand a chance.

Where is he lying Weasal? :shrug:

 

[Chadman]

yeah,we`re really getting rich off that oil......
.

You're right, WE, clearly, are not getting rich off that oil, nor are we getting paid for the efforts we made in the country like we were told we were going to be by your boys.

Sadly, neither are the Iraqi people, which never mattered to you or the people you support. The people who ARE getting rich are the "multinational" oil companies who now have interests in the country. Much like they are doing in THIS country.

Couldn't let this one slip by, my friend. It's your turn now...since I don't share your thinking, I am now soon to be labeled anti-American. It's your way, after all.

 

[gardenweasel]

Where is he lying Weasal? :shrug:

first off,i don`t know...nor do i give a damn what consideration bush gave some murderess on death row.....personally,i don`t like bush all that much myself....but someone has to bring some balance to this bush derangement sickness that`s so out of control it`s beyond all rationality...

secondly,it`s pretty much proven fact that in poll after poll that the military voted for bush over kerry in `04 at roughly a 3-1 rate.......sorry if it`s not what abu el-web wants to hear....

thirdly,there were many current politicians that got deferments..that`s wealth and privelege for you...sad but true.....

btw,where was bill clinton?....was he even in the guard?......i think he fled the country...lol

finally,you should be thanking me for being the only one here with the stomach to wade into the fever swamp and challenge this anti-american cretin.......who is singlehandedly trying to turn this forum into a cesspit that is only slightly better than the jihadist websites that pepper the net.....

chadster....if we were getting some remuneration from iraqi oil revenues,it would be a "war for oil".....

being that we`re not,it`s "we`re not getting paid for our efforts".....

i`ve noticed and noted several instances in the forum....issues that you guys try and play both sides on..that`s a neat liberal trick....

it doesn`t work with me....

and no,the well being of the iraqi people doesn`t worry me as much as the well being of my fellow countrymen...even though i`m glad they`re rid of saddam....and i wish autonomy and freedom for them.....i know it`s hard work...

and i wish the middle east weren`t as crucial to our economy and security as it obviously is.......

the goal should be for as democratic an iraq as is possible.......and keeping the iraqi oil resources and oil wealth from falling into the hands of al qaeda or iran....

and i don`t recall saying you`re anti-american...i don`t think that......unless you are posting as spy the web...

 

[Chadman]

Cool, this is a good week. I got an "A" from Dogs on research and you don't think I'm Anti-American. My most excellent adventure, fer shure.

Your "take" on lefties playing both sides of the Iraq oil subject is pretty humorous. As you well know, the administration, from Wolfowitz to Bush, maintained initially that Iraqi oil reserves would pay for most of the war effort. Then, when pushed on the war for oil subject and ongoing massive costs of the war, maintained that Iraq would need those resources to fund reconstruction efforts and build an economic recovery, so no, the war was not for oil. Then, the administration leads the charge to open up Iraqi oil operations to multi-national corporations, essentially taking the money from those same reserves right out of the country. And the final problem is that Iraqi production of oil has been low ever since we attacked the country...and I'm sure it will only get better when the multi-nationals make sure where the money is going for that oil. For conservatives, that actually makes a kind of three-or four sided fence...that you can always stay on the opposite side of in arguments. Convenient. And you say liberals play both sides? Laughable.

Liberals have a great case that it is both a war for oil AND we're not getting paid for our efforts - as your boys promised as we went to war. Weasel, you, yourself have always maintained that one of the main reasons for us being in Iraq is to stabilize the flow of oil in the middle east, and protect our own financial interests now and in the future. I have always felt that to be true, too.

You are better off standing up that oil interests for the U.S. and a strong military presence in the middle of the middle east are main reasons for us being there, and not blaming Democrats for seeing right through the BS. At least you make sense with those positions, and are credible.

 

[smurphy]

Cool, this is a good week. I got an "A" from Dogs on research and you don't think I'm Anti-American. My most excellent adventure, fer shure..

Wow, you might be the only leftist on here who isn't a self-hater and anti-American. ...How'd you manage that one? ...You must have confused Gardenweasel with your crazy *paragraphs*. He'll come to his senses and out your freedom-hating tendencies eventually.

 

[Chadman]

Pretty soon he will notice my run-on sentences and excessive usage of the dot-dot-dot thingy, and my Plame cover will be blown.

 

[gardenweasel]

Cool, this is a good week. I got an "A" from Dogs on research and you don't think I'm Anti-American. My most excellent adventure, fer shure.

Your "take" on lefties playing both sides of the Iraq oil subject is pretty humorous. As you well know, the administration, from Wolfowitz to Bush, maintained initially that Iraqi oil reserves would pay for most of the war effort. Then, when pushed on the war for oil subject and ongoing massive costs of the war, maintained that Iraq would need those resources to fund reconstruction efforts and build an economic recovery, so no, the war was not for oil. Then, the administration leads the charge to open up Iraqi oil operations to multi-national corporations, essentially taking the money from those same reserves right out of the country. And the final problem is that Iraqi production of oil has been low ever since we attacked the country...and I'm sure it will only get better when the multi-nationals make sure where the money is going for that oil. For conservatives, that actually makes a kind of three-or four sided fence...that you can always stay on the opposite side of in arguments. Convenient. And you say liberals play both sides? Laughable.

Liberals have a great case that it is both a war for oil AND we're not getting paid for our efforts - as your boys promised as we went to war. Weasel, you, yourself have always maintained that one of the main reasons for us being in Iraq is to stabilize the flow of oil in the middle east, and protect our own financial interests now and in the future. I have always felt that to be true, too.

You are better off standing up that oil interests for the U.S. and a strong military presence in the middle of the middle east are main reasons for us being there, and not blaming Democrats for seeing right through the BS. At least you make sense with those positions, and are credible.

theres not one issue that supported saddam`s ouster...it was a multi-faceted rationale..oil intersts.....saddam`s foibles(invasions,the burning of oil fields,murder,destabilization,shooting at american planes...lobbing scuds into israel)..the breaking of more u.n. resolutions than you can count on both hands....the uselessness of the sanctions thanks to the treachery of our allies....the plot to kill bush senior.....the funding of suicide bombers......

collectively,he was the most disruptive element in the middle east....

the bogus theory that we had him boxed in....lol.....as i said,we have 130,000 trrops on the ground and can`t control iraq`s borders.....

more dems voted to o.k. military action vs saddam....than voted to extract hm from kuwait...

..but for them, hindsight is 20-20....

all i ask is,don`t half step the troops.....defund them and pull them the hell out and let the shitstorm begin.....

or fund them and give the surge a real chance....

take a position....be definitive....

just don`t play politics with our boys on the ground in iraq....

 

[smurphy]

Weasel, you keep bringing up this point about either staying in Iraq or pulling out immediately. There's no logical way to pull out immediately. Every reasonable person understands this - hence, the desire to set a timetable.

An argument can be made that beginning to bring the troops home in 2008 gives the 'surge' plenty of opportunity to work.

We won the war nearly 4 years ago.

 

[gardenweasel]

Weasel, you keep bringing up this point about either staying in Iraq or pulling out immediately. There's no logical way to pull out immediately. Every reasonable person understands this - hence, the desire to set a timetable.

An argument can be made that beginning to bring the troops home in 2008 gives the 'surge' plenty of opportunity to work.

We won the war nearly 4 years ago.

no....what every reasonable person understands is that:

1) you can`t provide the enemy with a surrender date.....

2)you can`t leave your own boys sitting in the sand with nothing but their dicks in their hands....

if you know you can`t defund and walk in a relaltively immediate timeframe....you don`t play games....

you give petraeus the time he needs to see if the surge has a chance to work..and you give him the tools to get the job done....the dems voted for him to be the man in charge on the ground....
let him work.....

if by the end of the year it`s not working,revisit the issue with some immediacy...don`t give the enemy the advantage..... petraeus said that a "military only" solution won`t work.....he sounds like a straight shooter....supposedly the best "anti-insurgency" expert we have........

give him a fair shot....

if by the end of the year the sunni traiangle`s still chaotic, i`m with you....

my feeling is that the dems are so invested politically in our defeat...that they`re so invested in an iraq collapse so they can use it in 08`....that they`re doing everything they can to hurt petraeus.....and the mission...

i wish i were wrong... i don`t think i am..

btw...how dare congress go on vacation with such an important issue pending....how can they reconcile that?...

that`s downright cowardly...

 

[smurphy]

no....what every reasonable person understands is that:

1) you can`t provide the enemy with a surrender date......

What surrender? We won OUR war a while ago.

 

[gardenweasel]

What surrender? We won OUR war a while ago.

o.k....

i tried....:shrug:

 

[Chadman]

More later, but again, I think this is an important point. After 4 years now, and considering the withdrawal timeframe, would you, Weasel, and Wayne say that the U.S. has lost the war in Iraq and we are surrendering at that point?

This speaks volumes about what we have done, if so. Sad to think all of this can be quickly labeled a failure and surrender at this point by the people who engaged us in the war. Talk about unpatriotic and undermining the troops. Thanks for your service, living and dead, we lost/surrendered.