US Admiral thinks Iran most likely to attack Israel

[Smurf-Herder]

With all the talk of who will or won't attack Iran, this is a switch.

U.S. admiral: Iran strike on Israel 'likely'
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/998839.html

"Iran is likely to launch ballistic missiles against Israel and the United States and the NATO alliance should prepare for it, was the warning issued earlier this week by Admiral James Winnefeld, commander of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. In recent years, the missile boats of the Sixth Fleet practiced intercepting Shahab-3 missiles from Iran aimed at Israel, along with the Arrow batteries of the air force and U.S. and Israeli batteries of Patriot missiles.

In an article entitled "Maritime Strategy in an Age of Blood and Belief" in the U.S. Naval Institute's monthly Proceedings, Admiral Winnefeld describes the possibility of an offensive barrage of ballistic missiles fired from Iran against Israel as being "by far the most likely employment of ballistic missiles in the world today, and it demands our immediate attention in the event of a need for a U.S. or NATO response."

He says Iran is an "unpredictable adversary," which could be provoked into action "by an isolated, and perhaps seemingly unimportant, event."

Winnefeld's commander, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon, Admiral Michael Mullen, mentioned earlier this week during his visit in Israel the presence of missile defense vessels of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean and their role in intercepting Iranian missiles."

[Independent Harry]

I'd like to know what has him thinkign that, Iran really doesn't have that kind of history behind them.

[Smurf-Herder]

Missile-defense exercise held in Middle East
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/07/navy_ballistictest_071408w/

By Andrew Scutro - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Jul 4, 2008 9:18:33 EDT

"NORFOLK, Va. — In an unprecedented move, the Navy recently tested the communications network supporting its Aegis ballistic missile defense system across the Middle East. The test comes as top military commanders are expressing a hardened stance against Iran’s intransigence.

The upgraded Aegis systems aboard Navy destroyers and cruisers can track ballistic missiles and intercept them with ship-launched SM-3 missiles.

Tensions have flared recently over Iran’s intent to attain nuclear arms and its persistent threats to destroy Israel, which has indicated it could defend itself with a pre-emptive strike.

The intensified sparring — with the consequences of an additional Middle East war in mind — has prompted U.S. military commanders to speak up.

On July 2, Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, the 5th Fleet commander based in Bahrain, told a conference of naval leaders in the Persian Gulf that maritime security in the area remains an “essential condition” to global stability.

While not speaking specifically about the BMD exercise, he said naval operations in the area reflect the high stakes involved."

[LogicallyYours]

If Iran attacks Israel....they are in for a world of hurt. The Israelis don't play for peace, they play to decimate. Israel is more than ready to respond to any attack. Frankly, it's not something I really want to witness.

This is a bee's nest best left alone.

[Smurf-Herder]

It looks like Iran is in the process of preparing their infrastructure and power base to survive.

Iran in Preparations, Deployment to Withstand Possible Attack by West

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA45108

[Hog Trash]

I hope they've got a good supply of virgins in Muslim paradise.

At 72 per martyr their going to need a whole bunch......Ignorant savages.

[Moby]

These statements should be good to send oil prices higher. I can't see Iran attacking Israel under the current leadership. I do fear Iran being attacked under our current leadership.

[Independent Harry]

I don't quite see how Iran could be stupid enough to attack israel, unless they want to be turned into a large pile of glass...

[Betty Blowtorch]

Tensions have flared recently over Iran’s intent to attain
nuclear arms and its persistent threats to destroy Israel,
which has indicated it could defend itself with a
pre-emptive strike.
Thank you for spreading neocon propaganda intended to
provide a fake pretext for Israel or the US to attack Iran.
You are now fully qualified as a neocon tool.

I've got three questions for you:

1) When was the last time the Islamic Republic of Iran
started a war?

Answer: NEVER.

2) When was the last time the US started an unprovoked
pre-emptive war?

Answer: Five years ago in 2003, against Iraq.

3) When was the last time Israel launched an unprovoked
pre-emptive attack against a neighboring nation?

Answer: Just last year Israel launched an unprovoked
airstrike against Syria.

Israel is the ONLY nation in the Middle East that possesses
nuclear warheads -- more than 200 of them.

But like a good little neocon tool, you point an accusatory
finger at Iran even though they have no program to enrich
uranium to weapons grade quality and they have never
started a war.

Joseph Goebbels would be proud. http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/5337/hitlerbucheneyty3.jpg

[SeedyROM]

Thank you for spreading neocon propaganda intended to
provide a fake pretext for Israel or the US to attack Iran.
You are now fully qualified as a neocon tool.

I've got three questions for you:

1) When was the last time the Islamic Republic of Iran
started a war?

Answer: NEVER.

2) When was the last time the US started an unprovoked
pre-emptive war?

Answer: Five years ago in 2003, against Iraq.

3) When was the last time Israel launched an unprovoked
pre-emptive attack against a neighboring nation?

Answer: Just last year Israel launched an unprovoked
airstrike against Syria.

Israel is the ONLY nation in the Middle East that possesses
nuclear warheads -- more than 200 of them.

But like a good little neocon tool, you point an accusatory
finger at Iran even though they have no program to enrich
uranium to weapons grade quality and they have never
started a war.

Joseph Goebbels would be proud. http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/5337/hitlerbucheneyty3.jpg

Didn't Iran invade Iraq in 2003?

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/29593
IRAN INVADES IRAQ
national | miscellaneous | news report Wednesday February 19, 2003 05:13 by Najmeh Bozorgmehr and Guy Dinmore
THOUSANDS OF PUPPET FORCES START TO OCCUPY NORTHERN IRAQ IN PREEMPTIVE WAR

Iranian officials insist that force's role in the north is defensive but its presence will exacerbate the concerns of the US and especially the Arab world that military intervention in Iraq will lead to a permanent disintegration of the country. Through inserting a proxy force, Iran is underlining that it cannot be ignored in future discussions over Iraq's make-up.

Also, Saddam did provoke us with threats of WMD's which we now know he did not have. But the facts were alarming, but we should have studied Iraq furhter and finished the war in Afganistan. But we all know Dems supported this war too regardless of the fake election agenda/propoganda.

[Betty Blowtorch]

Didn't Iran invade Iraq in 2003?
Apparently you were taken in by the misleading title,
"IRAN INVADES IRAQ" and didn't read the article very
carefully. The text of the article clearly states that
this so-called "Iranian invasion" was in fact made up
of IRAQI forces opposed to Saddam Hussein.

These Iraqi opposition forces were led by Ayatollah
Hakim, the head of the Supreme Council for Islamic
Revolution in Iraq, which is a leading political party
in the present Iraqi government.

These Iraqi forces were based along the Iran-Iraq
border. Your article presents contradicting claims
about whether these Iraqi forces moved across the
border into northern Iraq or were already there.

But there is one point that is undisputed: Iranian
military forces did not enter, invade or attack Iraq
in any way, as implied by the grossly misleading
title of your article.

A more honest (and less misleading) title for this
article would have been: "Iraqi Forces Opposed
to Saddam are Guarding the Border Between Iran
and Iraq".

I guess the title "IRAN INVADES IRAQ" is a more
provocative title. It's just not very accurate.



Also, Saddam did provoke us with threats of WMD's
which we now know he did not have. But the facts
were alarming...
You're new here. We've already debated this issue
a hundred times. You wingnuts refuse to concede
that the Bush-Cheney gangsters cherry-picked the
intelligence for the purpose of conning Congress and
the American public into supporting the Iraq War.

There are mountains of information proving that the
Bush gang intentionally misled us into war, but the
wingnuts refuse to concede the truth.

Believe what you want to believe. I've learned that
it's a waste of time trying to make the blind see the
light.



but we should have studied Iraq furhter and finished
the war in Afganistan.
Gee, ya think? At least here's something we can
agree on. Except I doubt you realize that Bush
intentionally kicked the weapons inspectors out
of Iraq before they finished their job because he
didn't want them to spoil his dishonest pretext
for going to war.



But we all know Dems supported this war too
regardless of the fake election agenda/propoganda.
Okee doke! There ya go! Blame the Democrats.
And while you're at it, don't forget to blame
Clinton. At least that's something you wingers
are good at.

[SeedyROM]

Apparently you were taken in by the misleading title,
"IRAN INVADES IRAQ" and didn't read the article very
carefully. The text of the article clearly states that
this so-called "Iranian invasion" was in fact made up
of IRAQI forces opposed to Saddam Hussein.

These Iraqi opposition forces were led by Ayatollah
Hakim, the head of the Supreme Council for Islamic
Revolution in Iraq, which is a leading political party
in the present Iraqi government.

These Iraqi forces were based along the Iran-Iraq
border. Your article presents contradicting claims
about whether these Iraqi forces moved across the
border into northern Iraq or were already there.

But there is one point that is undisputed: Iranian
military forces did not enter, invade or attack Iraq
in any way, as implied by the grossly misleading
title of your article.

A more honest (and less misleading) title for this
article would have been: "Iraqi Forces Opposed
to Saddam are Guarding the Border Between Iran
and Iraq".

I guess the title "IRAN INVADES IRAQ" is a more
provocative title. It's just not very accurate.


You're new here. We've already debated this issue
a hundred times. You wingnuts refuse to concede
that the Bush-Cheney gangsters cherry-picked the
intelligence for the purpose of conning Congress and
the American public into supporting the Iraq War.

There are mountains of information proving that the
Bush gang intentionally misled us into war, but the
wingnuts refuse to concede the truth.

Believe what you want to believe. I've learned that
it's a waste of time trying to make the blind see the
light.


Gee, ya think? At least here's something we can
agree on. Except I doubt you realize that Bush
intentionally kicked the weapons inspectors out
of Iraq before they finished their job because he
didn't want them to spoil his dishonest pretext
for going to war.


Okee doke! There ya go! Blame the Democrats.
And while you're at it, don't forget to blame
Clinton. At least that's something you wingers
are good at.

Wrong again, what was never proven was whether Iran was involved or not.
Dems say one thing Reps say another, I worked in this field for over a decade, the intel leaned towards Iran, but we don't have much in the way of open relations nor would they reveal their intentions if they were involved now would they? Dems have a poor understanding of proven facts versus theories and when things go wrong all they want to do is hunt for the scapegoat, Reps do it too of course. Dems destroyed our federal agents careers hunting the mythical mad men behind the Waco Massacre, yet it should have been called the Waco MassSuicide, but the Dem witch hunt had to demonize someone.

That's why I'm an independant, because wack jobs like you always jump to conclusions without all the facts let alone the intelliegence necessary to understand that the lack of intel from the Iran/Iraq war is hidden from us. But yall found the demons to parade around, what a joke!!!

There are other facts out there, but they are hidden from you on purpose!

Don't forget all the letters from Dems demanding action against Iraq as well as the media sources. Everyone wanted to believe. The mountain of data had some truth to it, I saw many docs that are classified, but there was not enough to lead us into war, a lot of theory and paranoid men. Just like the theories after WACO and before and after Somolia!

Of course we can blame Dems they voted for the war and voted to fund it even further. As for Clinton, we all know his speeches WMD this WMD that, etc.... etc... etc..... Get over it, the details and the failures of both parties are well documented. Watering it down is sign of weakness and failure to admit party failures is an even greater sin called lying.

fyi, Iran is attempted to push us into war just so their President can say I told you so, those brutal Americans bully and beat up everyone. He's doing a good job of psyching politicians and military leaders. Ahmadinejad is a twisted man, I've studied him for over a decade, even before being elected. He is good at pushing and manipulating people into doing what he wants them to do without being the first to strike. He'll bully Israel to point the paranoia leads them to attack first so other muslim countries will hate the jews even more. He's pushing the psy op agenda and it is working.

[Betty Blowtorch]

Wrong again, what was never proven was whether Iran was involved or not. Dems say one thing Reps say another, I worked in this field for over a decade, the intel leaned towards Iran, but we don't have much in the way of open relations nor would they reveal their intentions if they were involved now would they? Dems have a poor understanding of proven facts versus theories and when things go wrong all they want to do is hunt for the scapegoat, Reps do it too of course. Dems destroyed our federal agents careers hunting the mythical mad men behind the Waco Massacre, yet it should have been called the Waco MassSuicide, but the Dem witch hunt had to demonize someone.

That's why I'm an independant, because wack jobs like you always jump to conclusions without all the facts let alone the intelliegence necessary to understand that the lack of intel from the Iran/Iraq war is hidden from us. But yall found the demons to parade around, what a joke!!!

There are other facts out there, but they are hidden from you on purpose!

It's not clear what you're referring to. You mention the Iran/Iraq War
(which occurred in 1980-1988), the Waco Massacre (1993), and you
say that Iran may or may not have been involved in something, but
you don't specify what you're referring to. You claim you worked in
"this field" but don't specify what field you're talking about.



Don't forget all the letters from Dems demanding action against Iraq as well as the media sources. Everyone wanted to believe. The mountain of data had some truth to it, I saw many docs that are classified, but there was not enough to lead us into war, a lot of theory and paranoid men. Just like the theories after WACO and before and after Somolia!

Of course we can blame Dems they voted for the war and voted to fund it even further. As for Clinton, we all know his speeches WMD this WMD that, etc.... etc... etc..... Get over it, the details and the failures of both parties are well documented. Watering it down is sign of weakness and failure to admit party failures is an even greater sin called lying.
Clinton's strategy of harsh sanctions against Iraq succeeded in
neutering Saddam and keeping him at bay without resorting to
an ill-advised invasion and occupation of Iraq (which has been
called the worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.)

It's a well-documented fact that the Iraq War was concocted
and aggressively marketed to Congress and the American public
by a small group of right-wing neocons (http://thinkprogress.org/the-architects-where-are-they-now/) in the Pentagon and
White House.

The pro-war neocons intentionally frightened the public with
horror stories of "mushroom clouds over Manhattan." They
pressured Democrats to jump onto the neocon bandwagon
to avoid being branded as unpatriotic, un-American and soft
on defense. The neocons also promised that the war would
be over quickly and pay for itself with Iraqi oil revenue.

But it was all a con job.

Ask yourself this: If the Bush gang had not pushed so hard
for an invasion of Iraq, do you think the Dems in Congress
(who were in the minority at the beginning of the Iraq War)
would have engineered an invasion of Iraq? Of course not.

The Dems supported the invasion of Afghanistan to eliminate
bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban. The Iraq War, however,
was a pet project (The Project for a New American Century)
of the neocons in the White House and Pentagon.

If you want to assign blame, the Republican neocons deserve
at least 80% of the blame, and the Dems deserve maybe 20%
because they went along with the Bush con job. And now
that the war has gone so badly, neither party wants to be
accused of losing the war.

But there can be no dispute that the Bush neocons started
this mess and are primarily responsible for it.



fyi, Iran is attempted to push us into war just so their President can say I told you so, those brutal Americans bully and beat up everyone. He's doing a good job of psyching politicians and military leaders. Ahmadinejad is a twisted man, I've studied him for over a decade, even before being elected. He is good at pushing and manipulating people into doing what he wants them to do without being the first to strike. He'll bully Israel to point the paranoia leads them to attack first so other muslim countries will hate the jews even more. He's pushing the psy op agenda and it is working.
This is goofy. Israel and the US have a track record of
pre-emptive attacks. The US has two aircraft carrier
groups in the Persian Gulf region, and Israel recently
conducted long-range training missions in preparation
for a possible airstrike on Iran. These are provocative
military actions.

Is Iran the aggressor or the prey? Did Syria pressure
Israel into launching a pre-emptive airstrike recently,
or is Israel the aggressor?

Israel has 200 nukes, but you demonize Ahmadinejad
as the bully and aggressor. You claim he wants to be
attacked just so he can say "I told you so?" WTF?

Any tough talk by the Iranian government is clearly
intended to deter Israel and the US from attacking
Iran, but in your paranoid delusion you see it as a
provocation.

Do you think Ahmadinejad needs Iran to be attacked
to prove "those brutal Americans bully and beat up
everyone?" That's ridiculous! Muslims need only look
at the death and destruction wreaked on Iraq to be
fully acquainted with the anti-Islamic brutality of US
foreign policy in the Middle East.

Muslims know the US is not there to bring democracy
to the Middle East, but to control the oil and protect
Israeli territorial ambitions.

[Smurf-Herder]

Thank you for spreading neocon propaganda intended to
provide a fake pretext for Israel or the US to attack Iran.
You are now fully qualified as a neocon tool.

I've got three questions for you:

1) When was the last time the Islamic Republic of Iran
started a war?

Answer: NEVER.

2) When was the last time the US started an unprovoked
pre-emptive war?

Answer: Five years ago in 2003, against Iraq.

3) When was the last time Israel launched an unprovoked
pre-emptive attack against a neighboring nation?

Answer: Just last year Israel launched an unprovoked
airstrike against Syria.

Israel is the ONLY nation in the Middle East that possesses
nuclear warheads -- more than 200 of them.

But like a good little neocon tool, you point an accusatory
finger at Iran even though they have no program to enrich
uranium to weapons grade quality and they have never
started a war.

Joseph Goebbels would be proud. http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/5337/hitlerbucheneyty3.jpg


I've been down this road before. It's a bullshit ignorant argument.

You're saying you trust Iran, the country at the top of the list of state sponsors of terrorism in the world? The people who gave us the Hezbollah coup in Lebanon. The people striving to build longer and longer range missiles and nukes to mount on them - deploying them in Syria and Sudan, as well as their own country.

It's just stupid to say you trust Iran.

You goddamned dirty stinking Iran-lover. Where's your burka?

[Betty Blowtorch]

I've been down this road before. It's a bullshit ignorant argument.
You're saying you trust Iran, It's just stupid to say you trust Iran.
You goddamned dirty stinking Iran-lover.
Hey Smurfy, it's your lucky day.

I have a fresh, crisp $100 bill I'd love to send you.
All you have to do to earn it is to show me where
I said I trust Iran.

http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/9906/100dollarbill2resizesd2.png

If you can't show me where I said I trust Iran, however,
I can offer you a lovely consolation prize: a delectable
feast of lukewarm crow. As I'm sure you already know,
crow tastes best when served at room temperature.

http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/9929/eatingcrow3resizeki0.jpg

Four thousand US soldiers are dead. Tens of thousands have
been severely wounded. More than 100,000 innocent Iraqis
have been murdered. Millions have been displaced from their
homes, jobs and businesses.

All of it happened because the Bush-Cheney gang started
a brutal war over WMD's that didn't exist.

Do you think we should risk making the same disastrous
blunder in Iran?

Silly me, I think it might be wise to let the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) finish its job of inspecting
Iran's nuclear program -- which is perfectly legal under
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -- before the US
or Israel starts another disastrous war based on false
information.

Isreal and the neocons are pushing hard for an attack
on Iran before the end of this year, not because they
sincerely believe that Iran is on the verge of building
a nuclear warhead, but because of the US election.

If Obama is elected, it could derail the neocon plans
for an attack on Iran. If McCain is elected, however,
the neocons will have plenty of time to con the idiots
into supporting an attack on Iran.

Idiots never learn.



Where's your burka?
It's still at the cleaners.

The Bush-Cheney gang has murdered so many Iraqis,
it's hard to get all of the bloodstains out.

[SeedyROM]

It's not clear what you're referring to. You mention the Iran/Iraq War
(which occurred in 1980-1988), the Waco Massacre (1993), and you
say that Iran may or may not have been involved in something, but
you don't specify what you're referring to. You claim you worked in
"this field" but don't specify what field you're talking about.


Clinton's strategy of harsh sanctions against Iraq succeeded in
neutering Saddam and keeping him at bay without resorting to
an ill-advised invasion and occupation of Iraq (which has been
called the worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.)

It's a well-documented fact that the Iraq War was concocted
and aggressively marketed to Congress and the American public
by a small group of right-wing neocons (http://thinkprogress.org/the-architects-where-are-they-now/) in the Pentagon and
White House.

The pro-war neocons intentionally frightened the public with
horror stories of "mushroom clouds over Manhattan." They
pressured Democrats to jump onto the neocon bandwagon
to avoid being branded as unpatriotic, un-American and soft
on defense. The neocons also promised that the war would
be over quickly and pay for itself with Iraqi oil revenue.

But it was all a con job.

Ask yourself this: If the Bush gang had not pushed so hard
for an invasion of Iraq, do you think the Dems in Congress
(who were in the minority at the beginning of the Iraq War)
would have engineered an invasion of Iraq? Of course not.

The Dems supported the invasion of Afghanistan to eliminate
bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban. The Iraq War, however,
was a pet project (The Project for a New American Century)
of the neocons in the White House and Pentagon.

If you want to assign blame, the Republican neocons deserve
at least 80% of the blame, and the Dems deserve maybe 20%
because they went along with the Bush con job. And now
that the war has gone so badly, neither party wants to be
accused of losing the war.

But there can be no dispute that the Bush neocons started
this mess and are primarily responsible for it.


This is goofy. Israel and the US have a track record of
pre-emptive attacks. The US has two aircraft carrier
groups in the Persian Gulf region, and Israel recently
conducted long-range training missions in preparation
for a possible airstrike on Iran. These are provocative
military actions.

Is Iran the aggressor or the prey? Did Syria pressure
Israel into launching a pre-emptive airstrike recently,
or is Israel the aggressor?

Israel has 200 nukes, but you demonize Ahmadinejad
as the bully and aggressor. You claim he wants to be
attacked just so he can say "I told you so?" WTF?

Any tough talk by the Iranian government is clearly
intended to deter Israel and the US from attacking
Iran, but in your paranoid delusion you see it as a
provocation.

Do you think Ahmadinejad needs Iran to be attacked
to prove "those brutal Americans bully and beat up
everyone?" That's ridiculous! Muslims need only look
at the death and destruction wreaked on Iraq to be
fully acquainted with the anti-Islamic brutality of US
foreign policy in the Middle East.

Muslims know the US is not there to bring democracy
to the Middle East, but to control the oil and protect
Israeli territorial ambitions.

You would not survive a career in politics or the military. In fact you could not get a decent paying job due to the evil underground dwellers you support and believe in.

You can't even remember who started these wars or did you buy the
slimy excuses from the sheep talk media. You talk more like an Iranian Bitch than an American.

Iran is pushing the buttons and you've been played quite well. Yet after others point out the facts, you now pretend to be an expert on facts you did not know, let alone have any credibility on.

You are a fucking idiot, even worse, I loaded all your words into a digester program and it clearly points to pure stupidity. We did not attack the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon you fucking pinko commi bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Betty Blowtorch]

You would not survive a career in politics or the military. In fact you could not get a decent paying job due to the evil underground dwellers you support and believe in.

You can't even remember who started these wars or did you buy the
slimy excuses from the sheep talk media. You talk more like an Iranian Bitch than an American.

Iran is pushing the buttons and you've been played quite well. Yet after others point out the facts, you now pretend to be an expert on facts you did not know, let alone have any credibility on.

You are a fucking idiot, even worse, I loaded all your words into a digester program and it clearly points to pure stupidity. We did not attack the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon you fucking pinko commi bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did you say something?

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/9528/earhugeag1.jpg

I notice you've got a bad case of diarrhea of the mouth.
You might want to get a Kleenex and wipe that shit off
your lips. It looks like some of it dribbled down your chin
and onto the front of your shirt.

[SeedyROM]

1) When was the last time the Islamic Republic of Iran
started a war?

Answer: NEVER.

So was it NEVER or were there two wars ? I guess you'll NEVER know for sure.

I tell you a little secret historians, book publishers and even goverments use.
The country that starts a war is always the first listed so the world will know for sure who started the war. They taught that in the 5th grade, maybe you were eating your Gerbers that day!!! Now, the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's was started by which country?

3) When was the last time Israel launched an unprovoked
pre-emptive attack against a neighboring nation?

Answer: Just last year Israel launched an unprovoked
airstrike against Syria.

Syria harbors many terrorist cells that continue to attack Israel. No neocon con job in that news. I don't care for the neocon crap either but the history on this one is crystal clear.

Islamic Republic of Iran, only nationals say it that way...........and of course terrorist sympathizers.
CT Nutter, that's a new phrase for me, but it fits you just fine!!


So which Muslim nation are you from? It's okay to were a dress over your head, just remember to hold your breath when you fart, lol!!!

[Betty Blowtorch]

I tell you a little secret historians, book publishers and even
goverments use. The country that starts a war is always
the first listed so the world will know for sure who started
the war. They taught that in the 5th grade, maybe you
were eating your Gerbers that day!!! Now, the Iran-Iraq
war in the 80's was started by which country?
I'll tell you a little secret intelligent people use: google.

If you had spent 30 seconds googling the Iran-Iraq War,
you would have realized you're full of shit.

Since you were too lazy or too stupid to do it yourself,
I'll give you a couple of links to check out:

The war began when IRAQ invaded IRAN
on 22 September 1980 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War)

Iran-Iraq War, armed conflict that began
when IRAQ invaded IRAN in September 1980 (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580640/iran-iraq_war.html)

So much for the theory you learned in 5th grade.

[SeedyROM]

I'll tell you a little secret intelligent people use: google.

If you had spent 30 seconds googling the Iran-Iraq War,
you would have realized you're full of shit.

Since you were too lazy or too stupid to do it yourself,
I'll give you a couple of links to check out:

The war began when IRAQ invaded IRAN
on 22 September 1980 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War)

Iran-Iraq War, armed conflict that began
when IRAQ invaded IRAN in September 1980 (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580640/iran-iraq_war.html)

So much for the theory you learned in 5th grade.

LOL, you don't know truth from a joke now do you? Next time I'll add LOL so as not to confuse you. But your country did not start the war in 1993, yea right!!!

If you were intelligent, you'd know who destroyed the World Trade Towers!!

[SeedyROM]

ROFL!!!!!:taunt:

[Betty Blowtorch]

LOL, you don't know truth from a joke now do you?
Next time I'll add LOL so as not to confuse you.
My standard response to this kind of crap is:

Does your mommy know you're using her computer?
Did she give you permission to interact with adults
on the internet?



But your country did not start the war in 1993, yea right!!!
My country started the war in 2003. I suppose
you must have been in... 3rd or 4th grade then?

[SeedyROM]

My country started the war in 2003. I suppose
you must have been in... 3rd or 4th grade then?[/

So you admit you're Iranian!!!

[Smurf-Herder]

So you admit you're Iranian!!!

Seedy, you should do a search on Iranian troops crossing into Iraq around June of 2004. I can't find the story, because there's so much more to look through in results since then. But The British were ordered to attack 2 IRGC brigades that had made an incursion a couple miles into Iraq, but refused, because of the IRGC divisions just across the border. It was in one of the UK papers. I'll keep trying find it. I had it posted on another board, that got sold; and all old posts were deleted.

[SeedyROM]

Seedy, you should do a search on Iranian troops crossing into Iraq around June of 2004. I can't find the story, because there's so much more to look through in results since then. But The British were ordered to attack 2 IRGC brigades that had made an incursion a couple miles into Iraq, but refused, because of the IRGC divisions just across the border. It was in one of the UK papers. I'll keep trying find it. I had it posted on another board, that got sold; and all old posts were deleted.

Okay, I'll see what I can find.

[Smurf-Herder]

Okay, I'll see what I can find.

The problem is so many results about the Iranian incursion into Kurdistan and reports of incursions in Basra last year. It's hard to get the big one in 2004. They basically said they were taking back land that they lost in the Iran-Iraq war, that belonged to them. The Us General ordered the British to attack; and the Brits decided to just let them take it. I think it was in Diyala province.