molson_golden2002 Posted March 4, 2007 Posted March 4, 2007 http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/i...332990520070304 Hopefully this will speed our departure from Iraq. All those worries that this total disaster will spread beyond the borders is hopefully leading to people trying to prevent that, without our help. Too bad we are not more actively involved in diplomacy over there
Prognastic Posted March 4, 2007 Posted March 4, 2007 Iran and Saudi "talking" is akin to the Iron Sheik and Nikolai Volkoff "talking" behind the Hulkster's back. Whatever they're talking about, it probably isnt good for us.
Bungee Jumper Posted March 4, 2007 Posted March 4, 2007 http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/i...332990520070304 Hopefully this will speed our departure from Iraq. All those worries that this total disaster will spread beyond the borders is hopefully leading to people trying to prevent that, without our help. Too bad we are not more actively involved in diplomacy over there How did you miss the couple hundred reports last week that we are more actively involved in diplomacy over there now?
molson_golden2002 Posted March 4, 2007 Author Posted March 4, 2007 How did you miss the couple hundred reports last week that we are more actively involved in diplomacy over there now? True, my bad. Still they are baby steps, hopefully they will go farther
pdh1 Posted March 4, 2007 Posted March 4, 2007 Iran and Saudi "talking" is akin to the Iron Sheik and Nikolai Volkoff "talking" behind the Hulkster's back. Whatever they're talking about, it probably isnt good for us. Yep, Iran could talk the Saudis into pulling a "NWO" style attack while our guard is down. While fight each other when they are plenty of Jews and other infidels to kill?
molson_golden2002 Posted March 4, 2007 Author Posted March 4, 2007 Yep, Iran could talk the Saudis into pulling a "NWO" style attack while our guard is down.While fight each other when they are plenty of Jews and other infidels to kill? Oh bull crude. If they wanted to hurt us they could just turn off the oil. On big reason given by the Bushbots and others for staying in Iraq is so the conflict doesn't spread. The leading sunni country [sA] is taking to the leading Shiite country [iran] to try and prevent that. That is a good thing.
Prognastic Posted March 4, 2007 Posted March 4, 2007 Why didnt someone tell me there were Bushbots out there? Dont you guys know I'm deathly afraid of robot overlords?
pdh1 Posted March 5, 2007 Posted March 5, 2007 Oh bull crude. If they wanted to hurt us they could just turn off the oil. On big reason given by the Bushbots and others for staying in Iraq is so the conflict doesn't spread. The leading sunni country [sA] is taking to the leading Shiite country [iran] to try and prevent that. That is a good thing. Iran = Kevin Nash Syria = Scott Hall Yemen= X-pac Russia= Dennis Rodman NWO for life!
RkFast Posted March 5, 2007 Posted March 5, 2007 Ya know....it was a great thing when Germany and Japan got together and began talking back in the day.........BROTHER.
pdh1 Posted March 5, 2007 Posted March 5, 2007 Ya know....it was a great thing when Germany and Japan got together and began talking back in the day.........BROTHER. molsen golden = Jimmy "Mouth of the South" Hart
Bungee Jumper Posted March 5, 2007 Posted March 5, 2007 Ya know....it was a great thing when Germany and Japan got together and began talking back in the day.........BROTHER. Yeah...because the Tripartite Pact was the root cause of EXACTLY NOTHING. So I can see where it's relevant.
RkFast Posted March 5, 2007 Posted March 5, 2007 Yeah...because the Tripartite Pact was the root cause of EXACTLY NOTHING. So I can see where it's relevant. I know, I know. Both Germany and "The Japs" (thanks, 'Ben Franklin') had their ownreasons for entering WWII. But I use this analogy to smash MG's wonderful assertion that nations hostile to US interests is a GOOD thing.
Bungee Jumper Posted March 5, 2007 Posted March 5, 2007 I know, I know. Both Germany and "The Japs" (thanks, 'Ben Franklin') had their ownreasons for entering WWII. But I use this analogy to smash MG's wonderful assertion that nations hostile to US interests is a GOOD thing. Next time, pick an analogy that makes sense.
erynthered Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 Could someone pin a thread for HA, Tom and Ramius? !@#$ing please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So that they can continue to beat each other to death, for !@#$ing Christ sakes. Darin?
Merovingian Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 I think that it is a good thing that they are talking. Whatever it takes to keep them from supporting and providing homicide bombers (even if it is just for a few days) is a good thing. At least a few innocent Iraqi's will be able to buy fruit and vegatables in the markets for a few days and maybe even be able to go back and forth to worship without becomng someones ticket to 72 virgins. There may be some hope yet.
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 This could be very bad for the U.S.. We need to stop it.
DC Tom Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 This could be very bad for the U.S.. We need to stop it. Yeah, really bad. I'm sure one of our biggest allies in the region is conspiring with the Iranians to do bad things to us, so that we'll stop buying their oil, bankrupt them, and thus topple the royal family. It's a subtle scheme by the House of Saud. But I can see why they're pursuing.
Cornerville Posted March 13, 2007 Posted March 13, 2007 Iran and Saudi "talking" is akin to the Iron Sheik and Nikolai Volkoff "talking" behind the Hulkster's back. Whatever they're talking about, it probably isnt good for us. But it is good for the angry libs like molson. USA bad...Iran and Saudis good...till a lib gets elected...oh wait, lets reverse that. Sad and pathetic.
molson_golden2002 Posted March 14, 2007 Author Posted March 14, 2007 But it is good for the angry libs like molson. USA bad...Iran and Saudis good...till a lib gets elected...oh wait, lets reverse that. Sad and pathetic. I thought it was bad for USA if the Iraq disaster spilled outside its borders? Or is anything a great patriot like me likes 'bad' in your eyes? I like beer. Is that bad for America, too? I think these major sunni and shiite powers trying to head off a larger war is good. You, I assume, side more with our insane Vice President: Dick: An enemy that operates in the shadows and views the entire world as a battlefield is not one we can fight with strategies used in other wars. An enemy with fantasies of martyrdom is not going to sit down at a table for negotiations. Nor can we fight to a standoff -- (applause). Nor can we fight to a standoff, hoping that some form of containment or deterrence will protect our people. The only option for our security and survival is to go on the offensive, facing the threat directly, patiently and systematically, until the enemy is destroyed. (Applause.) ______________________ Yes, we can just kill them all. Victory is possible as long as we keep fighting forever. This from a guy who got 5 deferments
pdh1 Posted March 14, 2007 Posted March 14, 2007 Yes, we can just kill them all. Victory is possible as long as we keep fighting forever. This from a guy who got 5 deferments Yep, good thing the Shiites and Sunnis are trying to make peace with each other. Then they can get back to the business of killing infidels. Like blowing up some Buddhists! BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) -- Suspected Muslim insurgents bombed a commuter van in Thailand's restive south on Wednesday and then shot dead eight passengers, police said. The driver of the van was wounded in the attack, which took place about 9:30 a.m. local time (0230 GMT), said police Col. Apirak Sangkao, chief of police in the Yaha district of Yala province, where the violence occurred. Drive-by shootings and bombings occur almost daily in Thailand's three Muslim-majority provinces -- Yala, Narathiwat and Pattani -- where an Islamic insurgency that flared up in January 2004 has killed more than 2,000 people.
Recommended Posts