Iran asked to pay 10.5 billion dollars to 9/11 victims

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


Really? It was the U.S. that gave the anthrax seeds and the chemical weapons to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war.


They had them, we knew it, Powell was justified. Bush senior should have taken Saddam out after invading Kuwait and ended it. Period.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Wow you got to be one of the only people that still believes the WMD lie.

Derp derp


Iraq dumped it's WMD after the first war.

Yes you should of taken him out in that forest war.

You didn't.

The secound war there were no viable WMD left.

And the war was a catastrophic disaster as all you did was remove Sadam for NOTHING.
You made it a even more unstable dangerous place.

Iraq war 2 is the worst US foreign policy disaster since Vietnam !

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok


No one attacked Iran. Iran was at war with Iraq just a few short years previously.


IRAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPORTING THE U.S. IN GETTING RID OF SADDAM.


Iran is culpable.

Or more simple the US should not have invaded and stayed at home!

a reply to: crazyewok


Sigh. I guess you were a confidant of Saddam and he convinced you the WMDs were gone. A buddy of yours?

This is re-hashing old subjects, but even recently degraded stockpiles of chemical weapons have been found in Iraq and Lord only knows what was shipped to Syria. He wouldn't let U.N. inspectors full access and rope-a-doped on a non-stop basis.

Back to the point, which you seem to ignore. Iran should have stayed out of it.
(I include Pakistan and their 'sphere of influence' of Afghanistan and their IEDs as well.)

We shall continue to disagree on this.

a reply to: crazyewok

Lots of 'should haves'.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Yes old degraded stockpiles were found.

The cue is in the word DEGRADED.
Any proof or evidence you can present it was resent?

Any proof stockpiles were transferred?
Come on present?


Plus tell me what benifit did removing sadam have?

Does Iraq have a strong democratic goverment ?no

Are the Iraqi people safer? No

Is the world safer ? No

Is there less terrorism ? No

Is the region safer? No

Did removing saddam have any benifits? No

So in ever sense of the word Iraq was a major # up!

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

Lots of 'should haves'.

Your neocons entire war was based on "should haves"

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok


Sigh. I guess you were a confidant of Saddam and he convinced you the WMDs were gone. A buddy of yours?

This is re-hashing old subjects, but even recently degraded stockpiles of chemical weapons have been found in Iraq and Lord only knows what was shipped to Syria. He wouldn't let U.N. inspectors full access and rope-a-doped on a non-stop basis.

Back to the point, which you seem to ignore. Iran should have stayed out of it.
(I include Pakistan and their 'sphere of influence' of Afghanistan and their IEDs as well.)

We shall continue to disagree on this.

Done spewing nonsense ? now listen mate :

1-Firstly these is ZERO evidence that Iran actually had any part deploying those IEDs . i'm sure google is going to help you since there is enough BS out there in the web . but if Iran really had a part and it was proven, why didn't US bring it up in international courts as an act of aggression ? maybe they were embarrassed of even talking about the word "aggression" ? huh ? i mean they were deployed 11000 kms from home weren't they ?

2- Why should Iran stay out of US-Iraq war ? did US stay out of Iran-Iraq war ? i should drop the mic here but i will go further ahead just for the sake of conversation :

3- Saddam was an enemy of Iran but he was contained . they had no upper hand against Iran . in case of a war we would have crushed him this time . but US has always been the top enemy of Iran as you can see even the corrupt judiciary system of US hate us . as wendy sherman once incited , maybe there is sth wrong with our genes that u guys hate us so much . but either way, as another member mentioned, what would you do if China attacked Mexico ?

4- Maybe Iran was smart enough to foresee the result of your invasion of a sovereign state ? Look what happened to Iraq and Afghanistan . they simply were turned to S***holes . brought to u with love from the USA .

Mission accomplished America !!!! Iraq is now officially a S***hole .

5- If you want your soldiers safe, then keep them inside your own country for the love of lord . stop attacking others stop bombing others stop killing people ....

a reply to: crazyewok


Quit spinning. Of course degraded. the damn things were given to them in the seventies!

They had them. Therefore not your 'lie'. If we don't know where they were then how can one know they're degraded? DUH.

I agree that things aren't safer, at least world-wide. I don't agree that invading Iraq has any part, or at least a significant part in it.
9/11 did occur before the Invasion of Iraq and hasn't been repeated since.


Getting off topic though. I agree this suit is a wrong target. Not 9/11....IEDs

a reply to: haman10

Forget it your talking to chickenhawks who are itching with glee to bomb you.

They want a nice war to watch on TV from there comfy house while eating there dinners.

Your talking to a neocon who believes in "American exceptionlism" and so not only thinks the USA has the moral right to invade who they like but won't be happy to US boots are all over the middle East.


Guess us Brits are to blame. They inherited this imperlislitic war happy streak from us.....

a reply to: nwtrucker

The only proof they could have presented was indeed a copy of the invoices the US charged at the time the Iraqis for the furniture. Proofs are not supposed to be more embarrassing for the accuser than for the one you want to blame.

Do you know that even Powell himself apologized for that crap ?



Only 'Bomb bomb bomb Iran' Cheney is still running that hare.
Maybe you just happen to have Halliburton stocks as well ?

a reply to: haman10


Zero evidence? Bulls**t.


I will take our statements over yours any day of the week
....mate. Don't need to prove anything to you. Last time I checked it isn't a popularity contest.

The line from Iran to Iraq for those IEDs are obvious....as were the insurgent movement, I might add. Anyone who is naïve enough to believe a nation that maintains Hamas and Hezbollah world-wide is an 'innocent' in all these games is wearing blinders.

As far as staying out of the Iran-Iraq war goes, both were puppets. Iran via Russia and Iraq via the U.S.. Done deal. Over. Let it go.

Iraq is a # hole due to Iraqis more as much as anything else.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Like I said, you avoid my point. Again. I'm not interested in re-hashing
the Iraq war. I'm glad Saddam is gone. We'd have had to deal with him sooner or later, from what I can see.

Powell said or not or the spinning that resulted. They Had the WMDs the U.S. gave them the weapons and Saddam blocked both U.N. and U.S. inspections at every turn. That's my basis for not trusting Saddam's assertions. If you trust Saddam's assertions over the U.S.'s, that's your right. I don't.


My point was and remains, Iran shouldn't have involved themselves with insurgents/IEDs and are culpable for those acts.

Not 9/11 whatsoever.

a reply to: nwtrucker

originally posted by: nwtrucker

Don't need to prove anything to you. Last time I checked it isn't a popularity contest.

Hopefully. But you're scoring low anyway.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
The line from Iran to Iraq for those IEDs are obvious....as were the insurgent movement, I might add. Anyone who is naïve enough to believe a nation that maintains Hamas and Hezbollah world-wide is an 'innocent' in all these games is wearing blinders.

Actually they just maintain Hezbollah.
And the line for IED actually goes through North Carolina and Israel and stated in this post.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
As far as staying out of the Iran-Iraq war goes, both were puppets. Iran via Russia and Iraq via the U.S.. Done deal. Over. Let it go.

Ah ! So here we go. You're just jealous of the current success Russia (and Iran) are wining in the Middle-East.
It's not the Iranian's fault if the US friends/allies don't like the idea to send ground troops in to clear mess.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Iraq is a # hole due to Iraqis more as much as anything else.

This one is for Haman10 but I would say it's mostly because of international sanctions and financial asset withholding. Something that the judgement mentioned in the OP is supposed to maintain despite the lifting of the sanctions.

a reply to: haman10

I'm just surprised they ask Iran to pay instead of Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers came from.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Would you dare to consider if there really was any single good reason to provide Saddam with Anthrax in the first place ?
Against who was he supposed to use it ? Not the Kurds of Iraq obviously ...

a reply to: crazyewok


P.S. I have numerous Iranian ex-pat friends. Both Jewish and Muslim. I know better than listening to a pro-Iranian trying to picture Iran as some victim in all this.

You say Saddam was 'contained'. So containment was sufficient reason to side against the U.S. in his removal? Now there's a stretch. Pretty much the whole world, even the Crazywok, refers to Iran's sphere of influence and interests in controlling the region.

The bleeding irony is if they had supported Saddam's removal they'd likely have unfettered influence in the region right now with U.S. abstention, if not outright approval.

LMAO.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Iran has more rich history compared to a nomad tribe that is the Saudi Regime.

P.S. I have numerous Iranian ex-pat friends.

Sure you do.................

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: nwtrucker

Would you dare to consider if there really was any single good reason to provide Saddam with Anthrax in the first place ?
Against who was he supposed to use it ? Not the Kurds of Iraq obviously ...

If my understanding is correct, and I'm not putting a value judgement on it, is Saddam was both manpower-wise and arms-wise at a disadvantage and likely to lose to Iran. Iran being Soviet backed and U.S. policy was to block every perceived expansion of Soviet influence-cold-war- backing Saddam with arms and WMDs apparently seemed like a cost effective move against the Soviets.

So short answer is Iran. It 'may' have been a mistake and may not. neither of us will ever have the full data involved . It is what it is.

a reply to: nwtrucker

It seems your the one trying paint the Saudis as some victim. Saudis arent very different from Sunni terrorists which they defend and oh do you know that your beloved Saudis arent doing anything agaisnt the Terrorists in Yemen?