Ridiculous! Ridiculous! Ridiculous!

ASS BACKWARD LOGIC!

Stop and THINK about this for a minute, folks:

The people that Iran is supporting in Iraq ARE THE VERY SAME PEOPLE THAT WE ARE SUPPORTING IN IRAQ. Iran is helping the SHIITES - WE are helping the Shiites. The SHIITES are not the ones fighting the U.S.; it is the Sunnis, and the Iranians are not supporting the Sunnis. The Sunnis are the ones targeting the U.S. troops in Iraq, and Iran is NOT assisting them in any way.

ANY ASSISTANCE THAT IRAN IS SUPPYING IS ACTUALLY HELPING THE U.S. SIDE.

Period.

More after the fold...

All these claims that Iran is helping "the insurgency" or "the terrorists" are bald-faced lies. The Iranians are the ENEMIES of the "insurgents" and the "terrorists". Just as the U.S. is.

The only parallel to such uninhibited lies is the end of WWII, when the Soviets suddenly became the enemy. The U.S. uses allies and then turns on them, WMD daggers in hand, when their usefulness has ended. In sort, our government are a bunch of sons of bitches - then and now. It was convenient - for a while - for the Iranians to be helping the Shiites - none of whom are targeting U.S. forces. Now that Bush needs to distract from his utter failure in Iraq, he points out true facts - that the Iranians have been sending supplies to Iraq. By then lying through his teeth that such supplies help "the insurgency", the MSM and the blogosphere turn out not to be able to figure out that the Iranians' supplies were always for the Shiites, who are on our side in Iraq.

Our government CHOSE who to support and set up as the government in Iraq, and it was the same side that

A. Supports terrorism around the world, and

B. Kicked us out in 1979 and established a Shiite Islamic republic, something that is not good for our side.

At the time we chose to oust the Sunnis in Iraq in 2003, we also de facto decided that we were on the side of Iran.  We thus have to suffer our 2003 foolishness.  But wait!  No!  We don't have to!  

(Travel back in time to the early spring of 2003, when we hadn't quite yet really crossed into the Twilight Zone of WMD/non-WMD Middle East politics... You are a fly on the wall at the pre-Invasion brainstorming meeting of Neocon.Org... All the Nixon-was-jobbed pimple-faced geek chicken hawks are present and you overhear this:)

"But how can we take out the Baathists, when as soon as we do, the Shiites will come to power and then we will be helping the same people who really harbor and give aid and comfort to international terrorists?"

"Don't worry!  We can have our cake and eat it, too!  Here's how we do it and get revenge for 1979, too: Once we use Shock and Awe to obliterate the Republican Guard, and we have the Sunnis all huddled in their holes, the Shiites will be the rightful heirs to power, as you say.  And with them in place, the Shiite government of Iran will begin to help them.  We let them do that, up until we want to move on them.  We will make sure that there are some occasional "suicide bombings" (nudge nudge wink wink).  Then when we decide to move on Iran, too - hot damn! they got some nice oil fields! - we point out how many supplies have been coming into Iraq, and we blame Iran for the continuing terrorism, suicide bombs, car bombs, etc.

"Not only will they be helping us all along, but we will then turn that agaisnt them!  What sweeter revenge could we have than to set up shop in a new impregnable U.S. Embassy in Tehran, one those little Muslim peons can't even dream of storming again?"

"Hey, that sounds pretty good.  Who thought that up?"

"Wolfie.  Too bad he couldn't be here today, but he told me to put it forth if any of you cowards were having second thoughts.  Any comments?"

(silence except for a room-wide sigh...)

What a dumb bunch of people if they/we can't tell whose side Iran is helping and who is opposing the U.S. occupation.

Ridiculous!

•  Russia and WWII

  We did not turn on our ally.

  Russia and WWII

  Russia entered WWII as Germany's ally. Hitler / Germany attacked its ally. The US aided Russia enough to keep the eastern front in play. After the war ended Russia refused to withdraw from Eastern Europe.

  In the instance of Russia and WWII we did not turn on our ally. Russia broke the post war agreements. Thus began the coldwar.

  by Sam Wise Gingy on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 08:45:15 PM PDT

  •  Is that really what they teach you?

       Amazing.

    by WIds on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 09:08:00 PM PDT

    •  I guess you refuted HIM. Not.

      by Andy Lewis on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 09:30:07 PM PDT

    •  more or less

      Although to be fair, the Russians did end up leaving Greece and Austria alone for the time being. And it wasn't so much an alliance as a pact of non-agression/I'll invade here and you can invade there and I promise I won't bother you, which the Soviets were smart in taking, considering how the USSR was treated by the allies when chamberlain gave up the czechs.

      by collegekid318 on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 12:20:43 AM PDT

  •  We used the USSR.

    I respectfully disagree, on most of what you said, though you are right that Hitler attacked his allies when he invaded Russia.

    The Soviets WERE our allies.  Remember the conferences with Stalin and Churchill?  And as the war drew to an end, Churchill and FDR (then Truman) agreed that the Soviets could keep the eastern European countries.  Could they have done anything about it?  Yes, at a very huge cost in lives.  Did they choose not to?  Yes.  They opted to let Stalin have them.  Stalin never agreed at any point to let them go.

    Yes, we "aided" the Soviets.  We built their tank and truck and airplane factories (ala Armand Hammer and other industrialists).  Without those, the Soviets could not have fought the Germans off.  But the Soviets lost millions in the process.

    The war in the East was not us "keep[ing] the East in play".  The East WAS the war.  Look at the casualty numbers and the size of the battles.  The Germans lost 3.2 to 5.5 million soldiers in the east (depending on whose numbers you use), the Soviets over 8.7 to 10.7 million.  The U.S. lost all of about 400,000 men.  The U.S. figures were  about 10% of Gremany, 4% of the Soviets.  No, we were not the major theater of the war.  Sorry.  At least 80% of the war was in the East, making it the major theater of the war, not a manipulation of the U.S. high command.

    The U.S. was able to advance so well in the west because the German army was committed in the east, and had to be or the Soviets would have been in Berlin a lot earlier.  That would have changed the post-war era a LOT; that we also got there in late April, 1945 allowed us to divide the city - otherwise the Sovierts would have controlled it completely.  

    The war in the west was little more than a side theater to the war.  The soldiers manning the coast in France wer mainly old men and teenagers.  The war was decided by the tank battles and sieges in the east in 1942-3.  Even before the U.S. was on the continent (Italy Sept '43 and France June '44), the tide had turned.  The Soviets probably could have won the war by themselves.  They had a whole lot more people to throw into the fire than Gemany did.

    by TravelerDiogenes on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 09:38:50 PM PDT

    •  As an aside...

      I'm sure you're very aware of this, but when you say

      No, we were not the major theater of the war.

      you're restricting your discussion to the European theater.  It is a pet peeve of mine, although a legitimately alarming one, the extent to which the Pacific Theater is completley negelected in contemporary discussions of the war and especially the war effort.

      by Wednesday Bizzare on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 10:47:44 PM PDT

      •  A valid point

        by TravelerDiogenes on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 10:53:18 PM PDT

    •  correct. the Soviets won

      the war in Europe.

      by bigchin on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 10:59:29 PM PDT

    •  The dead in Russia 1939 to 1944 was......

      15 to 20,000 a DAY.  Now that is six 9-11s, something we consider a catastrophe every single day for six years.

      It's hard for me to imagine such carnage, but that's what it comes out to.  

      I'm still amazed that Germany, and the rest of Western Europe rebuilt in such a short time, a decade or two. Berlin, Dresden, all devestated.  We haven't even started to rebuild the World Trade Center.

      by arodb on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 11:31:38 PM PDT

      •  But the Germans didn't attack

        Russia until June, 1941.

        So, basically the Soviet losses were in a four year span.  10,000,000 divided by about 1400 days = 7.000 a day.  You're close enough.  EVERY DAY!  DAMN!

        10,000,000 at the time was about the population of New York City and Chicago put together - every man, woman and child.

        by TravelerDiogenes on Wed Feb 07, 2007 at 11:09:41 PM PDT

•  and then there's Lebanon:

  Maliki and Nasrallah are big buddies:

  Shiites we love, Shiites we hate: Iraq and Lebanon

  by bigchin on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 11:02:29 PM PDT