Originally posted by kestra in the thread US Raids Iranian Consulate in Iraq
The article makes no mention of reason for the raid.

quote:
In a major speech on Wednesday, President George W Bush said the US would take a tough stance towards Iran and Syria, whom he accused of destabilising Iraq.


It was good to see Bush eating crow on Wednesday night's address.
Is he purposely leaving out Iraqi fighters who simply want the US out? Is it true that the raid violates international conventions?
In a country of 23 million, will 20 000 more troops really be anything more than a drop in the bucket?
Let me preface this with the following: You do ask good questions and have interesting insight to discussions sometimes. I can see your points because I always try to get both sides of an argument when analyzing it.

However, if you've ever wondered why threads you post in turn into a (sometimes) childish flame war, it is these types of personal, irrelevant comments (It was good to see Bush eating crow on Wednesday night's address.) about political figures that does it.

These kinds of comments in a thread about the US raiding the Iranian Consulate put a bad taste in the mouth of people reading it, and it just gets old after a while (And did I mention that they're completely irrelevant to the topic?).

I think I can speak for most people here when I say this:
Please refrain from making irrelevant personal comments about the administration in posts that really don't have a whole lot to do with the administration.

I really don't want to flame you. I don't want to insult you or your intelligence; I'm just tired of having to read through your flames of GWB. Not that I like the guy or anything, I didn't vote for him, but I would really like to know what about him bugs you so hardcore?