If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Fire!
"Dave Smith" wrote in message ... Ed Jay wrote: Please provide some verification that the US had no problem with Iraq using WMDs. Perhaps the photograph of Hussein shaking hands with Rumsfeld after the USA http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security...sseinindex.htm Please produce ONE quote of ANY US Official stating that the use of WMDs was ok with the US. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Fire!
John Wheaton wrote:
Please provide some verification that the US had no problem with Iraq using WMDs. Perhaps the photograph of Hussein shaking hands with Rumsfeld after the USA http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security...sseinindex.htm Please produce ONE quote of ANY US Official stating that the use of WMDs was ok with the US. It is not about American politicians having come out in public and bragging that they had screwed their arch enemy Iran by providing intelligence to help Iraq calibrate its chemical weapons attacks. I was asked to provide proof that it was done, and I did that. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Fire!
"Dave Smith" wrote in message ... John Wheaton wrote: Please provide some verification that the US had no problem with Iraq using WMDs. Perhaps the photograph of Hussein shaking hands with Rumsfeld after the USA http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security...sseinindex.htm Please produce ONE quote of ANY US Official stating that the use of WMDs was ok with the US. It is not about American politicians having come out in public and bragging that they had screwed their arch enemy Iran by providing intelligence to help Iraq calibrate its chemical weapons attacks. I was asked to provide proof that it was done, and I did that. It is very known that the US and other countries aided Iraq in it's war with Iran. You have offered ZERO proof that we ok'd or sanctioned any use of WMDs, so your comment of " The US had no problem with WMDs being used by Iraq in that one." remains an unproven and baseless remark. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Fire!
John Wheaton scribed:
"Dave Smith" wrote in message ... Ed Jay wrote: Please provide some verification that the US had no problem with Iraq using WMDs. Perhaps the photograph of Hussein shaking hands with Rumsfeld after the USA http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security...sseinindex.htm Please produce ONE quote of ANY US Official stating that the use of WMDs was ok with the US. Will an invoice from the US to Hussein stamped PAID work for you? -- Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email) |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Fire!
Hatunen scribed:
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:51:50 -0700, Ed Jay wrote: Hatunen scribed: On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:54:47 -0700, Ed Jay wrote: I'm speaking to, and agreeing with the OP's assertion that many of the same strategies and methods that brought the Third Reich to power drive the Bush administration's treatment of dissenters. To my observation, Joseph Goerbells wrote the Karl Rove playbook. Specifics, please. Regardless of what FDR did, it does not negate or excuse Bush...except for those true believers who will seek any excuse (not reason) to excuse Bush. I would also point out that FDR's actions took place while the US was defending itself against aggressors during a world war which was begun by the aggressors. Quite a leap from Bush's pre-emptive US attack on a small, sovereign nation that had nothing to do with attacks against US assets. There were some sorry events connected with US paranoia during WW2. There usually are sorry events during war time. But I'm on your side about Bush's invasion of Iraq, Then, you hate America, right? You're a DFH if you disagree with what Bush did. A traitor. Have you registered as a sex offender yet? I'll show you how to stifle dissent! (Get my point?) No. That was pretty dumb. so you can quit arguing with me there. I'm not arguing with you at all. You seem stuck with the thought that jail/death are the only actions available to stifle dissent. As soon as you invoke the Third Reich, Htler or Goebbles, tehy are on the table. Otherwise it's penny ante stuff. The masses are easily intimidated...this administration has used vilification, ridicule, ad hominem attacks, fear, racism, segregation of dissenters and arrest to stifle dissent. Please give us specifics as to how the masses of Americans are intimidated. They don't look a bit intimidated to me. Comparing Bush to Hitler is simply wrong, and actually detracts from the horror that was Nazism. The Third Reich was a far, far more terrible place than preent-day America, and Hitler was the personification of evil. Bush is simply an idiot with only fourteen months left to his presidency, and even if Amendment XXII to the Constitution were repealed I seriously doubt he could get elected to a third term. We're in agreement. My concern, though, goes to the potential damage that can be effected in the next 14 months. Such as...? I wish I had the time to play your game, but I don't. Instead, I'll invoke Godwin's Law and declare this subthread closed. -- Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email) |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Fire!
Dave*Smith wrote:
When you elect an idiot to the office of the President you end up with an idiot president. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Fire!
Dave*Smith
When you elect an idiot to the office of the President you end up with an idiot president. A few facts to interrupt the ad nauseam: 1. Graduate of Yale AND Harvard -- where he made better grades than Al Gore AND John Kerry, incidentally; 2. Millionaire by age 40 (yes, in addition to his inheritance); 3. Elected over nationally-popular incumbent governor by age 45; re-elected easily; 4. Elected over incumbent vice-president, who had been campaigning for the job for 12 years and more, and who lost his own home state where his family had been campaigning for 50 years, in a time of peace and prosperity, by age 50; re-elected with room to spare. Calling the man an idiot, like so many here have done, is number 1 objectively incorrect, and number 2 simply a reflection of your own inability or refusal to address and counter the ideas he stands for. Several here have called Bush an idiot. Not one of them has proposed an alternate course on addressing terrorism, Saddam Hussein, the Iraq war, reconstruction, etc, etc. Easy, isn't it? |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Fire!
John Wheaton wrote:
"D Perhaps the photograph of Hussein shaking hands with Rumsfeld after the USA http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security...sseinindex.htm Please produce ONE quote of ANY US Official stating that the use of WMDs was ok with the US. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=2 The Pentagon ''wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas,'' said one veteran of the program. ''It was just another way of killing people -- whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference,'' he said. Former Secretary of State Shultz and Vice President Bush tried to stanch the flow of chemical precursors to Iraq and spoke out against Iraq's use of chemical arms, but Mr. Shultz, in his memoir, also alluded to the struggle in the administration. ''I was stunned to read an intelligence analysis being circulated within the administration that 'we have demolished a budding relationship (with Iraq) by taking a tough position in opposition to chemical weapons,' '' he wrote. Mr. Shultz also wrote that he quarreled with William J. Casey, then the director of central intelligence, over whether the United States should press for a new chemical weapons ban at the Geneva Disarmament Conference. Mr. Shultz declined further comment. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...38/ai_91210088 The Aug. 18 Times article reported that the United States provided critical covert assistance to Iraq during its 1980-1988 war with Iran, despite U.S. knowledge that Iraq was using chemical weapons. Frightened by the possibility of Iran exporting its brand of radical Islam to the oil-producing states of the Persian Gulf, the United States provided Iraq with intelligence assistance that showed the Iraqis how Iranian forces were deployed against them. The assistance continued at the same time that Secretary of State George Shultz, Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci and then-national security adviser Gen. Colin Powell were publicly condemning Iraq for its use of poison gas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._su..._Iran-Iraq_war According to retired Colonel Walter Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose." He claimed that the Defense Intelligence Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival"[4], however, despite this allegation, Reagan’s administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Fire!
Nile wrote:
Dave Smith When you elect an idiot to the office of the President you end up with an idiot president. A few facts to interrupt the ad nauseam: 1. Graduate of Yale AND Harvard -- where he made better grades than Al Gore AND John Kerry, incidentally; 2. Millionaire by age 40 (yes, in addition to his inheritance); Indeed, he is a first class capitalist. His business ventures were failures. His investors got less than 45 cents on the dollar, but they were all tax shelters. When his father went to war in Kuwait, Bahrain gave the company a bog contract, but it was a loser and GW pulled out before the losses were announced and pocketed $835,000. He sold at $4 per share and when the losses were posted the stock fell to $2.68. He would have gained more if he had waited because the stocks later rose to $8 a share. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori.../jackson.bush/ 3. Elected over nationally-popular incumbent governor by age 45; re-elected easily; 4. Elected over incumbent vice-president, who had been campaigning for the job for 12 years and more, and who lost his own home state where his family had been campaigning for 50 years, in a time of peace and prosperity, by age 50; re-elected with room to spare. Not exactly landslide victories were there. Do you think they would have won the second one if they had admitted before the election that they had lied about the evidence about Saddam's WMDs? And how about his war record? Republicans paid for an organization to belittle John Kerry's war record, a man who volunteered for service and then volunteered for a position that was hazardous, while Bush used connections to get into a nice safe stint with the National Guard to avoid the war in Vietnam. Calling the man an idiot, like so many here have done, is number 1 objectively incorrect, and number 2 simply a reflection of your own inability or refusal to address and counter the ideas he stands for. Several here have called Bush an idiot. Not one of them has proposed an alternate course on addressing terrorism, Saddam Hussein, the Iraq war, reconstruction, etc, etc. Easy, isn't it? It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas. —George W. Bush; Beaverton, Oregon, September 25, 2000. Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning? —George W. Bush; Florence, South Carolina, January 11, 2000. We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile. —George W. Bush; Des Moines, Iowa, August 21, 2000. I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can’t answer your question. —George W. Bush; Reynoldsburg, Ohio, October 4, 2000. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Fire!
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:00:29 -0400, Dave Smith
wrote: Nile wrote: Dave Smith When you elect an idiot to the office of the President you end up with an idiot president. A few facts to interrupt the ad nauseam: 1. Graduate of Yale AND Harvard -- where he made better grades than Al Gore AND John Kerry, incidentally; 2. Millionaire by age 40 (yes, in addition to his inheritance); Indeed, he is a first class capitalist. His business ventures were failures. His investors got less than 45 cents on the dollar, but they were all tax shelters. When his father went to war in Kuwait, Bahrain gave the company a bog contract, but it was a loser and GW pulled out before the losses were announced and pocketed $835,000. He sold at $4 per share and when the losses were posted the stock fell to $2.68. He would have gained more if he had waited because the stocks later rose to $8 a share. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori.../jackson.bush/ That's what a Harvard MBA will do for you. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ship's Tour Of My Universe To Begin - Call To Arms! Duty Stations! Fire When Ready! Cease Fire Procola! Pt III/III | Akmed | USA & Canada | 0 | March 23rd, 2007 01:24 AM |
Ship's Tour Of My Universe To Begin - Call To Arms! Duty Stations!Fire When Ready! Cease Fire Procola! Pt. II/III | proteanthread | USA & Canada | 0 | March 22nd, 2007 02:37 PM |
If WTC 7 came down from fire and debris .. | Tom Peel | Air travel | 0 | March 18th, 2006 04:26 PM |
If WTC 7 came down from fire and debris .. | Dan | Air travel | 0 | March 15th, 2006 09:01 PM |
Fire in LA | Roland Schmidt | USA & Canada | 47 | November 14th, 2003 05:58 PM |