| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
Comments:
<0> Publius, ha
<0> i watch it sometimes, just to see what they're up to
<1> I didn't like that smart educated fellow Dan Rather though
<2> USA spent trillions on weapoms they got to use it somewhere? eh?
<1> I'm sure he was very accurate in his infomration
<3> Takkouri: the middle east without oil income would look like ... er, um .. Palestine
<0> OcDoc, the trickle down effect doesnt work in hot desert climates :)
<0> it vaporizes
<1> Takkour: Get a source for your arguments and come back
<1> please
<3> Takkouri: why don't you ever answer any discussion ... you can stop pasting slogans and think for yourself, can't you? ... guess not ...
<2> my source is my head..why are USA in Iraq? ........oil
<3> Publius: those aren't arguments ... they're slogans from an anti website
<0> oh, good, attack his character!
<1> OnDoc: Hey...seen that greenlight source yet?
<0> OnDoc? rofl its OcDoc
<0> OcStar
<3> you can call me anything you like as long as you call me to meals
<0> biscuits and gravy and chicken fried steak, fatty!
<0> will their ever be a phone book for cell numbers?
<3> ultimately most of world politics is over resources ... land, oil, gold ... controlling them or trading with them
<0> we should have sent embossed invitations to al qaeda to join us in the post saddam "party"
<3> if it's just about power I'm not sympathetic ... if nasty people are being mean to other people in the process it helps guide the interventions
<1> where did the foreigners go?
<0> it would have been mannerly
<3> Linus: send them letter bombs maybe ...
<0> the sunnis will never stand for being the minority in iraq
<0> and will invoke civil war
<3> LInus: well, we sent the one from Afghanistan an engraved invitation, and he RSVP'd but didn't show
<0> OcDoc, ha!
<4> Publius...the transcript of her interview with Hussein is public record. When Saddam asked her if there was a problem with his m***ing forces in the south of Iraq in 1990 she replied "we (the US) have no opinions whatsoever about your Arab conflicts particularly you border dispute with Kuwait" Now you can slice and dice that anyway you want to fit your personal agenda or whatever excuse you're trying to promulgate but a tacit nod of acquies
<0> engraved?
<0> as in tombstone?
<3> Linus: what the hell difference does it make whether the Sunni's invoke civil war or just blow up mosques for a while?
<1> Sundoger: I will not take that as justifiying invading the country
<1> to Hussein
<0> OcDoc, blowing up mosques is part of the provocation
<1> your ***umption is to fit your agenda
<0> a key part id bet
<3> Sundodger: I don't have to slice or dice that except to take it at face value ... at that point we had no opinion
<3> Sundodger: after they invaded Kuwait, we HAD an opinion
<0> bush promised to help rebuild that shiite mosque
<1> if it doesn't explitely say it is OK to invade then you are up to interpret it all you like too
<0> what a mistake that was, to make that statement
<3> Linus: if an infidel blew up a mosque it would be holy war for sure
<1> Linus: Oh, I love the contradction game
<0> Publius, how so?
<0> intradiction? ;)
<3> we have no official opinion on Iraq's border dispute with Kuwait ... a true statement
<1> Because that argument he is using for Kuwait is the exact opposite to the one he is using to say we shouldn't be in IRaq
<3> when Iraq invades Kuwait and Saudi Arabia asks for protection, then we have a different opinion
<4> I knew you'd take that approach. That's why this kind of language is used in situations like this. It is important to maintain a certain illusion to gullible people who do want (or can't handle) the fact that subterfuge might be involved. It's the same kind of language used by old Rummy after 9/11. He isses a note to intelligence officers "Go large on this. Sweep it all up. Things related and not." That basically means tie 9/11 to Saddam wh
<0> OcDoc, after giving saddam an implicit green light re: lobbing chenical weapons into iran, wouldnt it seem logical that hussein would interpret the amb***ador's reply as a wink and a nod?
<3> Publius: a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, I"ve heard it said
<4> do "not" want ...sorry about that Publius, sorry.
<1> Sundoger: Well if you knew I would do this than what is the validity to your argument if mine is invalid by means of contradiction?
<5> My, what verbiage.
<4> bad case of keyboard spaz.
<1> then*
<3> Sundodger: we've heard all that before because people come in here an paste those exact words over and over ... it's still bull****
<3> subterfuge perhaps ... to what end?
<0> I'm not pasting anything
<1> Linus: what time frame are you going with the Iran weapons?
<3> so you're saying Saddam "fell for the subterfuge and walked into our carefully prepared trap"? oh, that's delicious
<0> though i don't completely agree with Sundodger's stance, i do think saddam took the amb***adors response as a wink and a nod
<2> i cant belive some people actually support the USA blowing up kids... thats what happened
<0> the iran weapons?
<3> and the same government can't even make the railroads run on time, but they can trick wiley coyote into an international war
<1> Linus: I don't think that is entirely impossible
<1> haha
<0> well, the usa certainly didn't go on record supporting iraq's use of chemical weapons in iran
<5> Yes. The United States routinely blows up little children, drains them of their crude oil, and then sets them on fire.
<3> Takkouri: aw, what's the matter? getting tired of your lame bull**** being ignored?
<5> Perfectly normal.
<0> but they didn't publicly rail against it either
<2> USA never learned from Vietnam welcome to the new Vietnam
<1> Linus: Oh we are on record with the CIA
<3> "support blowing up kids" ... sheesh
<1> The war in Kuwait started when Iraq invaded on Aug. 2nd 1990
<0> Takkouri, this could be far worse than vietnam, not in US troops killed, but in post-war upheaval
<3> of course no one supports blowing up kids! "Hey, Joe ... I'm bored ... let's see if we can find an orphanage and blow up some kids for fun"
<2> OcDoc the USA have killed thousands in Iraq including kids
<0> Publius, what are you trying to get at?
<2> i'm not a rag head I'm Scottish
<3> Takkouri: except for some mindless terrorists who think that blowing up kids will further their political agenda, of course
<2> are you ****in blind?
<1> well I was going to try and find out if Hussein got a greenlight
<1> by going through the rubbish
<3> Takkouri: so you're a Scot raghead
<3> Publius: sometimes you just have to take what is said for itself
<4> An excuse to install a permanent military presence in Saudi Arabia, OcDoc. I already stated that. Look control of Iraq, Saudi and Iran has been, to quote Richard Nixon, "the greatest prize of all" for decades. If you can't bear the thought of Americans of any stripe or level of socitey doing something as naughty-naughty as resource plunder, then keep swallowing the crap about spreading "democracy" (whatever he hell that is) and fighting for
<3> Publius: sometimes "we have no opinion" means "we don't want to get involved in your petty dispute"
<1> Publius: Oh, I know. But I do like to go at things from many perspectives
<2> i'm not political i can just see a glaring obvious disaster. USA in Iraq
<1> Sundodger: You quote Nixon to insult the republican party.
<0> Publius, when you sleep with strange bedfellows, as the usa did with saddam for about a decade, you sew the seeds for bedfellow abuse ;)
<1> blatant spin
<5> Sundodger: So... you're saying that you're confused as to what democracy is.
<3> Sudodger: okay, so what have you gotten if I admit that somebody in the US government wanted an excuse to invade the ME?
<6> Sundodger yeah, Democracy is a bad thing. The people inthe Middle East don't want it.
<0> the US didn't say no
<5> Yes. It wuz a war for oil!
<1> Linus: I don't dispute what the CIA did during the Cold War
<0> not just the cia
<0> during the iraq-iran war
<1> the USSR too
<1> Linus
<1> that was part of the US COld war
<0> the iraq-iran war was not part of cold war
<4> Publius...I'm sure the thought of Middle-East control has been the stuff of wetdreams for Republican, Democrats and people who don't have any political leaning whatsoever (like **** Cheney) they just happen to join a party.
<3> there's only two possibilities ... the people of the region get control of their government and WANT to trade oil ... or they STOP trading oil
<3> which of those do you think should be the goal?
<5> I think everything will be grand if we can turn the entire Middle East gay.
<1> Democrats: Don't want to have any involvement with the middle east, especially the UAE because it is too much of a threat
<1> hehe
<0> in fact, that conflict signified the new era in which we now find ourselves
<0> it aint just dems
<3> invading their neighbors is not an option
<1> Linus: If you mean the US and Soviet double dealing in the middle east defines the new era...I agree
<1> haha
<0> praxis9, we could get saddam to make them all flaming f*ggots!
<3> any reasonable population who gained control of vast oil resources would want to trade oil for money so they could prosper
<5> Yes. A gay Middle East would solve everything.
<0> islam doesnt accept homo***uality i imagine
<1> Sundodger: Are you privy to the fact that Saudi Arabia had been pressure the U.S government to remove Hussein since 1994
<0> so, that undermines fundies!
<1> been pressuring
<3> the only thing left to decide now is, should we try to get the people of Iraq to elect a more or less democratic government and spread the wealth? or let maniacal dictators continue to build huge expensive palaces while the people starve in the cold dark
<4> Publius....there are just as many oil corporations doing the bidding of the Democrats as the Republicans. Don't kid yourself into thinking that there's really much difference between the two. Administrations come and go, but corporations that control them remain. It's just a matter of how brazen any specific administration is in fleecing the American sheeple.
<0> ocd, people werent starving in iraq until UN sanctions
<1> OnDoc: This Mosque bombing of recent is going to piss of the Iraq's so much they will basically unite and remove the insurgents
<1> I think
<0> iraq, baghdad in particular, had a bustling economy
<3> Linus: people weren't starving in Iraq until Saddam invaded Kuwait
<7> Sundodger aren't you one of those sheeple ?
<1> Sundoger: You presented a huge bias towards the Democrats until that last statement
<0> saddam didn't invade kuwait til he ran it past us amb***ador
<3> Sudodger: well, now we know your a luddite at least
<0> touche!
<3> puts your lame arguments in better perspective
<7> If yur not one of those sheeple please give away your good tips on how you kept that from happening ?
<0> Publius, are you nuts?
<3> Linus: oh, so now we know that Saddam was inept politically as well as a maniacal m*** murderer?
<0> what it *will* do if take the restraints off of shiites who have long sought revenge on sunnis
<4> Publius...regarding the mosque bombing...now I KNOW your are a delusional fool. That mosque bombing was another tactic to foment civil war, much like the British SAS planting bombs in Basra to kill civilians. It's been a cl***ic colonial tactic for centuries.
<0> the british sas planting bombs?
<1> Sundodger: I was a delusional fool when I thought the Iraqi's would come out over 50 percent and vote for the primeminister under death threats too
<5> No. It wuz the Jews.
<0> what end would be achieved for the brits to do that?
<5> No. The Americans bombed the Mosque to foment a ****storm. Talk about brainy.
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
esx 3 crackable?
cockflog
#beginner
names of economic theor*
can't resolve strongly report class at design time
#winxp
xchat perl wb
#worldcup
#beginner
#gentoo
|
|