| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Codebreaker" |
| Date: |
20 May 2007 03:07:48 PM |
| Object: |
Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- The nasty words between President Bush and
former President Jimmy Carter continued Sunday.
In a biting rebuke to Carter calling the Bush administration the
"worst in history," the White House on Sunday dismissed Carter as
"increasingly irrelevant."
Carter was quoted Saturday in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette as saying
"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world,
this administration has been the worst in history." (Read full story)
The Georgia Democrat said Bush had overseen an "overt reversal of
America's basic values" as expressed by previous administrations,
including that of his own father, former President George H.W. Bush.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto shot back Sunday from Crawford,
Texas, where Bush spent the weekend.
"I think it's sad that President Carter's reckless personal criticism
is out there," said Fratto. "I think it's unfortunate. And I think he
is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of
comments."
Carter was in Arkansas promoting "Sunday Mornings in Plains," a
collection of weekly Bible lessons from his hometown of Plains,
Georgia.
"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter
includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber
Wilkerson, Republican National Committee spokeswoman.
She said it was hard to take Carter seriously because he also
"challenged Ronald Reagan's strategy for the Cold War."
Carter: Blair is 'blind, subservient'
Carter's comments, which were published Saturday, were confirmed by
his spokeswoman Deanna Congileo to The Associated Press on Saturday.
She declined to elaborate.
Carter also said Saturday that Britain's support for the war in Iraq
was a "major tragedy" for the world, as he criticized Tony Blair's
unwavering support for President Bush.
Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, Carter said:
"Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient."
"And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the
ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major
tragedy for the world," Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.
Blair was in Baghdad Saturday morning for what will be his last trip
to Iraq as British prime minister. Last week, Blair announced that he
would step down June 27, making way for treasury chief Gordon Brown.
The war in Iraq has been the defining foreign policy issue of Blair's
premiership, and the decision to join the U.S.-led invasion was an
unpopular one at home. So far, nearly 150 British service personnel
have died in Iraq.
Carter told the BBC that Britain's support made it more difficult for
critics of the war, and that things could have been different if
Britain spoke out against the 2003 invasion.
"I can't say it would have made a definitive difference, but it would
certainly have assuaged the problems that arose lately," said Carter,
who was U.S. president from 1977 to 1981 and has been a critic of the
war.
"One of the defenses of the Bush administration, in the American
public and on a worldwide basis -- and it's not been successful in my
opinion -- has been that, OK, we must be more correct in our actions
than the world thinks because Great Britain is backing us.
"And so I think the combination of Bush and Blair giving their support
to this tragedy in Iraq has strengthened the effort, and has made
opposition less effective and has prolonged the war and increased the
tragedy that has resulted."
Unprecedented criticism
It's not the first time Carter has criticized Britain. Last year, he
said he was disappointed with "the apparent subservience" of the
British government to Washington on issues such as Iraq and last
summer's Israel-Hezbollah conflict.
The criticism of Bush from Carter, which a biographer says is
unprecedented for the 39th president, also took aim at Bush's
environmental policies and the administration's "quite disturbing"
faith-based initiative funding.
Carter came down hard on the Iraq war.
"We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to
war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is
not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if
we fear that some time in the future our security might be
endangered," he said. "But that's been a radical departure from all
previous administration policies."
Carter, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, criticized Bush for
having "zero peace talks" in Israel. Carter also said the
administration "abandoned or directly refuted" every negotiated
nuclear arms agreement, as well as environmental efforts by other
presidents.
Carter also offered a harsh assessment for the White House's Office of
Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which helped religious
charities receive $2.15 billion in federal grants in fiscal year 2005
alone.
"The policy from the White House has been to allocate funds to
religious institutions, even those that channel those funds
exclusively to their own particular group of believers in a particular
religion," Carter said.
"As a traditional Baptist, I've always believed in separation of
church and state and honored that premise when I was president, and so
have all other presidents, I might say, except this one."
Douglas Brinkley, a Tulane University presidential historian and
Carter biographer, described Carter's comments as unprecedented.
"This is the most forceful denunciation President Carter has ever made
about an American president," Brinkley said. "When you call somebody
the worst president, that's volatile. Those are fighting words."
.
|
|
| User: "KODIAKŪ" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
20 May 2007 03:26:22 PM |
|
|
"Codebreaker" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1179691668.489763.166120@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- The nasty words between President Bush and
former President Jimmy Carter continued Sunday.
Carter was quoted Saturday in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette as saying
"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world,
this administration has been the worst in history." (Read full story)
LOL! Jimmy ***** Carter... growing a set of balls after 30 years, imagine
that.
"adverse impact on the nation" my *****. Put that on your own fucking
tombstone you worthless *****.
- KODIAK
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
20 May 2007 03:45:01 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:26:22 -0500, "KODIAKŪ" <dx@dgd.net> wrote:
"Codebreaker" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1179691668.489763.166120@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- The nasty words between President Bush and
former President Jimmy Carter continued Sunday.
Carter was quoted Saturday in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette as saying
"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world,
this administration has been the worst in history." (Read full story)
LOL! Jimmy ***** Carter... growing a set of balls after 30 years, imagine
that.
"adverse impact on the nation" my *****. Put that on your own fucking
tombstone you worthless *****.
- KODIAK
You aren't living on this planet, are you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
20 May 2007 06:08:07 PM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:467eb290.852108125@news-west.newscene.com...
On Sun, 20 May 2007 15:26:22 -0500, "KODIAKŪ" <dx@dgd.net> wrote:
"Codebreaker" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1179691668.489763.166120@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- The nasty words between President Bush and
former President Jimmy Carter continued Sunday.
Carter was quoted Saturday in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette as saying
"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world,
this administration has been the worst in history." (Read full story)
LOL! Jimmy ***** Carter... growing a set of balls after 30 years, imagine
that.
"adverse impact on the nation" my *****. Put that on your own fucking
tombstone you worthless *****.
- KODIAK
You aren't living on this planet, are you.
Universe. Got his own.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
20 May 2007 06:38:12 PM |
|
|
in article E424i.1165$u56.409@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net, KODIAKŪ at
dx@dgd.net wrote on 5/20/07 4:26 PM:
"Codebreaker" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1179691668.489763.166120@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- The nasty words between President Bush and
former President Jimmy Carter continued Sunday.
Carter was quoted Saturday in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette as saying
"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world,
this administration has been the worst in history." (Read full story)
LOL! Jimmy ***** Carter... growing a set of balls after 30 years, imagine
that.
"adverse impact on the nation" my *****. Put that on your own fucking
tombstone you worthless *****.
Are you ever going to have an accomplishment that goes beyond waving
a flag?
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ike milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
20 May 2007 10:03:24 PM |
|
|
"Codebreaker" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1179691668.489763.166120@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- The nasty words between President Bush and
former President Jimmy Carter continued Sunday.
In a biting rebuke to Carter calling the Bush administration the
"worst in history," the White House on Sunday dismissed Carter as
"increasingly irrelevant."
Carter was quoted Saturday in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette as saying
"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world,
this administration has been the worst in history." (Read full story)
The Georgia Democrat said Bush had overseen an "overt reversal of
America's basic values" as expressed by previous administrations,
including that of his own father, former President George H.W. Bush.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto shot back Sunday from Crawford,
Texas, where Bush spent the weekend.
"I think it's sad that President Carter's reckless personal criticism
is out there," said Fratto. "I think it's unfortunate. And I think he
is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of
comments."
Carter was in Arkansas promoting "Sunday Mornings in Plains," a
collection of weekly Bible lessons from his hometown of Plains,
Georgia.
"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter
includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber
Wilkerson, Republican National Committee spokeswoman.
Neo-Republicons are now our fellow man. is it? Maybe I should never say
anything political because it might denigrate my fellow man.
She said it was hard to take Carter seriously because he also
"challenged Ronald Reagan's strategy for the Cold War."
Ronald Reagan had a strategy? How come he lost the Cold War, then?
Carter: Blair is 'blind, subservient'
Gracious sakes! I never understood Blair until now. He had his whole life
ahead of him, after all.
Carter's comments, which were published Saturday, were confirmed by
his spokeswoman Deanna Congileo to The Associated Press on Saturday.
She declined to elaborate.
Elaborate what?, Oh, right, The what part would be some kind of elaboration.
Carter also said Saturday that Britain's support for the war in Iraq
was a "major tragedy" for the world, as he criticized Tony Blair's
unwavering support for President Bush.
What would you want him to do, waver?
Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, Carter said:
"Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient."
"And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the
ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major
tragedy for the world," Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.
This is an obfuscation. Great Britain was an instigator of the war.
Blair was in Baghdad Saturday morning for what will be his last trip
to Iraq as British prime minister. Last week, Blair announced that he
would step down June 27, making way for treasury chief Gordon Brown.
The war in Iraq has been the defining foreign policy issue of Blair's
premiership, and the decision to join the U.S.-led invasion was an
unpopular one at home. So far, nearly 150 British service personnel
have died in Iraq.
Carter told the BBC that Britain's support made it more difficult for
critics of the war, and that things could have been different if
Britain spoke out against the 2003 invasion.
"I can't say it would have made a definitive difference, but it would
certainly have assuaged the problems that arose lately," said Carter,
who was U.S. president from 1977 to 1981 and has been a critic of the
war.
Get real. Britain and the U.S. are marching to the same drumbeat and haven't
changed for generations now.
"One of the defenses of the Bush administration, in the American
public and on a worldwide basis -- and it's not been successful in my
opinion -- has been that, OK, we must be more correct in our actions
than the world thinks because Great Britain is backing us.
Yeah. the other day, Bush said, "Look Great Britain was behind it. How could
40 million Brits be wrong!"
"And so I think the combination of Bush and Blair giving their support
to this tragedy in Iraq has strengthened the effort, and has made
opposition less effective and has prolonged the war and increased the
tragedy that has resulted."
Unprecedented criticism
It's not the first time Carter has criticized Britain. Last year, he
said he was disappointed with "the apparent subservience" of the
British government to Washington on issues such as Iraq and last
summer's Israel-Hezbollah conflict.
I am just shocked that ex-President Carter would criticize Britain. What has
got into that old boy?
The criticism of Bush from Carter, which a biographer says is
unprecedented for the 39th president, also took aim at Bush's
environmental policies and the administration's "quite disturbing"
faith-based initiative funding.
Carter came down hard on the Iraq war.
<etc.>
But if you didn't read the OP in its enirety it is worth looking at.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
20 May 2007 03:25:02 PM |
|
|
"Codebreaker" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1179691668.489763.166120@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- The nasty words between President Bush and
former President Jimmy Carter continued Sunday.
In a biting rebuke to Carter calling the Bush administration the
"worst in history," the White House on Sunday dismissed Carter as
"increasingly irrelevant."
Yes, the administration hates honesty.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "the_blogologist" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
20 May 2007 04:51:03 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"Codebreaker" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1179691668.489763.166120@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- The nasty words between President Bush and
former President Jimmy Carter continued Sunday.
In a biting rebuke to Carter calling the Bush administration the
"worst in history," the White House on Sunday dismissed Carter as
"increasingly irrelevant."
Yes, the administration hates honesty.
Jimmy Carter contributed in a massive way to the mess in the middle east
with his bungling of Iran.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
20 May 2007 06:07:37 PM |
|
|
"the_blogologist" <nobody@nowheres.com> wrote in message
news:1hyf186.1ufl4tim2j1g5N%nobody@nowheres.com...
Denis Loubet <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"Codebreaker" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1179691668.489763.166120@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- The nasty words between President Bush and
former President Jimmy Carter continued Sunday.
In a biting rebuke to Carter calling the Bush administration the
"worst in history," the White House on Sunday dismissed Carter as
"increasingly irrelevant."
Yes, the administration hates honesty.
Jimmy Carter contributed in a massive way to the mess in the middle east
with his bungling of Iran.
What bungling?
And when was the last time Israel and Egypt fought? They fought 3 times
before Carter's Camp David agreement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Real Diddy Pop" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
20 May 2007 06:16:29 PM |
|
|
On May 20, 7:07 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What bungling?
You need to read up on your history. Use Google, it can be quite
effective. I suggest you know a little something about an issue
before you stick your snout in it.
And when was the last time Israel and Egypt fought? They fought 3 times
before Carter's Camp David agreement.
The only reason Egypt doesn't do anything now is that Israel will bomb
the Aswan Dam if Egypt does anything, and Egypt knows it. The only
reason the "Palestinians" don't do anything similar is they are from
*****, and live in *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
20 May 2007 06:49:44 PM |
|
|
"The Real Diddy Pop" <whodey1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179702989.216021.260990@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 7:07 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What bungling?
You need to read up on your history. Use Google, it can be quite
effective. I suggest you know a little something about an issue
before you stick your snout in it.
I know all about it.
That's why I asked. I didn't know of any.
There were hostages. They all returned home safe. Is that "bungling" to you?
Or should he do like Bush and get a few killed?
And when was the last time Israel and Egypt fought? They fought 3 times
before Carter's Camp David agreement.
The only reason Egypt doesn't do anything now is that Israel will bomb
the Aswan Dam if Egypt does anything, and Egypt knows it. The only
reason the "Palestinians" don't do anything similar is they are from
*****, and live in *****.
Moron.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
21 May 2007 07:52:35 AM |
|
|
In article <1179702989.216021.260990@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
whodey1@gmail.com says...
On May 20, 7:07 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What bungling?
You need to read up on your history.
You first, since you obviously don't know jack ***** about it. Jim-jim's
Middle East policy was far more effective than Reagan or Bush. Reagan
only got the Iranians to comply by secretly giving them missiles and
massive payola. Way to trade with the enemy, Ronzo. And he was a far
more committed xian than either reagan, bush or clinton. But we wouldn't
expect consistency from theocons. They couldn't even give him credit for
that.
Use Google, it can be quite
effective.
Perhaps your problem is that you believe the first bit of ***** on
some whacky far-reich website.
I suggest you know a little something about an issue
The only reason Egypt doesn't do anything now is that Israel will bomb
the Aswan Dam
You don't know *****, as usual. Aswan was constructed in a fashion that
no amount of bombing, including the use of nukes could break it. That's
because it uses massive berms that are one kilometer thick at the base.
Historically, even conventional dams are often very resistant to bombing,
but Aswan would certainly be more so. That's not to say that the
facilities couldn't be damaged and perhaps put out of commission for a
while, but it's supremely unlikely that the Israelis could generate
enough force to break the dam. If the Israelis wanted to bomb then their
efforts would be better spent just dropping directly on Egyptian targets.
So yet another piece of your neocon myth-information goes down the
shitter.
if Egypt does anything, and Egypt knows it. The only
reason the "Palestinians" don't do anything similar is they are from
*****, and live in *****.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
21 May 2007 08:46:18 PM |
|
|
On May 21, 8:52 am, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <1179702989.216021.260...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
You don't know *****, as usual. Aswan was constructed in a fashion that
no amount of bombing, including the use of nukes could break it. That's
because it uses massive berms that are one kilometer thick at the base.
Historically, even conventional dams are often very resistant to bombing,
but Aswan would certainly be more so. That's not to say that the
facilities couldn't be damaged and perhaps put out of commission for a
while, but it's supremely unlikely that the Israelis could generate
enough force to break the dam. If the Israelis wanted to bomb then their
efforts would be better spent just dropping directly on Egyptian targets.
Right, we got ourselves an expert here. Egypt is not willing to roll
the dice regarding the Aswan issue. History is littered with man made
structures that shoulda withstood this or that...do I really need to
elaborate. Think 9/11.
No amout of nuking? On what basis do you say that? Hey dipshit, the
bombing wouldn't focus on the base...there are gates in the dam.
Also, when has a country had a concerted effort to destroy something
like the aswan dam? How much damage would be done if the top 200 feet
were stripped off of Hoover Dam?
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
22 May 2007 09:03:07 AM |
|
|
In article <1179798378.820397.82460@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
whodey1@gmail.com says...
On May 21, 8:52 am, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <1179702989.216021.260...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
You don't know *****, as usual. Aswan was constructed in a fashion that
no amount of bombing, including the use of nukes could break it. That's
because it uses massive berms that are one kilometer thick at the base.
Historically, even conventional dams are often very resistant to bombing,
but Aswan would certainly be more so. That's not to say that the
facilities couldn't be damaged and perhaps put out of commission for a
while, but it's supremely unlikely that the Israelis could generate
enough force to break the dam. If the Israelis wanted to bomb then their
efforts would be better spent just dropping directly on Egyptian targets.
Right, we got ourselves an expert here.
This is actually a well known design spec. I suppose that you think the
Egyptians were too dumb to contemplate that a mortal enemy like Israel
might attempt to attack one of the most high profile targets in their
country. Try to use your head for something other than collecting sperm
samples.
Egypt is not willing to roll
the dice regarding the Aswan issue.
They rolled the dice just by building it. Aswan couldn't be the deciding
issue because otherwise Israelis could have taken their best shots in 67
and 73.
History is littered with man made
structures that shoulda withstood this or that...do I really need to
elaborate.
I talked about it in terms of probabilities and the probability is that
they could not break the dam. Granted, technology continues to mature
and there is probably a way with enough earth penetrating weapons to
destroy lots of things. But why would Israeli waste a nuke on Aswan. If
they're gonna go nuclear then they might as well attack a soft target
where they know the force will be better spent. Do you know anything
about nuclear blasts, or do you think they're fucking magic?
Think 9/11.
WTC wasn't explicitly designed to survive a nuclear attack, whereas the
Russian Zuk Hydroproject Institute did design Aswan High this way.
No amout of nuking?
On what basis do you say that?
It was part of the design spec to survive bombing and even nukes, which
is why I pointed out to you that Aswan is about a kilometer (980m) thick
at the base.
Hey dipshit,
Save your talking to yourself in the mirror for later, loser.
the
bombing wouldn't focus on the base.
Oh, I see you're the expert now. Again, I'm sure that nobody ever
thought of attacking other parts when the Russians were designing it to
survive a nuclear attack.
..there are gates in the dam.
You don't have a fucking clue. There is also a low dam located 6
kilometers away. And the dam is capable of operating with penstocks and
gates opened. Massive attacks would probably blast significant amounts
of rubble into the river and may block the spillways, penstocks and
appurtenant structures, rather than opening them full bore. The bottom
line is that Aswan depends on mass, more so than mechanical strength,
like the Hoover gravity arch design, and therefore is less susceptible to
attack.
Also, when has a country had a concerted effort to destroy something
like the aswan dam?
It was anticipated that the Israelis might try to attack. It was an
obvious target back then, just as retards like you recommend it as a
target today.
How much damage would be done if the top 200 feet
were stripped off of Hoover Dam?
It's a different kind of dam, operating upon different design principles,
dumbass.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
22 May 2007 11:09:40 PM |
|
|
On May 22, 10:03 am, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote:....
Damn, somebody is familiar with Wikipedia.
Here's the bottom line, WTC should have withstood a plane crash,
Tacoma Narrows should still be standing, the NO levees should have
held, etc, etc...all woulda coulda shoulda. If Israel wants to cause
a catastrophe by carpet bombing High Aswan thus weakening it to
dangerous levels, they can. Anything man-made can be destroyed, if
you deny that you only reveal your own naivete.
Like you, I also get around on Google...there are those who feel that
the weight of the sediment alone from Lake Nasser could break the dam
if it accumulates.
But let's get back to the original point...if a bumpkin such as James
Carter is can orchestrate this incredible deal that put war to bed
between two people who have been warring for thousands of years, why
stop with Egypt? What about Syria? Lebanon? He hasn't been the
slightest bit successful with Palestine, in fact we now know that he
prefers his Arabs with razor blade bombs strapped to them.
In close doors what almost certainly happened is that Israel made it
clear they have no intention of fucking with Egypt, but....you *****
with us and we'll take you out. Egypt has too much to lose, and the
dam is at the very top of the list.
....Teton Dam...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
22 May 2007 09:10:14 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 May 2007 08:03:07 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <1179798378.820397.82460@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
whodey1@gmail.com says...
On May 21, 8:52 am, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <1179702989.216021.260...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
You don't know *****, as usual. Aswan was constructed in a fashion that
no amount of bombing, including the use of nukes could break it. That's
because it uses massive berms that are one kilometer thick at the base.
Historically, even conventional dams are often very resistant to bombing,
but Aswan would certainly be more so. That's not to say that the
facilities couldn't be damaged and perhaps put out of commission for a
while, but it's supremely unlikely that the Israelis could generate
enough force to break the dam. If the Israelis wanted to bomb then their
efforts would be better spent just dropping directly on Egyptian targets.
Right, we got ourselves an expert here.
This is actually a well known design spec. I suppose that you think the
Egyptians were too dumb to contemplate that a mortal enemy like Israel
might attempt to attack one of the most high profile targets in their
country. Try to use your head for something other than collecting sperm
samples.
That's what he uses his hand for.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
21 May 2007 08:54:49 PM |
|
|
On 21 May 2007 18:46:18 -0700, wrote:
On May 21, 8:52 am, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <1179702989.216021.260...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
You don't know *****, as usual. Aswan was constructed in a fashion that
no amount of bombing, including the use of nukes could break it. That's
because it uses massive berms that are one kilometer thick at the base.
Historically, even conventional dams are often very resistant to bombing,
but Aswan would certainly be more so. That's not to say that the
facilities couldn't be damaged and perhaps put out of commission for a
while, but it's supremely unlikely that the Israelis could generate
enough force to break the dam. If the Israelis wanted to bomb then their
efforts would be better spent just dropping directly on Egyptian targets.
Right, we got ourselves an expert here. Egypt is not willing to roll
the dice regarding the Aswan issue. History is littered with man made
structures that shoulda withstood this or that...do I really need to
elaborate. Think 9/11.
No amout of nuking? On what basis do you say that? Hey dipshit, the
bombing wouldn't focus on the base...there are gates in the dam.
Also, when has a country had a concerted effort to destroy something
like the aswan dam? How much damage would be done if the top 200 feet
were stripped off of Hoover Dam?
WW2, the RAF's Dam Buster raids using a specially designed bomb by
Barnes Wallace that skipped on the water until it sank when it reached
the dam.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "the_blogologist" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
22 May 2007 05:01:52 AM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <1179702989.216021.260990@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
whodey1@gmail.com says...
On May 20, 7:07 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What bungling?
You need to read up on your history.
You first, since you obviously don't know jack ***** about it. Jim-jim's
Middle East policy was far more effective than Reagan or Bush.
it only played better in the press.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
22 May 2007 09:04:19 AM |
|
|
In article <1hygzb0.1adiy4a1gkbj40N%nobody@nowheres.com>,
nobody@nowheres.com says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <1179702989.216021.260990@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
whodey1@gmail.com says...
On May 20, 7:07 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What bungling?
You need to read up on your history.
You first, since you obviously don't know jack ***** about it. Jim-jim's
Middle East policy was far more effective than Reagan or Bush.
it only played better in the press.
No, carter got much worse press coverage, though is policies were
considerably more sane and responsible. I know you're out of material
when you have to dust off your "blame the media" talking point.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "the_blogologist" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
22 May 2007 06:21:18 PM |
|
|
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <1hygzb0.1adiy4a1gkbj40N%nobody@nowheres.com>,
nobody@nowheres.com says...
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <1179702989.216021.260990@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
whodey1@gmail.com says...
On May 20, 7:07 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What bungling?
You need to read up on your history.
You first, since you obviously don't know jack ***** about it. Jim-jim's
Middle East policy was far more effective than Reagan or Bush.
it only played better in the press.
No, carter got much worse press coverage, though is policies were
considerably more sane and responsible. I know you're out of material
when you have to dust off your "blame the media" talking point.
The press have been left leaning for a long time. The way they talk
about Nixon is like he was the Vietnam War, but that Johnson just
happened to be in office about that time. The slightest rumor is enough
to condemn Bush, but when vince foster ends up murdered and his office
in the whitehouse is cleaned out that night, the press talks about how
well the Clintons are holding up in the scandle :-/ You and I both know
the big, corporate media (they are big corporations) are extremely
biased.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
20 May 2007 06:23:01 PM |
|
|
The Real Diddy Pop wrote:
On May 20, 7:07 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What bungling?
You need to read up on your history. Use Google, it can be quite
effective. I suggest you know a little something about an issue
before you stick your snout in it.
Like Reagan getting the hostages....*snicker*...free...*kkrkk*...on his
watch....*BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!*
Sorry, I couldn't say that with a straight face.
And when was the last time Israel and Egypt fought? They fought 3 times
before Carter's Camp David agreement.
The only reason Egypt doesn't do anything now is that Israel will bomb
the Aswan Dam if Egypt does anything, and Egypt knows it. The only
reason the "Palestinians" don't do anything similar is they are from
*****, and live in *****.
Ah, and further evidence of your ability for "debate".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
20 May 2007 06:50:45 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:z4idnQ_nVrSkRc3bnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@comcast.com...
The Real Diddy Pop wrote:
On May 20, 7:07 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What bungling?
You need to read up on your history. Use Google, it can be quite
effective. I suggest you know a little something about an issue
before you stick your snout in it.
Like Reagan getting the hostages....*snicker*...free...*kkrkk*...on his
watch....*BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!*
Sorry, I couldn't say that with a straight face.
You can say this with a straight face: Reagan did deal with Iran. He
illegally sold them arms and illegally gave the money to the Contras.
And when was the last time Israel and Egypt fought? They fought 3 times
before Carter's Camp David agreement.
The only reason Egypt doesn't do anything now is that Israel will bomb
the Aswan Dam if Egypt does anything, and Egypt knows it. The only
reason the "Palestinians" don't do anything similar is they are from
*****, and live in *****.
Ah, and further evidence of your ability for "debate".
.
|
|
|
| User: "the_blogologist" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
20 May 2007 09:40:53 PM |
|
|
Roger <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:z4idnQ_nVrSkRc3bnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@comcast.com...
The Real Diddy Pop wrote:
On May 20, 7:07 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What bungling?
You need to read up on your history. Use Google, it can be quite
effective. I suggest you know a little something about an issue
before you stick your snout in it.
Like Reagan getting the hostages....*snicker*...free...*kkrkk*...on his
watch....*BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!*
Sorry, I couldn't say that with a straight face.
You can say this with a straight face: Reagan did deal with Iran. He
illegally sold them arms and illegally gave the money to the Contras.
Was that ever proven? Seems like all that money John Kerry spent
investigating Reagan over Iran-Contra that they'd have gotten at least
one conviction.
And when was the last time Israel and Egypt fought? They fought 3 times
before Carter's Camp David agreement.
The only reason Egypt doesn't do anything now is that Israel will bomb
the Aswan Dam if Egypt does anything, and Egypt knows it. The only
reason the "Palestinians" don't do anything similar is they are from
*****, and live in *****.
Ah, and further evidence of your ability for "debate".
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
20 May 2007 10:06:22 PM |
|
|
the_blogologist wrote:
Roger <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:z4idnQ_nVrSkRc3bnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@comcast.com...
The Real Diddy Pop wrote:
On May 20, 7:07 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What bungling?
You need to read up on your history. Use Google, it can be quite
effective. I suggest you know a little something about an issue
before you stick your snout in it.
Like Reagan getting the hostages....*snicker*...free...*kkrkk*...on his
watch....*BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!*
Sorry, I couldn't say that with a straight face.
You can say this with a straight face: Reagan did deal with Iran. He
illegally sold them arms and illegally gave the money to the Contras.
Was that ever proven?
Yes.
Seems like all that money John Kerry spent
investigating Reagan over Iran-Contra that they'd have gotten at least
one conviction.
Oliver North.
And when was the last time Israel and Egypt fought? They fought 3 times
before Carter's Camp David agreement.
The only reason Egypt doesn't do anything now is that Israel will bomb
the Aswan Dam if Egypt does anything, and Egypt knows it. The only
reason the "Palestinians" don't do anything similar is they are from
*****, and live in *****.
Ah, and further evidence of your ability for "debate".
.
|
|
|
| User: "the_blogologist" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
20 May 2007 11:59:47 PM |
|
|
DanielSan <danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote:
the_blogologist wrote:
Roger <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:z4idnQ_nVrSkRc3bnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@comcast.com...
The Real Diddy Pop wrote:
On May 20, 7:07 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What bungling?
You need to read up on your history. Use Google, it can be quite
effective. I suggest you know a little something about an issue
before you stick your snout in it.
Like Reagan getting the hostages....*snicker*...free...*kkrkk*...on his
watch....*BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!*
Sorry, I couldn't say that with a straight face.
You can say this with a straight face: Reagan did deal with Iran. He
illegally sold them arms and illegally gave the money to the Contras.
Was that ever proven?
Yes.
Seems like all that money John Kerry spent
investigating Reagan over Iran-Contra that they'd have gotten at least
one conviction.
Oliver North.
"Essentially, North's convictions were overturned because he had been
granted limited immunity for his Congressional testimony"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North
And when was the last time Israel and Egypt fought? They fought 3 times
before Carter's Camp David agreement.
The only reason Egypt doesn't do anything now is that Israel will bomb
the Aswan Dam if Egypt does anything, and Egypt knows it. The only
reason the "Palestinians" don't do anything similar is they are from
*****, and live in *****.
Ah, and further evidence of your ability for "debate".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
21 May 2007 01:23:33 AM |
|
|
"the_blogologist" <nobody@nowheres.com> wrote in message
news:1hyfilp.pa278pes36iN%nobody@nowheres.com...
DanielSan <danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote:
the_blogologist wrote:
Roger <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsangeo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:z4idnQ_nVrSkRc3bnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@comcast.com...
The Real Diddy Pop wrote:
On May 20, 7:07 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What bungling?
You need to read up on your history. Use Google, it can be quite
effective. I suggest you know a little something about an issue
before you stick your snout in it.
Like Reagan getting the hostages....*snicker*...free...*kkrkk*...on
his
watch....*BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!*
Sorry, I couldn't say that with a straight face.
You can say this with a straight face: Reagan did deal with Iran. He
illegally sold them arms and illegally gave the money to the Contras.
Was that ever proven?
Yes.
Seems like all that money John Kerry spent
investigating Reagan over Iran-Contra that they'd have gotten at least
one conviction.
Oliver North.
"Essentially, North's convictions were overturned because he had been
granted limited immunity for his Congressional testimony"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North
Which means he was convicted of the crime, but it was erased because of his
deal.
The ACLU helped him with that, BTW.
And when was the last time Israel and Egypt fought? They fought 3
times
before Carter's Camp David agreement.
The only reason Egypt doesn't do anything now is that Israel will
bomb
the Aswan Dam if Egypt does anything, and Egypt knows it. The only
reason the "Palestinians" don't do anything similar is they are from
*****, and live in *****.
Ah, and further evidence of your ability for "debate".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "the_blogologist" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
20 May 2007 09:40:53 PM |
|
|
Roger <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"the_blogologist" <nobody@nowheres.com> wrote in message
news:1hyf186.1ufl4tim2j1g5N%nobody@nowheres.com...
Denis Loubet <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"Codebreaker" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1179691668.489763.166120@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- The nasty words between President Bush and
former President Jimmy Carter continued Sunday.
In a biting rebuke to Carter calling the Bush administration the
"worst in history," the White House on Sunday dismissed Carter as
"increasingly irrelevant."
Yes, the administration hates honesty.
Jimmy Carter contributed in a massive way to the mess in the middle east
with his bungling of Iran.
What bungling?
Well lets see. Carter forced the Shah to adopt certain "reforms" by
threatening to cut off all US military aid to Iran. Those "reforms"
included - relaxing censorship, liberalizing the Iranian court system,
westernizing iranian culture and freeing hundreds of "political
prisoners" including known terrorists. As unrest grew Soviets activately
undermined the Shah's rule - Carter pulled the CIA out of Iran and
fired 800 covert CIA agents. Carter's "support" for the shah amounted to
simply saying he supported the Shah and sending a shipment of tear gas.
He also ordered a US carrior to Iran and then reversed that order.
So that history reflects better on Jimmy Carter, left wingers point out
that the US government "installed" the shah in 1953, but in fact he was
crowned prince of Iran about 1929 and replaced his father as Shah in
1941. He was a valued US ally during World War II. He was deposed in a
soviet backed coup in 1951 and reinstalled by the US in 1953.
They also point out that Iranian civilians where killed by the Shah's
"secret police", but more people died during his final overthrow than
his secret police killed through his entire reign. Today Iran's
government is much more opressive than the Shah's rule and exports
terrorism to Iraq.
And when was the last time Israel and Egypt fought? They fought 3 times
before Carter's Camp David agreement.
The Iran-Iraq war and the Soviet's war in Afghanistan both began during
the Carter years. Course most Americans think that was Reagan because
everytime the evening news covers those wars they mention Reagan and
forget all about Carter. Had Carter managed to get re-elected we'd have
probably lost the Cold War.
I think that pretty much covers Mr. "Man of Peace".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
21 May 2007 01:29:21 AM |
|
|
"the_blogologist" <nobody@nowheres.com> wrote in message
news:1hyfdz3.km73ph14zp1c2N%nobody@nowheres.com...
Roger <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"the_blogologist" <nobody@nowheres.com> wrote in message
news:1hyf186.1ufl4tim2j1g5N%nobody@nowheres.com...
Denis Loubet <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"Codebreaker" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1179691668.489763.166120@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- The nasty words between President Bush and
former President Jimmy Carter continued Sunday.
In a biting rebuke to Carter calling the Bush administration the
"worst in history," the White House on Sunday dismissed Carter as
"increasingly irrelevant."
Yes, the administration hates honesty.
Jimmy Carter contributed in a massive way to the mess in the middle
east
with his bungling of Iran.
What bungling?
Well lets see. Carter forced the Shah to adopt certain "reforms" by
threatening to cut off all US military aid to Iran. Those "reforms"
included - relaxing censorship, liberalizing the Iranian court system,
westernizing iranian culture and freeing hundreds of "political
prisoners" including known terrorists. As unrest grew Soviets activately
undermined the Shah's rule - Carter pulled the CIA out of Iran and
fired 800 covert CIA agents. Carter's "support" for the shah amounted to
simply saying he supported the Shah and sending a shipment of tear gas.
He also ordered a US carrior to Iran and then reversed that order.
He "bungled" by making Iran do the right thing.
How dare he.
He should have done like Reagan and other presidents throughout the years.
Remove the uncooperative governments, many times democratically elected
ones, and put in his own right-wing murdering dictator?
So that history reflects better on Jimmy Carter, left wingers point out
that the US government "installed" the shah in 1953, but in fact he was
crowned prince of Iran about 1929 and replaced his father as Shah in
1941.
They correctly say "installed" because there was a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED
government in place. It was removed and the shah returned.
He was a valued US ally during World War II. He was deposed in a
soviet backed coup in 1951 and reinstalled by the US in 1953.
They also point out that Iranian civilians where killed by the Shah's
"secret police", but more people died during his final overthrow than
his secret police killed through his entire reign. Today Iran's
government is much more opressive than the Shah's rule and exports
terrorism to Iraq.
And when was the last time Israel and Egypt fought? They fought 3 times
before Carter's Camp David agreement.
The Iran-Iraq war and the Soviet's war in Afghanistan both began during
the Carter years. Course most Americans think that was Reagan because
everytime the evening news covers those wars they mention Reagan and
forget all about Carter. Had Carter managed to get re-elected we'd have
probably lost the Cold War.
I think that pretty much covers Mr. "Man of Peace".
You haven't shown what CARTER DID that could be called "bungling."
He didn't start the Iran-Iraq war. Reagan DID sell Iran arms.
The cold war? *****! The Soviets LOST THE WAR, we didn't win it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "the_blogologist" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
21 May 2007 03:44:59 AM |
|
|
Roger <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"the_blogologist" <nobody@nowheres.com> wrote in message
news:1hyfdz3.km73ph14zp1c2N%nobody@nowheres.com...
Roger <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"the_blogologist" <nobody@nowheres.com> wrote in message
news:1hyf186.1ufl4tim2j1g5N%nobody@nowheres.com...
Denis Loubet <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"Codebreaker" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1179691668.489763.166120@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- The nasty words between President Bush and
former President Jimmy Carter continued Sunday.
In a biting rebuke to Carter calling the Bush administration the
"worst in history," the White House on Sunday dismissed Carter as
"increasingly irrelevant."
Yes, the administration hates honesty.
Jimmy Carter contributed in a massive way to the mess in the middle
east
with his bungling of Iran.
What bungling?
Well lets see. Carter forced the Shah to adopt certain "reforms" by
threatening to cut off all US military aid to Iran. Those "reforms"
included - relaxing censorship, liberalizing the Iranian court system,
westernizing iranian culture and freeing hundreds of "political
prisoners" including known terrorists. As unrest grew Soviets activately
undermined the Shah's rule - Carter pulled the CIA out of Iran and
fired 800 covert CIA agents. Carter's "support" for the shah amounted to
simply saying he supported the Shah and sending a shipment of tear gas.
He also ordered a US carrior to Iran and then reversed that order.
He "bungled" by making Iran do the right thing.
How dare he.
What right thing? Carter forced the Shah to force American culture on a
people that didn't want it. Carter's meddling in Iran's internal affairs
had disasterous consiquences. The people of Iran didn't think it was the
right thing.
He should have done like Reagan and other presidents throughout the years.
Remove the uncooperative governments, many times democratically elected
ones, and put in his own right-wing murdering dictator?
Reagan generally went in where the Soviets had gone in.
So that history reflects better on Jimmy Carter, left wingers point out
that the US government "installed" the shah in 1953, but in fact he was
crowned prince of Iran about 1929 and replaced his father as Shah in
1941.
They correctly say "installed" because there was a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED
government in place. It was removed and the shah returned.
That don't necessarily mean anything unless you examine the details of
the election to find out if it was legitimate. THose "elected" were also
backed by the Soviets. Hitler was elected too. Lots of opressive
government hold mock elections. There's a budding democracy in Iraq
right now.
He was a valued US ally during World War II. He was deposed in a
soviet backed coup in 1951 and reinstalled by the US in 1953.
They also point out that Iranian civilians where killed by the Shah's
"secret police", but more people died during his final overthrow than
his secret police killed through his entire reign. Today Iran's
government is much more opressive than the Shah's rule and exports
terrorism to Iraq.
And when was the last time Israel and Egypt fought? They fought 3 times
before Carter's Camp David agreement.
The Iran-Iraq war and the Soviet's war in Afghanistan both began during
the Carter years. Course most Americans think that was Reagan because
everytime the evening news covers those wars they mention Reagan and
forget all about Carter. Had Carter managed to get re-elected we'd have
probably lost the Cold War.
I think that pretty much covers Mr. "Man of Peace".
You haven't shown what CARTER DID that could be called "bungling."
He should have sent in 50,000 troops to restore Iran.
He didn't start the Iran-Iraq war. Reagan DID sell Iran arms.
I don't believe it.
The cold war? *****! The Soviets LOST THE WAR, we didn't win it.
hahaha Why don't you downplay the cold war because it was won by a
Republican. We've seen how Democrats have done.
WAR!! WAR!! DEMOCRATS AND WAAAAR!!!!
(the DRAFT included!!)
World War I - 1917 - 116,708 KIA - Woodrow Wilson - Democrat
World War II - 1941 - 408,306 -KIA Franklin D. Roosevelt - Democrat
Korean War - 1950 - 54,246 KIA - Harry S. Truman - Democrat
Vietnam War - 1965 - 58,159 KIA - Lyndon B. Johnson - Democrat
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/6545/vietnamwarstats8zn.jpg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
21 May 2007 06:37:52 AM |
|
|
"the_blogologist" <nobody@nowheres.com> wrote in message
news:1hyfw7q.ax9wcg1p65kvmN%nobody@nowheres.com...
Roger <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"the_blogologist" <nobody@nowheres.com> wrote in message
news:1hyfdz3.km73ph14zp1c2N%nobody@nowheres.com...
Roger <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"the_blogologist" <nobody@nowheres.com> wrote in message
news:1hyf186.1ufl4tim2j1g5N%nobody@nowheres.com...
Denis Loubet <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"Codebreaker" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1179691668.489763.166120@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- The nasty words between President Bush
and
former President Jimmy Carter continued Sunday.
In a biting rebuke to Carter calling the Bush administration the
"worst in history," the White House on Sunday dismissed Carter as
"increasingly irrelevant."
Yes, the administration hates honesty.
Jimmy Carter contributed in a massive way to the mess in the middle
east
with his bungling of Iran.
What bungling?
Well lets see. Carter forced the Shah to adopt certain "reforms" by
threatening to cut off all US military aid to Iran. Those "reforms"
included - relaxing censorship, liberalizing the Iranian court system,
westernizing iranian culture and freeing hundreds of "political
prisoners" including known terrorists. As unrest grew Soviets
activately
undermined the Shah's rule - Carter pulled the CIA out of Iran and
fired 800 covert CIA agents. Carter's "support" for the shah amounted
to
simply saying he supported the Shah and sending a shipment of tear gas.
He also ordered a US carrior to Iran and then reversed that order.
He "bungled" by making Iran do the right thing.
How dare he.
What right thing? Carter forced the Shah to force American culture on a
people that didn't want it. Carter's meddling in Iran's internal affairs
had disasterous consiquences. The people of Iran didn't think it was the
right thing.
He should have done like Reagan and other presidents throughout the
years.
Remove the uncooperative governments, many times democratically elected
ones, and put in his own right-wing murdering dictator?
Reagan generally went in where the Soviets had gone in.
So that history reflects better on Jimmy Carter, left wingers point out
that the US government "installed" the shah in 1953, but in fact he was
crowned prince of Iran about 1929 and replaced his father as Shah in
1941.
They correctly say "installed" because there was a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED
government in place. It was removed and the shah returned.
That don't necessarily mean anything unless you examine the details of
the election to find out if it was legitimate. THose "elected" were also
backed by the Soviets. Hitler was elected too. Lots of opressive
government hold mock elections. There's a budding democracy in Iraq
right now.
He was a valued US ally during World War II. He was deposed in a
soviet backed coup in 1951 and reinstalled by the US in 1953.
They also point out that Iranian civilians where killed by the Shah's
"secret police", but more people died during his final overthrow than
his secret police killed through his entire reign. Today Iran's
government is much more opressive than the Shah's rule and exports
terrorism to Iraq.
And when was the last time Israel and Egypt fought? They fought 3
times
before Carter's Camp David agreement.
The Iran-Iraq war and the Soviet's war in Afghanistan both began during
the Carter years. Course most Americans think that was Reagan because
everytime the evening news covers those wars they mention Reagan and
forget all about Carter. Had Carter managed to get re-elected we'd have
probably lost the Cold War.
I think that pretty much covers Mr. "Man of Peace".
You haven't shown what CARTER DID that could be called "bungling."
He should have sent in 50,000 troops to restore Iran.
He didn't start the Iran-Iraq war. Reagan DID sell Iran arms.
I don't believe it.
The cold war? *****! The Soviets LOST THE WAR, we didn't win it.
hahaha Why don't you downplay the cold war because it was won by a
Republican. We've seen how Democrats have done.
The cold war didn't even end during Reagan's term.
You are saying that everyone, all the presidents, soldiers, CIA officers,
and ordinary citizens that fought the cold war were pointless, because
REAGAN WON IT?
*****!
The SOVIETS spent themselves out of power.
They LOST.
WAR!! WAR!! DEMOCRATS AND WAAAAR!!!!
(the DRAFT included!!)
World War I - 1917 - 116,708 KIA - Woodrow Wilson - Democrat
World War II - 1941 - 408,306 -KIA Franklin D. Roosevelt - Democrat
Korean War - 1950 - 54,246 KIA - Harry S. Truman - Democrat
Vietnam War - 1965 - 58,159 KIA - Lyndon B. Johnson - Democrat
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/6545/vietnamwarstats8zn.jpg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Not You Jimmy "Charter"... Not You |
21 May 2007 02:09:03 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 May 2007 19:40:53 -0700, (the_blogologist) wrote:
I think that pretty much covers Mr. "Man of Peace".
Don't forget his attempt to devalue the United States by presiding over 18%
interest rates for mortgages for new homes.
Or destroying the US military to the point that there was not one fighter wing
in the US that was at 100% strength when the American people kicked him out.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
The piece of ***** posting as "J Young with my giganews account is not the J Young that you've all come to know and love
Re: Do You Know Why a ***** Will Not Adopt A child With A Queer?
Sorry Pluto, you're not even biggest dwarf planet
Re: Thank you, SMALL FISH for not bothering to check!
MICHAEL GRAY shouldn't even > begin > > to respond to this, as its becoming more and more obvious you are > > ethier a arrogant liberal, coming on to MY site, and insulting us, > > when we are doing nothing to you, not bothering you in the > > sligh
HEY DICKLESS!!! YES YOU!!! NO, NOT YOU!! YOU!!! YOU, *****!! YOU YOU YOU!!!
Listen up "AUK" over 800 million Citizens you call Kooks Believe 911 was not only allowed but orchestrated by the bush aministration. The Iluminati is finished exposed by word of mouth and now you can witness your own arrests as law enforcement sta
To Show What You do not want!!
| When you're not an Ivy League, Rich Elitist
you all tend to worry whether Jesus existed or not...
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
God is not dependent on you in any way.
Re: NOT as YOU think it is !!
Re: You need not fear that your Muslim male baby-sitter will rapeyour 7-year-old daughter. If he is a good Muslim he will only sodomize her.If he does force his penis into her tiny vagina he is obligated to pay forany surgical repairs that may be req
I am not going to tell you what to believe
|
|
|
