Before anyone decides to match up their Nostradamus
postecies to current events...
If what we read in the news is so accurate, NAFTA was
such a great idea because Mexicans can't snatch up
American products fast enough, AND American workers
have to accept as little or less pay as Mexicans if they're
going to compete in the economy and keep their jobs.
There really is an invisible "Media Study" which concluded
that Al Gore would have won the election if he had requested
a re-count of all of Florida, instead of just the tens of
thousands of uncounted ballots from heavily Democratic
precincts.
Irish people living in Ireland & fighting to make their part
of Ireland ruled by the Irish -- against people who would
be insulted if you called them Irish -- is a "Religious war."
The Iraq war ended on May 1, 2003. Bush never said that.
Saddam was supporting Al Qaida terrorist inside Iraq who
were fighting to overthrow him. Bush lied and these Al
Qaida linked groups are supported by Iran. There's no
evidence that these groups exist. It's all Bush trying to
pick a fight with Iran.
The CIA screwed up when the administration forced them
to include all that bogus intel into their briefs. If the Whitehouse
hadn't forced the CIA to mislead them the way they did, Bush
would never have chosen his course of action.
Bush craves war with Iran. This is why he poisoned the idea
of war with Iran, taking all of the evidence against Iran and
applying it to Iraq.
Bush wants nothing more than his legacy being a nuclear
strike against north Korea. He wants to be remembered as
the man who started a nuclear war.
Russia would rather be poor than see a radical Islamic state
which endorses terrorism against Russians be attacked by
business partners.
China is our friend.
.
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
09 Mar 2007 03:33:17 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173426738.409184.120250@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Saddam was supporting Al Qaida terrorist inside Iraq who
were fighting to overthrow him.
Huh??
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
09 Mar 2007 04:01:36 AM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Saddam was supporting Al Qaida terrorist inside Iraq who
were fighting to overthrow him.
Huh??
In the propaganda leading up to the war, the Islamic
militant groups in Iraq -- fighting for the creation
of an Iranian-style Islamic state -- were being supported
by Saddam.
There were also a few reports saying that all the other
reports were wrong, and these were anti-Saddam militants
supported by Iran.
But Iranian-backed militants with Al Qaida ties suddenly
supports the claims that Iran is an enemy & killing
Americans. So now those very same groups never existed.
The army "Invented" the evidence of Iranian support to
justify Bush's lust for war & oil.
One such group that, according to the news you weirdos
listen to, never existed is Ansar al-Islam.
Here. From an independent third party:
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm
And ignore the copyright. It's generated dynamically.
I first quoted this website -- posting this URL -- back
in August of 2003. I did so in an argument with a psycho
Bush supporter who was spewing the propaganda about
Saddam & Al Qaida linked militant groups.
You can look it up with this:
Message-ID: <xy2dnVR__p0eNqiiXTWJhw@comcast.com>
Anyhow, now the propaganda says that these groups
never existed. Bush is inventing the evidence that Iran
is killing American soldiers in Iraq.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
09 Mar 2007 02:48:21 PM |
|
|
On Mar 9, 8:01 pm, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Saddam was supporting Al Qaida terrorist inside Iraq who
were fighting to overthrow him.
Huh??
In the propaganda leading up to the war, the Islamic
militant groups in Iraq -- fighting for the creation
of an Iranian-style Islamic state -- were being supported
by Saddam.
There were also a few reports saying that all the other
reports were wrong, and these were anti-Saddam militants
supported by Iran.
But Iranian-backed militants with Al Qaida ties suddenly
supports the claims that Iran is an enemy & killing
Americans. So now those very same groups never existed.
The army "Invented" the evidence of Iranian support to
justify Bush's lust for war & oil.
One such group that, according to the news you weirdos
listen to, never existed is Ansar al-Islam.
Here. From an independent third party:
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm
And ignore the copyright. It's generated dynamically.
I first quoted this website -- posting this URL -- back
in August of 2003. I did so in an argument with a psycho
Bush supporter who was spewing the propaganda about
Saddam & Al Qaida linked militant groups.
You can look it up with this:
Message-ID: <xy2dnVR__p0eNqiiXTWJhw@comcast.com>
Anyhow, now the propaganda says that these groups
never existed. Bush is inventing the evidence that Iran
is killing American soldiers in Iraq.
Oh the truth is out there?
odd POV.
LB
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
09 Mar 2007 09:07:57 PM |
|
|
"leigh8...@optusnet.com.au" <leigh8...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
Oh the truth is out there?
odd POV.
I'm just pointing out a fact. you all know & agree that the
news we see & read is tainted. Yet, you're all the first to
rely on it in order to both make predictions and declare their
accuracy.
Well, Bush is still in office. The powers that be are just as
busy controlling the news now as they were in the lead up to
the war. And those powers that be have been desperately trying
to convince you that a war against Iran is unjustified.
Last time I looked, Bush is still in charge. Bush talks one
game but plays another. He's not interested in war against Iran.
If he was he'd get it, and the overwhelimg majority would be
behind him.
Yes, even today, Iran does support Islamic militants inside
Iraq who are killing Americans & our Kurdish allies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
10 Mar 2007 03:56:08 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173496077.810256.159600@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
"leigh8...@optusnet.com.au" <leigh8...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
Oh the truth is out there?
odd POV.
I'm just pointing out a fact. you all know & agree that the
news we see & read is tainted. Yet, you're all the first to
rely on it in order to both make predictions and declare their
accuracy.
We'd have to bring the info you rely on into a thorough multi-faceted
independent investigation to affrim it's any less 'tainted' than other
sources relied on here. As for Saddam and the intrigues you mentioned
elsewhere, your perspective rests on what independent verification?
Millions of sites exist that purport to tell the 'truth' when, in reality,
they are no more than cherry-picked or falsified bits of information to
'prove' the author's contentions. One could easily end up not trusting any
news source -- considering the lack of verification or investigation of
allegations or so-called 'facts' and the various authors' obsessive desire
to provide 'evidence' for his ideas. At best, what is presented is all
'possible' I suppose, but your acceptance of the many pieces of info,
built into a theoretical paradigm, or presented as 'reality,' can just as
easily be your biased search for confirmation of your particular
viewpoint. In such a search, subjectivism often plays a major role. So,
it's a tricky thing to be cavalierly stating that your set of 'facts' are
valid over another's.
Docrodile
Well, Bush is still in office. The powers that be are just as
busy controlling the news now as they were in the lead up to
the war. And those powers that be have been desperately trying
to convince you that a war against Iran is unjustified.
Last time I looked, Bush is still in charge. Bush talks one
game but plays another. He's not interested in war against Iran.
If he was he'd get it, and the overwhelimg majority would be
behind him.
Yes, even today, Iran does support Islamic militants inside
Iraq who are killing Americans & our Kurdish allies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
10 Mar 2007 05:09:47 AM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
We'd have to bring the info you rely on into a thorough
multi-faceted independent investigation to affrim it's
any less 'tainted' than other sources relied on here.
read some of the official, Jordanian government's accounts
of the 1967 war. Read some of the Israeli versions. They
contradict each other, no?
Yes they do. But even if you were a disinterested third
party -- someone who had no idea what the truth is -- you
could read each account and walk away with a large number
of solid facts.
Both will tell of stunning victories at such & such a
battle, and as a disinterested third party you won't
know who to believe. But you will know where & when the
battle was fought, and who fought it.
How would you know this? Because as hugely different as
these two accounts are, they both agree that the battle
was fought. Even with the mounds of disinformation, the
propaganda, the overt agendas, you can still pull out
hard information.
THAT is what you can do. THAT is the tool you have for
gleeming information, the power you must use.
I'm not argue to trust one source over another, as you
seem to be doing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
10 Mar 2007 05:58:06 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173524986.946128.83540@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
We'd have to bring the info you rely on into a thorough
multi-faceted independent investigation to affrim it's
any less 'tainted' than other sources relied on here.
read some of the official, Jordanian government's accounts
of the 1967 war. Read some of the Israeli versions. They
contradict each other, no?
Yes they do. But even if you were a disinterested third
party -- someone who had no idea what the truth is -- you
could read each account and walk away with a large number
of solid facts.
Both will tell of stunning victories at such & such a
battle, and as a disinterested third party you won't
know who to believe. But you will know where & when the
battle was fought, and who fought it.
How would you know this? Because as hugely different as
these two accounts are, they both agree that the battle
was fought. Even with the mounds of disinformation, the
propaganda, the overt agendas, you can still pull out
hard information.
THAT is what you can do. THAT is the tool you have for
gleeming information, the power you must use.
I'm not argue to trust one source over another, as you
seem to be doing.
Look, sugar cube, I don't trust the media much at all, but I don't trust
the newer form of it, the bloggers, either, or the innumerous personal
sites spouting their 'truths' I know humanity is and has been engaged in
various conspiracies, collusions, secret plans...to think that it is not,
is to deny the very nature of the species!! We collude, make secret plans
together, for mutual benefit. Unfortunately, someone has to suffer from
these secret parleys. And that is usually the common man and woman. Yes,
you can cull from many reports threads of truth, but they must be verified
by the factual events or be verified by others coming forth, who've dealt
with the essential machinations. What I am saying is that we can't know
all the truth, but only parts of it. It is rare to know it all. As with
Scooter Libby, we do know some basic truths about his deceptions, but does
it reach his boss, *****? More investigation is necessary, but will those
findings only lead to another? Probably. If all the players are exposed,
can the public know all have been exposed? How do we KNOW that? We don't,
JTEM. Someone may have been much more clever than the others, or someone
who investigated became corrupted and was not found out.
Docrodile :))~
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
10 Mar 2007 06:35:22 AM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
Look, sugar cube, I don't trust the media much at
all, but I don't trust the newer form of it,
the bloggers, either,
So who are you pretending -- besides you -- even mentioned
them here?
Certainly not me. Seriously, did you even read what I
said? It had absolutely NOTHING to do with bloggers.
What I said -- in a nut shell -- is that you can read
both the Jordanian & Israeli official accounts of the
1967 war and, as conflicting as they are, still pull out
hard evidence.
Both sides, with their own agendas, might tell you different
reasons why the war was fought... who started it... who won...
but both agree that there was a war. Both sides may claim
victory in such & such a battle, but both agree that the
battle was fought.
So even if you knew absolutely nothing about the war, or
Israel, or Jordan, you could still gleem solid information.
Information like names, dates, places. Even with two totally
contradictory accounts of a battle, you have confirmation
that a battle was fought, who fought it, where it was fought
and when it was fought.
THAT'S what I said.
You invented the ***** about bloggers. You pulled that one
right out of your *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
10 Mar 2007 07:34:10 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173530122.820400.171130@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
Look, sugar cube, I don't trust the media much at
all, but I don't trust the newer form of it,
the bloggers, either,
So who are you pretending -- besides you -- even mentioned
them here?
Certainly not me. Seriously, did you even read what I
said? It had absolutely NOTHING to do with bloggers.
And how much do the off-subject detours you make have anything to do with
anything? I'm making an observation, shredded wheat. That is the dynamics
of news sources today -- either you get your diet of news from the
mainstream or the alternative media. Maybe you should just get off the
internet, and go over to Iran and Iraq and make a personal evaluation in
the field? Eh?
What I said -- in a nut shell
LOL! That'd be appropriate...
-- is that you can read
both the Jordanian & Israeli official accounts of the
1967 war and, as conflicting as they are, still pull out
hard evidence.
Both sides, with their own agendas, might tell you different
reasons why the war was fought... who started it... who won...
but both agree that there was a war. Both sides may claim
victory in such & such a battle, but both agree that the
battle was fought.
So even if you knew absolutely nothing about the war, or
Israel, or Jordan, you could still gleem solid information.
Information like names, dates, places. Even with two totally
contradictory accounts of a battle, you have confirmation
that a battle was fought, who fought it, where it was fought
and when it was fought.
THAT'S what I said.
You invented the ***** about bloggers. You pulled that one
right out of your *****.
And offered it up as a paradigm of news sources. You just didn't get the
reason for the presentation, Count Chocula. You've got your head too far
up your ***** to see it. LOL!
Docrodile
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
10 Mar 2007 11:58:21 PM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
And how much do the off-subject detours
It wasn't a detour at all, psycho breath. It was
in direct response to your rant regarding sources.
It's not about which source is the best, and if
you can find it you'll be informed. Some sources
are just plain worthless --about like the opinions
of you whack jobs here -- but, for most sources,
it's really about comparing & contrasting a number
of them together.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
10 Mar 2007 09:13:50 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat
the Words
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
Look, sugar cube, I don't trust the media much at
all, but I don't trust the newer form of it,
the bloggers, either,
So who are you pretending -- besides you -- even mentioned
them here?
Certainly not me. Seriously, did you even read what I
said? It had absolutely NOTHING to do with bloggers.
He was responding to you accusing him of trusting one
news source over another. If you two could stick to
one single point of contention then maybe you could
have a real argument instead of bouncing all over the
place.
What I said -- in a nut shell -- is that you can read
both the Jordanian & Israeli official accounts of the
1967 war and, as conflicting as they are, still pull out
hard evidence.
Both sides, with their own agendas, might tell you different
reasons why the war was fought... who started it... who won...
but both agree that there was a war. Both sides may claim
victory in such & such a battle, but both agree that the
battle was fought.
So even if you knew absolutely nothing about the war, or
Israel, or Jordan, you could still gleem solid information.
Information like names, dates, places. Even with two totally
contradictory accounts of a battle, you have confirmation
that a battle was fought, who fought it, where it was fought
and when it was fought.
THAT'S what I said.
You invented the ***** about bloggers. You pulled that one
right out of your *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
10 Mar 2007 07:15:28 PM |
|
|
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98EF53BA2FABErrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat
the Words
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
Look, sugar cube, I don't trust the media much at
all, but I don't trust the newer form of it,
the bloggers, either,
So who are you pretending -- besides you -- even mentioned
them here?
Certainly not me. Seriously, did you even read what I
said? It had absolutely NOTHING to do with bloggers.
He was responding to you accusing him of trusting one
news source over another. If you two could stick to
one single point of contention then maybe you could
have a real argument instead of bouncing all over the
place.
I tried to stick to the 'GOP luvs Iran' blanket statement he made, but
then...somewhere along the line...I just lost interest in trying to focus
on it. After all, when I knock a guy in the head with a stupid
misstatement at least twice as I did, there's an undeniable feeling of
futility overcomes me. Why continue with someone who says the 'truth' is
important, but can't face up to the lack of 'truth' in one statement he
made??
LOL!
Aaah..well, ***** him and ***** Stevie, too...I need to concentrate on
relatively sane posters who have working brains, some maturity, some sense
of respect for me as a poster. I feel like a guy who just foolishly
offered up my rectum to two habitual maniacal sodomists for their sick
enjoyment, and got nothing but a bloody goddamnned ***** pain outta' it for
myself.
Limping home...dripping a blood trail...
Docrodile ;))
What I said -- in a nut shell -- is that you can read
both the Jordanian & Israeli official accounts of the
1967 war and, as conflicting as they are, still pull out
hard evidence.
Both sides, with their own agendas, might tell you different
reasons why the war was fought... who started it... who won...
but both agree that there was a war. Both sides may claim
victory in such & such a battle, but both agree that the
battle was fought.
So even if you knew absolutely nothing about the war, or
Israel, or Jordan, you could still gleem solid information.
Information like names, dates, places. Even with two totally
contradictory accounts of a battle, you have confirmation
that a battle was fought, who fought it, where it was fought
and when it was fought.
THAT'S what I said.
You invented the ***** about bloggers. You pulled that one
right out of your *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
11 Mar 2007 12:08:06 AM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
I tried to stick to the 'GOP luvs Iran' blanket
statement he made,
Hey, WHAT?
The GOP *Hates* Iran. That's why they armed them during
the Iran-Iraq war. You know, when it was exposed as the
"Iran/Contra" scandal. The Iranian part was the supplies
the Reagan administration was selling them.
When Reagan took office he invented the Libyan "Boogie
Man." That's just coincidence. It has nothing to do with
the fact that he inherited an America that already had a
boogie man in Iran.... a boogie man that got him elected
when he agreed to hold on to American hostages until
after the election.
And If the GOP didn't hate Iran so much, why did we go
to war against Iraq... twice?
And if the GOP loves Iran so much, how come they poisoned
the idea of going to war against Iran by taking all the
reasons for it & applying them to Iraq? All those lies
Bush told to get us into a war with Iraq were TRUE for
Iran. All of them.
Clearly the GOP hates Iran.
You guys are clearly right about Bush attacking Iran in
2003... 2004... 2005.... um... 2006... well DEFINITELY
2007. Right? You're all certain of it.
Aren't you?
JUST AS CERTAIN AS YOU'VE BEEN THESE LAST FOUR YEARS IN
A ROW.
Clearly you guys know what you're talking about...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
10 Mar 2007 08:28:38 PM |
|
|
On Mar 10, 5:15 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
I tried to stick to the 'GOP luvs Iran' blanket statement he made, but
then...somewhere along the line...I just lost interest in trying to focus
on it. After all, when I knock a guy in the head with a stupid
misstatement at least twice as I did, there's an undeniable feeling of
futility overcomes me. Why continue with someone who says the 'truth' is
important, but can't face up to the lack of 'truth' in one statement he
made??
LOL!
Aaah..well, ***** him and ***** Stevie, too...
------ Aaaaah...here is the crux of your presence here. You want to
win over someone, anyone, on any subject. You might wonder how even a
win would improve your compulsion to endlessly argue in a long thread,
or what motivates you to continue to attempt to get an intellectual/
emotional hard-on by grinding away at one point after
another...looking for any "slip" to ridicule, any small space to exert
your "intellectual, moral righteousness" over another. Yes, you might
wonder, but I don't, Stevie ------ (the paragraph just above was
actually Doc's message to me some time ago -- ironic, to say the
least).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Will the Real Steven Douglas Please Step Forward |
10 Mar 2007 11:19:08 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Mar 10, 5:15 pm, "Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
I tried to stick to the 'GOP luvs Iran' blanket statement he made, but
then...somewhere along the line...I just lost interest in trying to focus
on it. After all, when I knock a guy in the head with a stupid
misstatement at least twice as I did, there's an undeniable feeling of
futility overcomes me. Why continue with someone who says the 'truth' is
important, but can't face up to the lack of 'truth' in one statement he
made??
LOL!
Aaah..well, ***** him and ***** Stevie, too...
------ Aaaaah...here is the crux of your presence here. You want to
win over someone, anyone, on any subject. You might wonder how even a
win would improve your compulsion to endlessly argue in a long thread,
or what motivates you to continue to attempt to get an intellectual/
emotional hard-on by grinding away at one point after
another...looking for any "slip" to ridicule, any small space to exert
your "intellectual, moral righteousness" over another. Yes, you might
wonder, but I don't, Stevie ------ (the paragraph just above was
actually Doc's message to me some time ago -- ironic, to say the
least).
Stevie, Stevie... you and your cut-n-pasting, and your
one-liners. Is there any part of the real Steven Douglas
in that skull of yours ? Please give us just one opinion
you have. We can start an argument... er.. discussion..
with just one opinion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
09 Mar 2007 10:22:17 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat
the Words
"leigh8...@optusnet.com.au" <leigh8...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
Oh the truth is out there?
odd POV.
I'm just pointing out a fact. you all know & agree that the
news we see & read is tainted. Yet, you're all the first to
rely on it in order to both make predictions and declare their
accuracy.
Well, Bush is still in office. The powers that be are just as
busy controlling the news now as they were in the lead up to
the war. And those powers that be have been desperately trying
to convince you that a war against Iran is unjustified.
Last time I looked, Bush is still in charge. Bush talks one
game but plays another. He's not interested in war against Iran.
If he was he'd get it, and the overwhelimg majority would be
behind him.
Bush knows one goal clearly... no nukes for Iran. This is an
overriding priority for him. We should never underestimate
his capacity for stupidity. It seems foolhardy for him to
order an attack, but Iran is ALREADY doing everything it
can to foil the US efforts in Iraq. Launching air strikes
into Iran won't have any impact on the already chaotic
situation in Iraq.
If Bush can't see the sensibility of removing US troops from
Iraq, he won't have any reservations about being hostile with
a third rate military such as Iran, especially if they've
already determined the extent of hezbolla influence
throughout the mideast.
Yes, even today, Iran does support Islamic militants inside
Iraq who are killing Americans & our Kurdish allies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
10 Mar 2007 03:39:55 AM |
|
|
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Bush knows one goal clearly... no nukes for Iran.
This is an overriding priority for him. We should
never underestimate his capacity for stupidity.
It seems foolhardy for him to order an attack,
but Iran is ALREADY doing everything it can to
foil the US efforts in Iraq.
You're a believer. You've got your faith. Nothing
could ever sway you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/i-call-*****-on-the-ev_b_41022.html
Keep in mind, there was never any doubt that Iran
is a supporter of Ansar al-Islam. I can even recall,
very early in the war, news coverage of a U.S. &
Kurdish attack on Ansar al-Islam, and how they fled
across the border to safety in Iran.
Ansar al-Islam is real enough, and the various groups
that make it up have been active at least since the
Clinton years. And, yeah, they are fully supported by
Iran. Bush's "Big Lie" was that they were not. Bush's
"Big Lie" was in claiming that they were supported by
Saddam.
See the pattern?
Bush claims that Saddam is importing materials for
a nuclear centrifuge. In reality, Iran was not only
actively shopping for such parts, but had managed
to secure the blue prints to build its own, AND purchased
an entire working model.
Bush claimed that Saddam had tried to buy tons &
tons of uranium from Nigeria. Truth is, Iran tried
to buy several hundred tons of Uranium ore from
Nigeria.
Bush claimed all kinds of terrorist ties for Saddam,
while the truth is Iran had been freely exporting
its Islamic revolution -- and funding terrorism -- for
decades.
Now you see all this & conclude that Bush wants to
attack Iran. I look at Bush's ACTIONS and I see no
such desire. I see the PROTECTION of Iran.
I see the same party that owes the election of
Ronald Reagan to the Iranian refusal to release
the hostages until January as PROTECTING Iran.
I see the same party that was ARMING IRAN during
its war against Saddam PROTECTING Iran.
Yes. The Republicans were arming the Iranians in
their war against Saddam, and you know it. After
all, you've heard of the "Iran/Contra" scandal.
Iran/Contra is how the arming stopped. It actually
started long before that, in Reagan's first term.
The Shah had invested heavily in U.S. military
equipment. None of that equipment was useful without
spare parts. What did we give Saddam? Anthrax that
the Republicans told themselves he'd never be able
to weaponize... faked/out of date satalite data
which gave us the excuse to collect real data which
we could then feed tot he Iranians.... farm credits...
For 27 years solid, despite the worst of actions
on the part of the Iranians, the GOP has ACTED
as nothing but a good FRIEND and PROTECTOR of Iran.
And yet you still insist that Bush craves war?
Like I said, you're a believer... you act on faith.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
10 Mar 2007 04:07:24 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173519595.577650.216500@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Bush knows one goal clearly... no nukes for Iran.
This is an overriding priority for him. We should
never underestimate his capacity for stupidity.
It seems foolhardy for him to order an attack,
but Iran is ALREADY doing everything it can to
foil the US efforts in Iraq.
You're a believer. You've got your faith. Nothing
could ever sway you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/i-call-*****-on-the-ev_b_41022.html
Keep in mind, there was never any doubt that Iran
is a supporter of Ansar al-Islam. I can even recall,
very early in the war, news coverage of a U.S. &
Kurdish attack on Ansar al-Islam, and how they fled
across the border to safety in Iran.
Ansar al-Islam is real enough, and the various groups
that make it up have been active at least since the
Clinton years. And, yeah, they are fully supported by
Iran. Bush's "Big Lie" was that they were not. Bush's
"Big Lie" was in claiming that they were supported by
Saddam.
See the pattern?
Bush claims that Saddam is importing materials for
a nuclear centrifuge. In reality, Iran was not only
actively shopping for such parts, but had managed
to secure the blue prints to build its own, AND purchased
an entire working model.
Bush claimed that Saddam had tried to buy tons &
tons of uranium from Nigeria. Truth is, Iran tried
to buy several hundred tons of Uranium ore from
Nigeria.
Bush claimed all kinds of terrorist ties for Saddam,
while the truth is Iran had been freely exporting
its Islamic revolution -- and funding terrorism -- for
decades.
Now you see all this & conclude that Bush wants to
attack Iran. I look at Bush's ACTIONS and I see no
such desire. I see the PROTECTION of Iran.
I see the same party that owes the election of
Ronald Reagan to the Iranian refusal to release
the hostages until January as PROTECTING Iran.
I see the same party that was ARMING IRAN during
its war against Saddam PROTECTING Iran.
Yes. The Republicans were arming the Iranians in
their war against Saddam, and you know it. After
all, you've heard of the "Iran/Contra" scandal.
Iran/Contra is how the arming stopped. It actually
started long before that, in Reagan's first term.
The Shah had invested heavily in U.S. military
equipment. None of that equipment was useful without
spare parts. What did we give Saddam? Anthrax that
the Republicans told themselves he'd never be able
to weaponize... faked/out of date satalite data
which gave us the excuse to collect real data which
we could then feed tot he Iranians.... farm credits...
For 27 years solid, despite the worst of actions
on the part of the Iranians, the GOP has ACTED
as nothing but a good FRIEND and PROTECTOR of Iran.
It was Reagan who provided US military logistical help to Saddam in the
Iran-Iraq War. Now, how is that the GOP has 'acted as nothing but a good
friend and protector of Iran' as you claim? Saddam attacked Iran, and the
Iranians have never forgotten or forgiven the US for lending a helping
hand to their enemy.
Certainly, Bush has helped Iran by eliminating Saddam and the Taliban, but
the Republicans haven't always been helping Iran. Many analysts contend
that Reagan saw Iran as a threat to US oil interests in the 80s. Today, a
Republican President sees Iran as part of the Axis of Evil, and has made
veiled threats over its nuclear program. That doesn't sound like the
Elephant Party is real pleased with their 'friend' ...
Docrodile
And yet you still insist that Bush craves war?
Like I said, you're a believer... you act on faith.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
10 Mar 2007 04:40:33 AM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
It was Reagan who provided US military logistical
help to Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War.
Iran/contra was ran out of the Whitehouse basement.
After it was exposed, Reagan's hand-picked attorney
general (the highest law enforcement official in the
land) went down to the basement and told Ollie North
that he'd be back the next day to collect all the
evidence.
Let's pretend your local police chief knocked on the
door of a recently revealed crack house and informed
the people inside that he would be returning the
next day with a search warrant. Would you conclude
that he didn't approve of selling crack and wanted
to charge everyone inside, or that he was trying to
protect them?
Now, how is that the GOP has 'acted as nothing but
a good friend and protector of Iran' as you claim?
you could start by actually READING the stuff you
quoted. Seriously, it's no good just quoting it.
Of the things I pointed out, which are you denying?
Saddam attacked Iran, and the Iranians have never
forgotten or forgiven the US for lending a helping
hand to their enemy.
Yet we all know for a fact that the GOP was arming
the Iranians all along. "Iran/Contra." Say it with
me: "Iran/contra."
You just can't wrap your mind around it, can you?
It's an absolute FACT that the GOP was arming the
Iranians during the war, and you know it. But, that
huge, screaming fact -- as undeniable as it is --
simply does not fit into to the picture you like to
imagine.
Certainly, Bush has helped Iran by eliminating Saddam
and the Taliban,
And poisoning the very idea of war against Iran...
Everything Bush said about Iraq was true for Iran.
EVERYTHING.
Bush wouldn't have had to lie his way into a war against
Iran. It would have been the truth against Iran. Now,
well, now the very idea has been poisoned...
"Uranium? Nigeria? Oh, like we haven't heard that one
before!"
"Al Qaida ties? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me
twice, shame on me."
"Nuclear centrifuge? Please. You used that one already!"
Many analysts contend that Reagan saw Iran as a threat
to US oil interests in the 80s.
Which explains why he was 100% Libyan-centric!
Remember Reagan's "Libyan hit squads"?
Please. I'm laughing....
Today, a Republican President sees Iran as part
of the Axis of Evil,
No, that's what he says. What he sees is reflected
by what he does: Protect his beloved Iran.
and has made veiled threats over its nuclear
program.
Yet, Bush just kind of "Lost" hundreds of tons of
specialized explosives in Iraq, explosives used in
the construction of an atomic bomb... explosives
that would come in mighty handy to Iran's nuclear
weapons program....
That doesn't sound like the Elephant Party is
real pleased with their 'friend' ...
"Sound," exactly. You're listening to what they say.
You need to stop listening to what they say and to
start watching what they do.
Bush has done NOTHING but PROTECT Iran.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
10 Mar 2007 05:34:13 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173523233.267926.112320@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
It was Reagan who provided US military logistical
help to Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War.
Iran/contra was ran out of the Whitehouse basement.
After it was exposed, Reagan's hand-picked attorney
general (the highest law enforcement official in the
land) went down to the basement and told Ollie North
that he'd be back the next day to collect all the
evidence.
Let's pretend your local police chief knocked on the
door of a recently revealed crack house and informed
the people inside that he would be returning the
next day with a search warrant. Would you conclude
that he didn't approve of selling crack and wanted
to charge everyone inside, or that he was trying to
protect them?
Now, how is that the GOP has 'acted as nothing but
a good friend and protector of Iran' as you claim?
you could start by actually READING the stuff you
quoted. Seriously, it's no good just quoting it.
Appears very clear cut to me. You're making a claim that I just disproved.
I suggest you THINK more about what you're stating BEFORE you state it,
and then recognize a a valid contradiction when it's presented as a
counter-argument, rather than obfuscating it, or existentially, in a most
elementary manner, providing an abstraction.
Of the things I pointed out, which are you denying?
I just pointed out that you made a statement that the GOP has been
supporting Iran as a friend and protector for 27 years, and I made a valid
contradiction of that point. Why is it that you cannot acknowledge the
documented fact of it -- that Reagan supported Saddam in the 80s against
Iran? HUH??
Saddam attacked Iran, and the Iranians have never
forgotten or forgiven the US for lending a helping
hand to their enemy.
Yet we all know for a fact that the GOP was arming
the Iranians all along. "Iran/Contra." Say it with
me: "Iran/contra."
Well, I've given you a point or two in your favor, haven't I? Now, why
don't you be fair and mature here and admit the contradiction I just made
to your assertion about the GOP?? It ain't gonna hurt your lil' ego to
admit you've made an untrue blanket statement? It will actually help your
twisted argumentation by slightly untwisting it. LOL!
You just can't wrap your mind around it, can you?
No, JTEM, the ball's in your court to admit the obvious contradiction I
just presented to your statement, instead of obfuscating it with an
egotistical self-defensive smoke cloud. It's not my mind you should be
concerned with, it's your's. Are you a rational, mature debater or a lil'
kid whose intractabiblity lends itself to pure irrationality, silliness,
immaturity? You work on that, fella, and if you can pierce through your
ego armour plate, you let me know what you ultimately found.
It's an absolute FACT that the GOP was arming the
Iranians during the war, and you know it. But, that
huge, screaming fact -- as undeniable as it is --
simply does not fit into to the picture you like to
imagine.
I just admitted that GHW Bush did a secret arms for hostages deal, fella.
Weren't you paying attention? The 'picture' I imagine is that anyone can
make a case for their pet theories, gather so--called 'facts', supportive
opinions, culled from all over the net, which can simply be cherry-picked
info to supportive their ideas. It happens all the time, all over chat
groups. You just did it. As I said, you can blame anyone, create any
conspiratorial scenario, provide any set of selected bits of info, and
make your theory, your concept, into 'reality.' Subjectivism is a common
human malady, and is alive and well in these forums every day. No harm
done, really. We all have a biased perception of reality, JTEM, and work
to affirm it by supportive 'evidence' in its various forms.
Certainly, Bush has helped Iran by eliminating Saddam
and the Taliban,
And poisoning the very idea of war against Iran...
Not necessarily, fella. The elimination of Saddam and the Taliban could
simply be a progression toward a having more control and profiterring over
oil resources. They haven't got to a regime change in Iran...yet. And they
could be getting there...no one can say for certain at this point what the
'plan' is. The Unocal oil deal (taken over by Standard) that was to use
Afghanistan as a pipeline route to the Arabian Sea, and of course, the
Iraqi oil fields, and both wars of attempted conquest by the West, could
really be a plan that later involved a regime change in Iran...and who
knows what will happen in Saudi Arabia? Do you want me to go around to
various sites and cherry-pick 'facts' and 'opinions' to support this
theory? Certainly, I can!
Everything Bush said about Iraq was true for Iran.
EVERYTHING.
Okay. Well, have fun with your assertion and round up the info to help
affirm it. I don't really care, fella. The events leading to the another
war will show us what the machinations are, ultimately, just as the events
that led to the Iraq War have been revealed (with more on the way).
Basically, it doesn't matter what you and I imagine it to be -- it will
become self-evident. The world is moving toward a general state of warfare
in many ways. War is being imbedded in the masses as a solution for what
ails us as a species. Of course, there is no solution by perpetuating a
cycle of violence that's been wracking humanity since records hae been
kept. Just more of the same. So, why don't you 'let go' and just watch the
events unfold? They will likely take all of us to places we hadn't
considered.
Bush wouldn't have had to lie his way into a war against
Iran. It would have been the truth against Iran. Now,
well, now the very idea has been poisoned...
"Uranium? Nigeria? Oh, like we haven't heard that one
before!"
"Al Qaida ties? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me
twice, shame on me."
"Nuclear centrifuge? Please. You used that one already!"
Many analysts contend that Reagan saw Iran as a threat
to US oil interests in the 80s.
Which explains why he was 100% Libyan-centric!
Remember Reagan's "Libyan hit squads"?
Please. I'm laughing....
Laugh as I laugh about your posts every day, fella. We all laugh, but none
of us know the truth of all that transpires at the top of the heirarchy.
Reagan acted as though Iran was a great threat, as Bush acts today. What
we see in the public arena isn't always the truth, of course. Everyone
knows that. You haven't got a corner of revelatory perception, fella. We
know politicians lie and corporate heads lie and military heads lie. We
are deceived, but be cautious that deception comes from the entire strata
of human society. Where you get your 'facts' can be a source of clever
lies, too. I have no illusions about the news media. I used to work for it
at a local level, in a radio station, writing news copy. It's full of
*****, but we're all full of *****, fella. LOL! Now let me laugh...
Today, a Republican President sees Iran as part
of the Axis of Evil,
No, that's what he says. What he sees is reflected
by what he does: Protect his beloved Iran.
Well, what he says is what I said he said. I didn't say I thought he was
telling the fucking truth, honey bear. LOL! Iran will be more 'beloved'
when a goverment favorable to Western corporate investment is established,
if ever. In any case, we're not the naive nuts you think we are here. A
number of regular posters have an understanding of the variables...
and has made veiled threats over its nuclear
program.
Yet, Bush just kind of "Lost" hundreds of tons of
specialized explosives in Iraq, explosives used in
the construction of an atomic bomb... explosives
that would come in mighty handy to Iran's nuclear
weapons program....
That doesn't sound like the Elephant Party is
real pleased with their 'friend' ...
"Sound," exactly. You're listening to what they say.
I'm saying that you can listen to them, or you can listen, with itching
ears, to your sources. We all have our favorites. Ultimately, events will
prove how much any of our versions of the 'truth' have the ring of
authenticity.
You need to stop listening to what they say and to
start watching what they do.
As I said, JTEM, dear, you seem to think that people are quite dumb, and
you've found some magnificent truth about humanity -- it's deceived,
except you!! My proposal to you is that you may be deceived or deceiving
yourself. By putting down others' ideas, and laughing at their 'facts'
while elevating your 'facts' to the gospel truth level, you could be
engaging in subjectivism, sprinkled with a form of egotistical mental
illness. Sure, there may be a rightwing conspiracy or leftwing one, but I
ask you: in the final analysis, is knowing any of this to be the 'truth'
going to make your existence here better than those you think are living
in darkness? No, you will suffer along with the rest, be victimized,
because you are dependent on a system that is piloted by those you say are
corrupted and evil. We all are in the same boat.
Bush has done NOTHING but PROTECT Iran.
Okay, okay...if you feel that makes your world a more interesting place,
by all means, continue to believe it. It may be true, but there are
contradictions to that statement, and ultimately, if a war between the US
and Iran breaks out, the events will either prove or disprove that
assertion.
Docrodile :))~
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
10 Mar 2007 06:46:27 AM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
I just pointed out that you made a statement that
the GOP has been supporting Iran as a friend and
protector for 27 years, and I made a valid
contradiction of that point.
No you didn't, honey bunches of oats. Not even in a sick
dream. What you did was contradict yourself. You took Bush
and the GOP at their word, while I pointed to their actions.
You didn't contradict me, you contradicted yourself... your
own prior claims about being unable to believe what Bush
(or any other politician) tells you.
What Bush says is irrelevant to me. I couldn't care less.
If what Bush said was any reflection of reality then the
war ended in April 2003, we found piles of WMDs and the
troops are still picking flowers out of their uniforms.
Bush poisoned the case for war against Iran. He did. This
is a fact. Not a guess, not an opinion, it is a fact.
You could argue that he did this unintentionally. That he
didn't mean to take everything that JUST HAPPENED to be
true about Iran and apply it to Iraq... forever poisoning
those arguments against use for war with Iran.
But that's mind reading. That's basing your opinion on
something you could never know.
We know what he did. That much is clear. Bush poisoned
the very idea of war against Iran.
We know Iran did exactly what the GOP needed them to do
in 1980. They didn't release the hostages. There was no
resultion in 1980. Carter's chances at re-election were
sunk.
We know the GOP armed the Iranians during their war
against Iraq. It's a fact.
I'm concentrating on the facts, on their actions. You're
the one concentrating on your pretend mind-reading
powers... basing your conclusions on imagined "intent."
Get real.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
10 Mar 2007 07:27:33 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173530787.613380.158700@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
I just pointed out that you made a statement that
the GOP has been supporting Iran as a friend and
protector for 27 years, and I made a valid
contradiction of that point.
No you didn't, honey bunches of oats. Not even in a sick
dream. What you did was contradict yourself. You took Bush
and the GOP at their word, while I pointed to their actions.
Uh...frosted flakes...yes, you did and, yes, I presented the evidence of
the contradiction to your statement. Here's what you said, liar --
For 27 years solid, despite the worst of actions
on the part of the Iranians, the GOP has ACTED
as nothing but a good FRIEND and PROTECTOR of Iran.
And what did I say to contradict it? Here it is, dew drop...
It was Reagan who provided US military logistical help to Saddam in the
Iran-Iraq War. Now, how is that the GOP has 'acted as nothing but a good
friend and protector of Iran' as you claim? Saddam attacked Iran, and the
Iranians have never forgotten or forgiven the US for lending a helping
hand to their enemy.
Now, here's the other part of the contradiction I presented that you want
to focus on, while ignoring the first part of my reply --
Certainly, Bush has helped Iran by eliminating Saddam and the Taliban, but
the Republicans haven't always been helping Iran. Many analysts contend
that Reagan saw Iran as a threat to US oil interests in the 80s. Today, a
Republican President sees Iran as part of the Axis of Evil, and has made
veiled threats over its nuclear program. That doesn't sound like the
Elephant Party is real pleased with their 'friend' ...
But, as you can see, it still contradicts your blanket statement! So,
liar, liar, pants on fire, JTEM! LOL!!
You didn't contradict me, you contradicted yourself...
NO, that's your intepretation, your subjectivity, your spin on what I
said. And please stop trying to avoid admitting you made a statement that
has documentation to clearly show it is an erroneous statement, JTEM,
darling.
That is the stuff of egotism and even psychosis is made of, sweet prune.
Rather than just admit the obvious, you keep ridiculously ignoring it.
Now, JTEM, how can you ever know whether you have a cornerstone on the
truth market, when you can't face the truth about this statement you
made?????? LOL!!!!!
You're a real mess, fella, but, you know, I forgive you for being an
*****. I know how 15 plus year on the usenet arguing aimlessly could've
warped your sense of self-realization and reality itself. ROFL!!!!
your
own prior claims about being unable to believe what Bush
(or any other politician) tells you.
What Bush says is irrelevant to me. I couldn't care less.
Neither could I, but you brought the subject up that people here are
gullible. Big revelation that some folks are gullible, like Guernon, for
example. Gee...we never could've known it unless you exposed it!!!
If what Bush said was any reflection of reality then the
war ended in April 2003, we found piles of WMDs and the
troops are still picking flowers out of their uniforms.
Bush poisoned the case for war against Iran. He did. This
is a fact. Not a guess, not an opinion, it is a fact.
You could argue that he did this unintentionally. That he
didn't mean to take everything that JUST HAPPENED to be
true about Iran and apply it to Iraq... forever poisoning
those arguments against use for war with Iran.
But that's mind reading. That's basing your opinion on
something you could never know.
We know what he did. That much is clear. Bush poisoned
the very idea of war against Iran.
So, one post you're saying Iran will make war with its nukes, and then you
say Bush shouldn't be listened to, then you say Bush protects Iran, then
you say, well...need I go on??...you're mighty mixed up, JTEM...get it
straight. If Iran attacks, then the US will respond and war will
happen...IF. In one post, you favor the projection Iran will attack and
then you say Bush doesn't want war with Iran...it doesn't fucking matter
how it starts, really...if it starts, we will be very poorly off for it. I
don't think knowing how it all occurred will be easing our pain and
suffering from it.
We know Iran did exactly what the GOP needed them to do
in 1980. They didn't release the hostages. There was no
resultion in 1980. Carter's chances at re-election were
sunk.
We know the GOP armed the Iranians during their war
against Iraq. It's a fact.
They provided logistical support for Iraq and a very small amount of small
arms was delivered by Bush back then.
I'm concentrating on the facts, on their actions. You're
the one concentrating on your pretend mind-reading
powers... basing your conclusions on imagined "intent."
Okay, fruit loop, let's take a look at two statements you made here this
morning, justaposed ...
Get real.Last time I looked, Bush is still in charge. Bush talks one
game but plays another. He's not interested in war against Iran.
If he was he'd get it, and the overwhelimg majority would be
behind him.
And then you said ....
Bush craves war with Iran. This is why he poisoned the idea
of war with Iran, taking all of the evidence against Iran and
applying it to Iraq.
He's not interested in war against Iran, but he craves war with
Iran....LOL!!!! Not interested, but he craves it. Not interested, but
craves it...not interested, but craves it....beep, rewind...even the
'poisoned the idea of war with Iran..." part makes little sense. He craves
it, but instead he substitutes Iraq for Iran...fella, you can play with
your conspiracy, soap operatic ***** all you want till your lil' blue balls
turn green, but you're just a mentally messed up fucker on the usenet. You
have no credibility here, and your arguments are tiresome and convoluted.
You think you possess some special insight into the secret machinations of
leaders, but you cull your 'evidence' from the same sites on the internet
that many others do...and come up with varied interpretations and theories
to expound on.
Wooooooooooooooosh....here comes the Sick Superman of the Usenet.....!!!!
Truth is on the way!! ROFLMFAO ! !
Docrodile ;))~
You contradict yourself, fartacious. And you do this all the time
here...and have done it repeatedly over many years on the usenet. You know
what would redeem you?
Stop trying to be a rationalist in politics.
It doesn't suit you at all.
Docrodile :))~
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
10 Mar 2007 11:51:45 PM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
And what did I say to contradict it? Here it is, dew drop...
It was Reagan who provided US military logistical help
to Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War.
Please. "Logistical help."
They armed the Iranians. The Reagan adminstration armed the
Iranians. They gave saddam NOTHING. We didn't sell him any
tanks, any planes, any ammunition, but we armed the
Iranians. We sold him a lot of WMD crap which, even given
a few years following the cease fire, Saddam couldn't turn
into weapons.
The most "valuable" thing we supposedly gave Saddam was
satalite data. You've never seen that data, and you have
no way of telling it's usefulness.
The Iraqis so appreciated all our help, they fired two
Excocet missiles into one of our ships.
Now, how is that the GOP has 'acted as nothing but
a good friend and protector of Iran' as you claim?
What your psychotic eposide needs to ignore is the fact
that Reagan armed the Iranians during their war against
Saddam.
And who did we go to war with after the Iran-Iraq war
was over? Oops, that was Saddam...
We had no choice though, after the way he invaded Kuwait
right after Bush's hand-picked ambassador to Iraq told
Saddam that the U.S. had "No opinion" on his conflict
with Kuwait.
That wasn't effectively a gree-light, by George HW Bush
to invade Kuwait, that WAS a gree-light!
Iraqi troops lining up on the border of Kuwait... ready
to invade... Bush's ambassador tells Saddam that the
U.S. doesn't care... doesn't have so much as an opinion
on the matter, never mind objects...
Saddam attacked Iran, and the Iranians have never
forgotten or forgiven the US for lending a helping
hand to their enemy.
Tell us, honey lips, when the Iranian government cut a
deal with Reagan to buy supplies for their war effort,
which networks televised the discussions?
Because, lamb chop, we both know for a fact that those
talks took place, that they did reach a deal.
We also know which country we've gone to war against,
twice.
Here on our planet, going to war against a country is
a pretty good indication that you don't like them. We
went to war against Saddam twice, and we went to war
against Iran.... let's see... it was... NEVER.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
11 Mar 2007 12:02:02 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat
the Words
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
And what did I say to contradict it? Here it is, dew drop...
It was Reagan who provided US military logistical help
to Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War.
Please. "Logistical help."
They armed the Iranians. The Reagan adminstration armed the
Iranians. They gave saddam NOTHING. We didn't sell him any
tanks, any planes, any ammunition, but we armed the
Iranians. We sold him a lot of WMD crap which, even given
a few years following the cease fire, Saddam couldn't turn
into weapons.
The most "valuable" thing we supposedly gave Saddam was
satalite data. You've never seen that data, and you have
no way of telling it's usefulness.
The Iraqis so appreciated all our help, they fired two
Excocet missiles into one of our ships.
Now, how is that the GOP has 'acted as nothing but
a good friend and protector of Iran' as you claim?
What your psychotic eposide needs to ignore is the fact
that Reagan armed the Iranians during their war against
Saddam.
And who did we go to war with after the Iran-Iraq war
was over? Oops, that was Saddam...
We had no choice though, after the way he invaded Kuwait
right after Bush's hand-picked ambassador to Iraq told
Saddam that the U.S. had "No opinion" on his conflict
with Kuwait.
That wasn't effectively a gree-light, by George HW Bush
to invade Kuwait, that WAS a gree-light!
Iraqi troops lining up on the border of Kuwait... ready
to invade... Bush's ambassador tells Saddam that the
U.S. doesn't care... doesn't have so much as an opinion
on the matter, never mind objects...
Saddam attacked Iran, and the Iranians have never
forgotten or forgiven the US for lending a helping
hand to their enemy.
Tell us, honey lips, when the Iranian government cut a
deal with Reagan to buy supplies for their war effort,
which networks televised the discussions?
Because, lamb chop, we both know for a fact that those
talks took place, that they did reach a deal.
We also know which country we've gone to war against,
twice.
Here on our planet, going to war against a country is
a pretty good indication that you don't like them. We
went to war against Saddam twice, and we went to war
against Iran.... let's see... it was... NEVER.
And you point is what ?
I believe you're trying to impress upon us how cozy-sweet
we are with the Iranians. We are on SUCH good terms that
we haven't had an embassy there for 25 years, and the
Iranians continue to thumb their noses at our efforts
to have them stop their nuclear ambitions.
Perhaps what you are really saying is that since we've
never had armed conflict with the current Iranian
government that we never will. Is this the point you're
trying to make ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
11 Mar 2007 12:30:41 AM |
|
|
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
I believe you're trying to impress upon us how cozy-sweet
we are with the Iranians. We are on SUCH good terms that
we haven't had an embassy there for 25 years,
Who negotiated the arms deal during the 1980s? Where were
the talks held?
and the Iranians continue to thumb their noses at our
efforts to have them stop their nuclear ambitions.
Here's the problem: You know your picture is wrong, yet
your statements only makes sense if you assume that your
picture is accurate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
12 Mar 2007 12:59:44 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat the
Words
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
I believe you're trying to impress upon us how cozy-sweet
we are with the Iranians. We are on SUCH good terms that
we haven't had an embassy there for 25 years,
Who negotiated the arms deal during the 1980s? Where were
the talks held?
and the Iranians continue to thumb their noses at our
efforts to have them stop their nuclear ambitions.
Here's the problem: You know your picture is wrong, yet
your statements only makes sense if you assume that your
picture is accurate.
Is that your argument JTEM ? Nothing you've said here would
convince even the easiest sell that what you say is accurate.
Making a point by asking another vague question just doesn't
work (assuming you had a point.. apparently you don't).
You were trying to convince people that the US and Iran are
best friends. You got any other 'stunning' evidence, other
than we haven't yet fought a war with Iran <snort>.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
12 Mar 2007 02:05:23 AM |
|
|
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Is that your argument JTEM ? Nothing you've said here would
convince even the easiest sell that what you say is accurate.
No, seriously, I would like an answer.
Arming a country like Iran when they're in the middle of a
war is no small task. The former Shah had a foundness for
American military equipment. We're not just talking about
tanks & planes here, but also about command & control as
well as radar systems and the like.
This didn't just require negotiations & top-level approval,
but on going communications. What was needed... how was it
going to get delivered... where... when...
You know that there wasn't simply diplomatic exchanges
between the Iranians and the GOP, but a working relationship
was in full swing.
Squeezing Reagan's ***** would not have looked good for the
new Iranian government. It would not have been popular
amongst its people. Likewise, Reagan slipping the Ayatollah
some tongue would not have played well amongst Americans.
Yet, we both know it happened. We both know that it went a
lot further than diplomatic exchanges and into a working
relationship.
Where does this undeniable fact -- one which you have been
well aware of -- fit into your world? As far as I can tell,
absolutely nowhere.
So correct me. Tell me how you fit this rather obvious
piece into the puzzle.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
12 Mar 2007 10:59:59 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat
the Words
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Is that your argument JTEM ? Nothing you've said here would
convince even the easiest sell that what you say is accurate.
No, seriously, I would like an answer.
Rhetorical questions, by definition, don't beg an answer.
Arming a country like Iran when they're in the middle of a
war is no small task. The former Shah had a foundness for
American military equipment. We're not just talking about
tanks & planes here, but also about command & control as
well as radar systems and the like.
This didn't just require negotiations & top-level approval,
but on going communications. What was needed... how was it
going to get delivered... where... when...
You know that there wasn't simply diplomatic exchanges
between the Iranians and the GOP, but a working relationship
was in full swing.
Squeezing Reagan's ***** would not have looked good for the
new Iranian government. It would not have been popular
amongst its people. Likewise, Reagan slipping the Ayatollah
some tongue would not have played well amongst Americans.
Yet, we both know it happened. We both know that it went a
lot further than diplomatic exchanges and into a working
relationship.
Where does this undeniable fact -- one which you have been
well aware of -- fit into your world? As far as I can tell,
absolutely nowhere.
So correct me. Tell me how you fit this rather obvious
piece into the puzzle.
Selling arms to Iranian revolutionaries so we could bypass
Congress and fund the Contra Rebels did not mean we were
best buddies with the Iranians. Get over it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
13 Mar 2007 04:00:47 PM |
|
|
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Rhetorical questions, by definition, don't beg an answer.
It's not a rhetorical question. We know it happened, that
the GOP had a long-term working relationship with the
Iranian government, and I'd like to know who you fit this
fact into your account of world events.
You mentioned the lack of a U.S. embassy in Iran, as if
that was any kind of obstical. Yet, we both know that
not only have diplomatic negotiations taken place, but
an actual working relationship was in progress.
Selling arms to Iranian revolutionaries so we could
bypass Congress and fund the Contra Rebels did not
mean we were best buddies with the Iranians.
You're assuming quite a lot of things. for instance, that
Iran was the only market for U.S. military equipment.
Another way of putting it: You're rationalizing.
You're trusting official reports regarding motives in
order to justify ignoring official actions.
Re-stated yet again:
You're ignoring the only solid piece of data you have
in favor of the least accurate data available.
Stop that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: What the crazies never tel you...this nutcase will ~! |
14 Mar 2007 03:32:24 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat the
Words
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Rhetorical questions, by definition, don't beg an answer.
It's not a rhetorical question. We know it happened,
Iran-Contra was illegal when it did happen. They had to hide
it from Congress. You derive from this there is some sort of
working relationship between the US government and Iran ?
Your reasoning is messed up JTEM. You're the guy who claims
Nostradamus talks to him by 'channeling', correct ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
