Recently I took a poll...finally got results...

Thcranky1 · Post by **Thcranky1** » Wed May 12, 2004 7:42 pm

Hey all,

Some of you may remember several weeks back I polled speedguide members in reference to the question of a military force, no matter which side it might be fighting for, could target and destroy a church, mosque, temple or other religious site; if their counterpoise had infiltrated it and was using it for military purposes.

The poll results were, by all accounts, overwhelmingly "YES!"

Well, if you all are current on the headlines...our military FINALLY and LITERALLY lit the insurgents 'bunker' up!! You have got to watch Fox News' Steve Harrigan's coverage on the incident. WOW!!! Go get em boys!!!!!

PEACE!!

--Thcranky1

Jstyr · Post by **Jstyr** » Wed May 12, 2004 7:58 pm

Thcranky1 wrote: WOW!!! Go get em boys!!!!!

PEACE!!

--Thcranky1

Heh, talk about mixed messeges.

Joint Chiefs of Staff · Wed May 12, 2004 8:00 pm

cho · Post by **cho** » Wed May 12, 2004 8:01 pm

Any other source besides fox?

vinnie · Post by **vinnie** » Wed May 12, 2004 8:01 pm

Jstyr wrote:Heh, talk about mixed messeges.

This message is hidden because Thcranky1 is on your ignore list.

So... I didn't miss much? Struth

Thcranky1 · Post by **Thcranky1** » Wed May 12, 2004 8:48 pm

So I'm giving mixed messages when peace is the end result I desire...as does the coalition? See...you take a post I make that was updating on a poll I took in referrence to the results of our military finally taking action...and you start claiming that I have mixed messages with the message of freedom and democracy. Stop with your rhetoric slinging at ME and think about the fact that PEACE is EXACTLY what we are over there fighting for.

Just goes to show you that some people's opinions of what they believe about an individual can completely determine the intended message of the text that they read from that individual. Simpletons are rampant in speedguide and the world...I wish they'd stop and think before they start spewing there biased, rhetoric-filled, opinionated conclusions on the author of the text.

To conclude...it would seem utterly apparent that these first couple respondants feel it only correct to counter me and my postings because they have a personal vendetta. If they would take the time and go and review EVERY SINGLE POSTING I HAVE EVER DONE in SPEEDGUIDE...they'd see that PEACE is the last idea I leave to those who have read my posts. Go do the research and then see how you look then...

PEACE!!

--Thcranky1

Thcranky1 · Post by **Thcranky1** » Wed May 12, 2004 8:52 pm

*cho* wrote:Any other source besides fox?

Not in reference to the footage that I am referring to. Steve Harrigan is a Fox News reporter who is embedded with the troops that launched the effort. So it will be exclusive Fox News coverage. Hope you get a chance to see it though.

PEACE!!

--Thcranky1

Blisster · Post by **Blisster** » Wed May 12, 2004 9:22 pm

Thcranky1 wrote:So I'm giving mixed messages when peace is the end result I desire...as does the coalition? See...you take a post I make that was updating on a poll I took in referrence to the results of our military finally taking action...and you start claiming that I have mixed messages with the message of freedom and democracy. Stop with your rhetoric slinging at ME and think about the fact that PEACE is EXACTLY what we are over there fighting for.

Just goes to show you that some people's opinions of what they believe about an individual can completely determine the intended message of the text that they read from that individual. Simpletons are rampant in speedguide and the world...I wish they'd stop and think before they start spewing there biased, rhetoric-filled, opinionated conclusions on the author of the text.

To conclude...it would seem utterly apparent that these first couple respondants feel it only correct to counter me and my postings because they have a personal vendetta. If they would take the time and go and review EVERY SINGLE POSTING I HAVE EVER DONE in SPEEDGUIDE...they'd see that PEACE is the last idea I leave to those who have read my posts. Go do the research and then see how you look then...

PEACE!!

--Thcranky1

I think he was just pointing out that it looked funny haveing PEACE just a few lines underneath GO GET EM BOYS!!!!

maybe you should stop and think before spewing your biased, rhetoric-filled conclusions as to the intent of the author of the post in question.

PEACE!!!!

Chris · Post by **Chris** » Wed May 12, 2004 11:06 pm

Thcranky1 wrote:think about the fact that PEACE is EXACTLY what we are over there fighting for.

No. what you are over there fighting for is OIL, and its working, prices are escalating and Exxon and the rest of them are getting richer and richer...Its amazing what corporate lobbying can accomplish.
And Deisle fuel comes from crude but its amazing, around here deisle hasn't gone up one cent, yet Gas has gone up alot, wonder why that is????

I know, but you all can ponder that one

cho · Post by **cho** » Thu May 13, 2004 1:58 am

I really believe Blisster has the right idea.

Saying Go Gettim Boys followed by Peace is contradictory.

Its like when I make fun of Ryu, or maybe it was Ken? After every odd fight in Street Figher 2 he would make the peace sign...yeah right...you just pummelled the crap outta that guy...

I suppose you could make the agrument it was the victory sign...

jayyy · Post by **jayyy** » Thu May 13, 2004 3:30 am

War = Peace

Ignorance: Strength!!

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Thu May 13, 2004 6:19 am

*cho* wrote:Any other source besides fox?

What you dont think Fox is fair and balanced?

fastchevy · Post by **fastchevy** » Thu May 13, 2004 10:12 am

Nearly all news sources are unfair and inbalanced.......

cho · Post by **cho** » Thu May 13, 2004 3:23 pm

I prefer my local news channels and BBC and sometimes CNN. I don't care who shows it really I just prefer watching more the one story on it because sometimes they offer another side or more info.

Thcranky1 · Post by **Thcranky1** » Thu May 13, 2004 8:15 pm

Chris wrote:No. what you are over there fighting for is OIL, and its working, prices are escalating and Exxon and the rest of them are getting richer and richer...Its amazing what corporate lobbying can accomplish.
And Deisle fuel comes from crude but its amazing, around here deisle hasn't gone up one cent, yet Gas has gone up alot, wonder why that is????

I know, but you all can ponder that one

First I'd like you to tell me where you are from. Second I would like you to tell me why you think we are over there for oil...don't just say some off the wall opinionated thing...give me real relavant true reasons to back up your claim. Additionally don't just post some web address as your answer either...I want you to explain your thinking.

I mean for you to say that your proof is because gas is going UP is completely backwards. If we we're there to get oil then certainly that would mean that it would cause our oil prices to come DOWN!!! Your claim holds no water and makes no economic sense. I mean nothing personal mind you...but you are talking about the country that I was born and raised in. I know what is going on in my country...assurredly better then someone who doesn't live here.

Before you do try to tell me why let me tell you that ever since the oil embargo...which you probably weren't even alive to know about at the time...mid 70's...the United States has ceased to depend on Mid-eastern oil since it is such an unstable place.

If you were to take a moment and really research your postulation you would discover that the United States gets over 2/3rds of its oil from Venezuela and Columbia. Remember...well maybe you don't...but those places use to be very unstable due to drug cartels and the like...not anymore...they are very stable democracies and it is because of the United States. So stop telling people that we are in Iraq for oil...it is not simply because you are wrong but it also shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

We are there to rid the planet of a dictator only comparable to Hitler and even Hitler didn't non-chalantly use chemical weapons on his OWN people- women and children included. Now that the evil dictator is gone we simply have to tend to the insurgents flowing in from the other mid east nations trying to stop a democratic state forming in Iraq.

As soon as this cancer is out of the Iraqi people's lives we are going to help them set up a free democratic society...like we did in Russia, Japan, Germany and the list goes on and on.

Remember that Saddam Killed over 150,000 innocent people who were not even fighting in the war...just trying to live...in his ruled land. Of course you might not be old enough to recall when that took place either...it was during the Iraq Iran war...in the 80's.

Please, don't forget to let me know why you think the United States is there simply for oil.

PEACE!!!

--Thcranky1

jayyy · Post by **jayyy** » Mon May 17, 2004 9:00 am

Thcranky1 wrote:If you were to take a moment and really research your postulation you would discover that the United States gets over 2/3rds of its oil from Venezuela and Columbia. Remember...well maybe you don't...but those places use to be very unstable due to drug cartels and the like...not anymore...they are very stable democracies and it is because of the United States.

RRRiiigggght....Wonderful job the US did establishing democracy down there.

&#12288]Remember that Saddam Killed over 150,000 innocent people who were not even fighting in the war...just trying to live...in his ruled land. Of course you might not be old enough to recall when that took place either...it was during the Iraq Iran war...in the 80's.[/quote]

I'll take your word for it you got age going.

You non-delusional enough to correctly recall Hussein's backer during that war, and who both provided the weapons for and a-ok'd that slaughter?

The_Lurker · Post by **The_Lurker** » Mon May 17, 2004 9:10 am

jayyy wrote:..........and a-ok'd that slaughter?

please feel free to fill us in. and don't forget some kind of proof. or is it just hearsay?

a-ok'd the slaughter? hmmm

as far as weapons, lets make it simple, who haven't the us supplied?

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Mon May 17, 2004 9:38 am

Theres no proof of anyhting in this thread, Fox sure doesn't count! LOL

Lurker, I'm pretty sure the US has not supplied Mars and Switzerland.

What is the point of this thread, we think its ok to bomb churches and we just did?

jayyy · Post by **jayyy** » Mon May 17, 2004 10:03 am

The_Lurker wrote:please feel free to fill us in. and don't forget some kind of proof. or is it just hearsay?

a-ok'd the slaughter? hmmm

as far as weapons, lets make it simple, who haven't the us supplied?

Get your own facts right, dude. Hussein existed because of the US, he was their boy. That gas was made in the US of A, and they knew what he was doing.

Only comes off as conspiracy because you don't want to believe it. But the US Hussein's backer and ally in the 80's? Contested by no-one but you.

Jstyr · Post by **Jstyr** » Mon May 17, 2004 11:06 am

jayyy wrote:Get your own facts right, dude. Hussein existed because of the US, he was their boy. That gas was made in the US of A, and they knew what he was doing.

Only comes off as conspiracy because you don't want to believe it. But the US Hussein's backer and ally in the 80's? Contested by no-one but you.

So what we backed Hussein in the 80's while Iran/Iraq fought. We tried to create an ally. Time has shown that not to be the case. The fact is, back then the Ayotollah Khomeni (sp?) was much more dangerous to America than Saddam. He was one of the original leaders who called for a 'jihad' against westerners.

The US government backed Iraq in that war to help provide security for it's nation against a fanatical tyrant that was calling all of Islam to destroy the west and the United states in particular. You need to judge your facts in the right context.

Thcranky1 · Post by **Thcranky1** » Mon May 17, 2004 11:17 am

thank you jstyr...

there are always those who think they have it all figured out....it's the United States fault...it's Bush's fault. It's bush's dad's fault...it's Reagan's fault...seems like they always leave out the one that hurt the world the most...Clinton.

That guy thinks we gave chemical weapons to Saddam...you'd think they'd realize that Iraq has some of if not the most highly intelligent people on the planet. Iraqi's are extrememly capable...they could and can make their own chemicals...or did you not realize that Iraq was full of oil!!!?

PEACE!!

--Thcranky1

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Mon May 17, 2004 11:47 am

Thcranky1 wrote:thank you jstyr...

there are always those who think they have it all figured out....it's the United States fault...it's Bush's fault. It's bush's dad's fault...it's Reagan's fault...seems like they always leave out the one that hurt the world the most...Clinton.

That guy thinks we gave chemical weapons to Saddam...you'd think they'd realize that Iraq has some of if not the most highly intelligent people on the planet. Iraqi's are extrememly capable...they could and can make their own chemicals...or did you not realize that Iraq was full of oil!!!?

PEACE!!

--Thcranky1

Do I have to quote you to get ur attention? answer my question:

What is the point of this thread, we think its ok to bomb churches and we just did?

jayyy · Post by **jayyy** » Mon May 17, 2004 6:34 pm

there are always those who think they have it all figured out....

Unlike you of course.

You might wanna tone down your own act before you accuse other people of being know-it-alls. PEACE!!

it's the United States fault...it's Bush's fault. It's bush's dad's fault...it's Reagan's fault...seems like they always leave out the one that hurt the world the most...Clinton

Well, it was rumsfeld and cheneyin Reagan's admin that gave Hussein so much love. It was basically their support that made everything he did possible. CLinton was elected after he was officially declared an enemy of the US.

Thcranky1 wrote: That guy thinks we gave chemical weapons to Saddam...you'd think they'd realize that Iraq has some of if not the most highly intelligent people on the planet. Iraqi's are extrememly capable...they could and can make their own chemicals...or did you not realize that Iraq was full of oil!!!?

PEACE!!

--Thcranky1

So hold on a second, are you claiming that the US never gave chemical weapons to Iraq, or that they never gave any at all?

Do you have any justification for the US's support of his regime during all those bloody years, or any rationale for how they did a complete 180 and suddenly declared him a monster for doing it AFTER he crossed them?

Whats your story here? Can you sew all this together?

J-high · Post by **J-high** » Mon May 17, 2004 7:04 pm

LMAO at this thread..... dont you get it folks when it come to politics none of us are right!!!! Liberals see it there way ""ohhh protect this"" and ''lets take some more rights away''.....And the conservatives see it there way ""military is the way""....

I for one could care less what another thinks about politics .... Iraq is not about oil ... Partially May be President Bush jr. wanted to get Saddam back for his Father but it sure is not for the oil !!! I personally think what we (US) is doing is Good .... they took out a Tyrant folks he killed his own people was ruthless do you not UNDERSTAND this .... The reason these people act like this over there cutting peoples heads off, kidnapping people threating to do this is BECAUSE this is all they know... They have been fighting over there since biblical times .... <--- Yeah YEah i know religious stuff i forgot some of you cant stomach the fact that there may be a GOD or a book that in FACT does tell the truth....

I am not saying the US government is not corrupt cause i am sure there are alot of crooks in government but i sure ass heck will tell you this when it comes time to vote this year i am fully behind Bush... Kerry is a two-faced piece of junk and is not worthy enough to be my President , He can never make up his mind which way he wants to go until he hears public opinion... which has backfired on him... Another he wants to cut military <-----Do you really want this???? I am glad we got a leader right now that is not afraid to say hey we are not scared of you and we will attack you if you harbor terrorists.... Have most of you already forgot 9-11-2001 ????? Sure as hell sounds like it....

This is my political opinion it you dont like it fine!!!!

The_Lurker · Post by **The_Lurker** » Tue May 18, 2004 12:13 am

jayyy wrote:Get your own facts right, dude.

I'm not making the claim........ dood!

otherwise, hey, you have a nice day!

oh and watch out fer them black helicopters, their quiet!

Thcranky1 · Post by **Thcranky1** » Tue May 18, 2004 6:13 am

OK now as with all political issues it is something that is going to take more then two or three sentences to explain...

If you recall, there was an oil embargo in the 70's which made the United States conclude that we needed to find an alternate source for the country's ever increasing energy needs. The realization was ever-present that for the US to maintain its super-power status as well as tend to the Communist threats it must not have its oil dependancy resting in such an unstable region. Especially with the Iranian Islamic movement growing to such a level as it was.

After getting the embargo lifted and once again maintaining oil imports into the states our government immediately began investigative research for this new source of oil so the US could free itself from the choke hold by mid-eastern leaders. Three areas were highest on the list of possibilities: Alaska, Columbia and Venezuela. Our government knew that it would be an administrative political suicide to go to Alaska tundra with all the environmentalists already in an uproar about the wildlife decrease with the constuction of the pipeline not to mention the soon to occur; Exxon's highly publicized Valdez incident.

(One side note...it is striking however when one looks back at just how hypacritical the public is towards it's leaders. The embargo angered the public at the government because noone could get any gasoline...sometimes even after waiting in line for half the day. I was a child then and I easily recall those long waits for gas. On the other hand, that same public shows almost tyranical anger if the government drills in some owl's habitat or if a certain species of moth might become extinct if we pump oil in its ecosystem. Suddenly that area of abundant oil supply becomes off limits and too sacred for our energy needs. I would like for the younger speedguide members to try, if you can, to think about what it is like to have ALL the gas stations posting NO GAS signs. It is scary to say the least. But for people to damn the government into a pool of catch 22 is simply illogical and ludicrous. If individuals cannot produce the solution to the problem then they certainly should not be expressing opinions of conjecture and rhetoric. Additionally, it goes double when those misleading opinions are coming from the left side of the same government.)

Although Columbia and Venezuela were not ideal locations, suffering from drug cartel corruption as well as small guerrilla activities and black market weapon dealers about the region...it was certainly an area capable of handling US needs and the people were also of a more western mind set. The economic growth in the region due to the oil endevor has without a doubt brought a functioning democratic philosophy to the people and the capitalism has cleaned up the riff raff creating a strong economy and most importantly to the United States a source with which we now recieve over 2/3rds of our oil necessities.

Now then, I am hoping that this clears up the whole Iraq War for oil bomb throwing. If it doesn't then let me simply ask...If the United States was there for their oil...since it is now flowing again and has brought over 10 Billion dollars into a specified fund which was started by the United States government along with the United Nations and has already been declared to the Iraqi people...explain to me as to why the United States is sufering high gas prices? If we went there for the oil then surely our gas prices wouldn't go up...Iraq was freed and that was done by us for the Iraqi people in the hopes that the world economy will reflect the prolifiration and prosperity created by the 15 million people freed from a dictatorship.

So hold on a second, are you claiming that the US never gave chemical weapons to Iraq, or that they never gave any at all?

In reference to the US giving chemical weapons to Saddam...that's right I am saying we did not give chemical weapons to Saddam. If you would research you would discover that Dow Chemicals gave many chemical types to Iraq which had both military and CIVILIAN functionality. However taking into consideration that during the Iran Iraq war...which I'm assuming is the "bloody time" you are referring to, the United States was sitting out of the issue altogether until our intelligence confirmed that Basra, the 2nd largest city in Iraq was almost to be overtaken by the Iranian suicide invaders. I hope you realize that if Iraq had fallen, at the time, remember this is in 82, while we were building up our new oil sources in Columbia and Venezuela, it would have jepordized Saudia Arabia, Kuwait Jordon and the other "Gulf States," threatening US oil supplies.

What I am saying is that the United States government surely had to ally Saddam in that we would be in serious crap if we did not. We did not however give them Chemical and Biological weapons. Saddam and his scientists created the weapons. I understand that it is simple for people to say that since we gave them pesticides and such we gave them Chemical and biological weapons but IT JUST IS NOT THE CASE. That is like saying that Einstein and his relativity theory gave the world the nuclear bomb. It is not the case. However when one understands the position that the United States and dare I say the WORLD in general was in at the time it is easily seen why we did what we did.

Our hopes were and I quote:

"You have to understand the geostrategic context, which was very different from where we are now," said Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official, who worked on Iraqi policy during the Reagan administration. "Realpolitik dictated that we act to prevent the situation from getting worse. To prevent an Iraqi collapse, the Reagan administration supplied battlefield intelligence on Iranian troop buildups to the Iraqis, sometimes through third parties such as Saudi Arabia. The U.S. tilt toward Iraq was enshrined in National Security Decision Directive 114 of Nov. 26, 1983, one of the few important Reagan era foreign policy decisions that still remains classified. According to former U.S. officials, the directive stated that the United States would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran. The presidential directive was issued amid a flurry of reports that Iraqi forces were using chemical weapons in their attempts to hold back the Iranians. In principle, Washington was strongly opposed to chemical warfare, a practice outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Protocol. In practice, U.S. condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons ranked relatively low on the scale of administration priorities, particularly compared with the all-important goal of preventing an Iranian victory.

I hope this allows some idea of how things were at the time but let me also add that people must realize that the United States Government is still made up of people. There is no magic here...people just like you me your dad your mother cousins etc. If something was done by the US that ended up wrong or not exactly the way we intended, by all means folks understand that it simply could have been a mistake. It helps to show that everyone is human...even the US government. However, show me another place on the earth that has done so much good for the planet and the people on it. Show me another country that comes to 1/10th in the financial aide the US gives to all other countries on the planet, even those that attacked us first. Show me a better country with which to live...

Do you have any justification for the US's support of his regime during all those bloody years, or any rationale for how they did a complete 180 and suddenly declared him a monster for doing it AFTER he crossed them?

Whats your story here? Can you sew all this together?

I hope this ties it all together for you and if not then please by all means, let's discuss it more.

Unlike you of course. You might wanna tone down your own act before you accuse other people of being know-it-alls.

Additionally, I never said one time that I knew it all like proposed by somone. I will say this in my own defense though, I do take the time out of every day and invest it in watching the news and keeping up to date on matters in the world. I don't want to be seen as a 'know it all.' I mean, if you think about it for one second...everything I stated in lieu was told to me by someone else but I did and do however research. For someone to not do research in today's day and age...is the STUPIDEST. The information highway is a great ride as long as you make sure you are reading sites that are credible.

Finally I just want to say one thing in the wake of the prisoner scandle and how bad everyone has made the US out to be...conveniently forgetting that hardly anyone raised an eybrow when insurgents burned, killed, dismembered and hung the torsoes of US civilian workers from a bridge as well as decapitated one and put it on the internet. Saying that it was in retaliation for the prisoners mistreatment...what crap...

I know that America will continuously be viewed with critical eyes...blamed and shamed for things she may or may not have done. I too firmly know that Lady Liberty continues the task of world self-feeder, bearing the weight of a relentless load. Never seeking a thank you for these things most deserving nor does she ask for help here at home. She stands proudly with the torch of justice high above her, as God's shining light guides her most brave one's home.

PEACE!!

--Thcranky1

64bit · Post by **64bit** » Tue May 18, 2004 6:40 am

Thcranky1 wrote:-

Great Post

jayyy · Post by **jayyy** » Tue May 18, 2004 8:19 am

The_Lurker wrote:I'm not making the claim........ dood!

otherwise, hey, you have a nice day!

oh and watch out fer them black helicopters, their quiet!

Have a nice day too, Lurker

The_Lurker · Post by **The_Lurker** » Tue May 18, 2004 8:32 am

jayyy wrote:Have a nice day too, Lurker

hmm, seems Thcranky1 hit the nail one the head.

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Tue May 18, 2004 8:44 am

The_Lurker wrote:who haven't the us supplied?

Luxembourg, Andorra and Chuck Negron.

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Tue May 18, 2004 8:45 am

And by the way, blame the Illuminati.

jayyy · Post by **jayyy** » Tue May 18, 2004 8:48 am

Well, I appreciate the thorough post, cranky. Allow me to give my own spin on the US's support of sadam-

An aside on the oil- As a matter of fact, the US is not handing over control of the oil reserves to the provisional government. The Bush admin is keeping it in its own hands.

Very large payments have already gone to halliburton through it. The beauty of it is that since its not domestic moneyor tax revenue, the Bush admin can essentially bypass congress and pay halliburon without their approval. The money has been used thus far to improve/rebuild the oil infrastructure. fair enough, but whether or not the money will truly all go to Iraq in the future remains to be seen. At any rate, if you're studying the US's control of oil supplies, you know as well as I do that Iraqs oild reserves are a big leverage of power for the US even if they're not used at all, because its all the more of the world's supplies that the US controls now. One less place for a rogue state like NK to get energy from without the US involvement, among other things. The US did a lot to contain that by sanctions, but sanctions only work if other nations comply.

But at any rate, whether you want to play patriot or anti-US, its absurd to think oil didn't play a very central role in this invasion.

Now as far as the chemical weapons go-

In reference to the US giving chemical weapons to Saddam...that's right I am saying we did not give chemical weapons to Saddam. If you would research you would discover that Dow Chemicals gave many chemical types to Iraq which had both military and CIVILIAN functionality.

Come now...the US was giving Iraq every almost every weapn imaginable to Iraq at this time. Iraq had yet to be sanctioned and was wealthy. They didnt need charity. They wanted and asked for weapons.

Why in on earth, among all those missles, would the US see it fit to give Iraq the chemicals required to create weapons of mass destruction?

For all the "civillian" purposes they may otherwise have (I can't think of any)..of all the sheerly non-military things to throw in there..why that?

Do you really believe thats not what they were for yourself?

If they weren't, it certainly wasn't because the US would never sink so low as to play a part in creating chemical weapons themselves. After all, the US possesses an enormous supply of the chemical weapons that it condemns its enemies for having.

The US knew what Hussein was. They tolerated it and let him do what he did with their support. they didn't lift a finger to stop it. Along with all the other weapons, they gave him all those difficult to obtain, chemicals required to create WMD (and also some things that can be used for civillain purposes, dammit! Civillian!)

Then he crossed them, and invaded Kuwait against US will. They did a complete moral 180, revvved up the propoganda machine, suddenly and amazingly saw the light on all the evil he had commited all those years with their help, made a monster out of him to the the US voters, and crushed him like a bug.

The point is, the US, more specifically, this admin (Rumsfeld, Cheney et al) tolerates anything at all from its allies. There is no hard morality on right and wrong, its all relative if it meets their goals. But when its in their interests to attack the same person, they'll turn around over all the things they supported earlier and list it as evidence the new-found bad guy is a monster. Its a disgusting hypocrisy. And its really tiring seeing all the flag-waving and blind patriotism that goes along with it.

The_Lurker · Post by **The_Lurker** » Tue May 18, 2004 8:55 am

Burke wrote:And by the way, blame the Illuminati.

blame anybody, as long as it includes the USA and Republicans! those evil evil people!

ack! black helicopters! i gotta put my tinfoil hat back on and hide!

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Tue May 18, 2004 9:01 am

The_Lurker wrote:blame anybody, as long as it includes the USA and Republicans! those evil evil people!

ack! black helicopters! i gotta put my tinfoil hat back on and hide!

You're dead and you don't even know it yet. Accept the mark or be unable to buy and sell goods.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Tue May 18, 2004 9:11 am

The_Lurker wrote:blame anybody, as long as it includes the USA and Republicans! those evil evil people!

ack! black helicopters! i gotta put my tinfoil hat back on and hide!

A short view, perhaps? All Republicans? Nah....A select few? Sure....Start with the Reagan years...Iran Contra...

Are there Dems just as bad? Yes of course....

Also, I'm not sure evil is anywhere close to a correct termonolgy....

Still need a tin foil hat?

jayyy...from what I've read, it's not that the USA sold them the chemicals already mixed and ready to go....it's more that we gavethem the technology to make them and the indirect chemicals. Also, Rumsfield was the liaison between us and them. Sins to atone for....

Was it all about oil? IMHO, no, but oil plays a huge part of it. Mostly Saudi oil.....the CIA fears that Saudia Arabi is on the verge of an Iranian style break down.

To bad the admin didn't have a clear plan what to do in Iraq, once in Baghdad..

The_Lurker · Post by **The_Lurker** » Tue May 18, 2004 9:22 am

downhill wrote:Still need a tin foil hat?
..

yes! to keep them from beaming those voices into my head! AAACCKK!

whats the frequency Kenneth?

jayyy · Post by **jayyy** » Tue May 18, 2004 9:26 am

downhill wrote:It's not that the USA sold them the chemicals already mix..it's more that we sold them the technology to make them and the indirect chemicals.

No doubt that technology could also be used for CIVILLIAN PURPOSES!

I just don't see the point of splitting the hair. They give them the chemicals and recipe to make it, but uh-uh-uh, didn't actually give the finished stuff.

It has this "nyah-nyah, we know its true, but you can't prove it" vibe to it. Like some guy whose son attacks another kid, but jumps into all this defensive, self-righteous legalese when he sees the other parent.

Like, lets not get to the bottom of it, lets not worry about what right and wrong, lets just harp on the technicalities, derail the discussion and not take any accountability for what happened.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Tue May 18, 2004 9:29 am

Spliting hairs....understood..

Check out Clakes book. There's a few chapters on the middle east in it. Iran to Iraq and back again.

jayyy · Post by **jayyy** » Tue May 18, 2004 9:31 am

downhill wrote:Spliting hairs....understood..

Check out Clakes book. There's a few chapters on the middle east in it. Iran to Iraq and back again.

Short on cash...maybe I can just read it in the bookstore.

How is it allover anyway? Good stuff?

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Tue May 18, 2004 9:36 am

Yep it's hard to put down. From around 1978 or so to present. A good hard look on terrorism and how the US gov approached it from Reagan to Bush...From Iran to South America..

It's not what you hear about on certian news channels, a one sided look at the current President. In fact, only a quarter of the book or so, covers the time from 9-11 on.