fmccap Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 yea,right........right wing eh,.....i suppose that's why i mentioned how good things WERE before bush and his zany gang of inept idiots...go pump your crap elsewhere if that is all you got out of it...........THE POINT WAS THIS DAY BY DAY pack of lies being "pumped"out of wash.has run it's course and most u.s.citizens are sick and very tired of it all...let's settle it or get out.(now i'm not limp or a rightwing nut)but i did get through vietnam and have a pretty good idea on this subject...enough said? Like these???? Rumsfeld 'kept up fear of terror attacks' Donald Rumsfeld, the former United States defence secretary, tried to maintain an atmosphere of fear in America as part of the Iraq war propaganda campaign, a series of leaked memos has shown. One memo, written in April 2006, contained a list of instructions to Pentagon staff including "Keep elevating the threat" and "Talk about Somalia, the Philippines etc. Make the American people realise they are surrounded in the world by violent extremists". Another said "link Iraq to Iran. Iran is the concern of the American people, and if we fail in Iraq, it will advantage Iran". He also urged staff to produce "bumper sticker statements" to rally the public around the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diablos30 Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 I'm talking about the terrorists in pakistan. Bush says we will go to any country that harbors them. US intelligence believes that Al quida operates from Pakistan now. Why are we not going to get them??? are you really so stupid as to believe we dont have troops there now? ever heard of something called special forces? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 are you really so stupid as to believe we dont have troops there now? ever heard of something called special forces? And you know this how??? Were you in the DOD mettings??? If we even were obviously we are not getting them because our own intelligence says that is where they operate out of now. If that is the heart of there operations should'nt we be in there full force disrupting them and putting an end to it. 1ZVFT82H165125682.pdf 1ZVFT82H765143071.pdf 1zvft82h865147243.pdf 1ZVHT80N365147328.pdf 1ZVHT82H965142626.pdf 1ZVHT82HX65143090.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diablos30 Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 And you know this how??? Were you in the DOD mettings??? If we even were obviously we are not getting them because our own intelligence says that is where they operate out of now. If that is the heart of there operations should'nt we be in there full force disrupting them and putting an end to it. you really are an ignorant fool if you think there are no special forces/ cia/ spies in iran. and the job of those types is to go un-noticed due to their lack of numbers. go back to putting the lugnuts back on cars and leave the war fighting to people that have studied it for longer than you have been alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 you really are an ignorant fool if you think there are no special forces/ cia/ spies in iran. and the job of those types is to go un-noticed due to their lack of numbers. go back to putting the lugnuts back on cars and leave the war fighting to people that have studied it for longer than you have been alive. Is'nt it true that when the problem really started with Iran it was the CIA that was in there in the early 50's? They are doing a great job 4 and a half years into it with all that studying, right? The best part is that it is a nation that really did not pose a threat to anyone and we are still there with no end in sight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diablos30 Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 And you know this how??? Were you in the DOD mettings??? If we even were obviously we are not getting them because our own intelligence says that is where they operate out of now. If that is the heart of there operations should'nt we be in there full force disrupting them and putting an end to it. Is'nt it true that when the problem really started with Iran it was the CIA that was in there in the early 50's? They are doing a great job 4 and a half years into it with all that studying, right? The best part is that it is a nation that really did not pose a threat to anyone and we are still there with no end in sight they must be doing a good job is your siting their intelligence reports that state the terrorist assholes are operating out of iran. are you so blinded by politics that you cant see beyond your own nose? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 they must be doing a good job is your siting their intelligence reports that state the terrorist assholes are operating out of iran. are you so blinded by politics that you cant see beyond your own nose? Are you so blinded that you cannot see the root of the problem???? If you don't fix the foundation the problem will never go away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Aren't you a "Canadian" working in OAC? If so, I think it's funny you always write "if WE go in" " then WE go in" etc...if you associate so closely with the US and it's war, then why don't you move to the US, enlist and go secure those oil futures? Canada is in the war, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 The best part is that it is a nation that really did not pose a threat to anyone and we are still there with no end in sight posed not threat to anyone....do you live in a cave...tell that to the 50,000 Kurds that he gased.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinter Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 posed not threat to anyone....do you live in a cave...tell that to the 50,000 Kurds that he gased.... Yea and where did he get the poison GAS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Yea and where did he get the poison GAS? Don't waste your time, he won't answer questions. He will just give you the False News Propaganda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Yea and where did he get the poison GAS? from the US.....do you retract your earlier ignorant statement that they psoed no threat to anyone?......you seem to have to back pedal all the time...you need to clear your post with femcap before you post them..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinter Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 from the US.....do you retract your earlier ignorant statement that they psoed no threat to anyone?......you seem to have to back pedal all the time...you need to clear your post with femcap before you post them..... To set the record straight I didn't make that statement. Second, at the time we reinvaded Iraq they PSOED a threat to no one. There were no more WMD's found. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpmaster Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 posed not threat to anyone....do you live in a cave...tell that to the 50,000 Kurds that he gased.... Stop barking right-wing talking points, and think for yourself. Today, NOBODY knows how many Kurds were killed in 1982-1983, or how they died. The evidence that they were "gassed" is flimsy. Hussein was a two-bit tinpot dictator who did have some of his enemies--- political opponents who wanted HIM dead---killed. That happens in every third-world country on earth. Are you gonna invade Rwanda? Here are some facts we do know: from 1990 to 2003, at least 500,000 to 1.5 million Iraqis died from 1) the murderous economic embargo that the world, led by the U.S., imposed on Iraq; and 2) from the weekly bombings that Bush1 and Clinton kept up in Iraq. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, at least 655,000 Iraqis have died violently from bombs, missiles, and bullets. Don't believe it? Look it up. The U.S.-led, attack invasion, and occupation of Iraq has caused more death & suffering than Sadaam Hussein ever dreamed of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 Neocon Ollie North Fudges History, Demands Iran be Attacked In his zeal to attack Iran, convicted liar Oliver North (his conviction was overturned on a technicality) got his facts wrong about Iran in a way that conveniently made them seem more villainous. Was North lying or just mistaken? We report, you decide! With video. Colmes continued, “Iran was the country that tried to help us and did help us in Afghanistan after September 11th. This is the country that actually reached out to the United States and we ignored them.” Derisively, North said, “Alan, whose hype are you reading?” Uh, it’s called the truth, Ollie. Colmes continued again, “When was the last time they attacked another country?” North claimed that the last country Iran attacked was Iraq. “No, Iraq attacked Iran,” Colmes corrected. “No,” North insisted. Yes, Ollie, as the BBC and Infoplease.com both attest. “They haven’t attacked a country since the 1800’s,” Colmes said. Chickenhawk Sean Hannity avoided the issues like they might require military service. He conveniently ignored the fact that the same Zogby poll found that Americans prefer Hillary Clinton as the best presidential candidate to deal with Iran. Instead, he attacked “modern day liberal appeasement” with his phony-baloney Hanctimony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanderinglost Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 Why nuke them? Most of them are on our side. World War III has already started, or is it IV? Maybe the Cold War was III. If all of the terrorists get driven out of Iraq, then they will be in Iran. We gotta go in there and get them. Bush said that we were going after any country that harbors terrorists. Whatever it costs us, we can collect in free oil. These clowns will chase any bad guy they can dream up, as long as they live in a sandy place with oil. North Korea, no oil; the Sudan, no oil; any number of Pacific rim nations that no one cares about, no oil. They are all harboring terrorists, or dealing with terrorists in the weapons that will kill Americans, but there's no oil there, so why bother. Pakistan, we gave them the nuclear fuel that will come back one day and bite us in the ass. Saudia Arabia, long as we keep selling the royal family weapons we keep getting oil, but when the royals fall, we're screwed. They know that in Washington, we screwed up Iran and lost our oil when they had their little revolution, the Saudis are near collapse, so we have Iraq now. If these jugheads that are running the country now wouldn't have screwed up so bad in Iraq, we'd have a friendly goverment there now giving us oil, and we wouldn't give a crap about the Saudis. It's a geopolitical shell game right now, and president Cheny has made a huge mess of it. Once we get these clowns out of office, and into the legal system where they belong, then maybe we can get a real republican back in office, hell anyone but Bush/Cheny and their kind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 Stop barking right-wing talking points, and think for yourself. Today, NOBODY knows how many Kurds were killed in 1982-1983, or how they died. The evidence that they were "gassed" is flimsy. Hussein was a two-bit tinpot dictator who did have some of his enemies--- political opponents who wanted HIM dead---killed. That happens in every third-world country on earth. Are you gonna invade Rwanda? Here are some facts we do know: from 1990 to 2003, at least 500,000 to 1.5 million Iraqis died from 1) the murderous economic embargo that the world, led by the U.S., imposed on Iraq; and 2) from the weekly bombings that Bush1 and Clinton kept up in Iraq. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, at least 655,000 Iraqis have died violently from bombs, missiles, and bullets. Don't believe it? Look it up. The U.S.-led, attack invasion, and occupation of Iraq has caused more death & suffering than Sadaam Hussein ever dreamed of. I did look it up that's where I got my numbers...you think that you can come on here an spout a bunch of numbers and no one will challenge you....you got those from some left wing web site Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 I did look it up that's where I got my numbers...you think that you can come on here an spout a bunch of numbers and no one will challenge you....you got those from some left wing web site It's all about money. He Has Gassed His Own People On August 20, 1988 Iran and Iraq ended their war. Within days Iraq again gassed the Kurds. A front-page story in the New York Times summed up the purpose of the latest assault: "Iraq has begun a major offensive [meant to] crush the 40-year-long insurgency once and for all." After a delay of weeks Secretary of State George Shultz condemned the assaults. But the United States again failed to act, even as hundreds of thousands of Kurds were being uprooted from their homes and forced into the mountains, tens of thousands killed. By 1989, says Powers, 4,049 Kurdish villages had been destroyed. In 1989 President George Herbert Walker Bush took power and ordered a review of United States policy toward Iraq. According to Power: The study ... deemed Iraq a potentially helpful ally in containing Iran and nudging the Middle East peace process ahead. The "Guidelines for U.S.-Iraq Policy" swiped at proponents of sanctions on Capital Hill and a few human rights advocates who had begun lobbying within the State Department. The guidelines noted that despite support from the Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and State Departments for a profitable, stable U.S.-Iraq relationship, "parts of Congress and the Department would scuttle even the most benign and beneficial areas of the relationship, such as agricultural exports." The Bush administration would not shift to a policy of dual containment of both Iraq and Iran. Vocal American businesses were adamant that Iraq was a source of opportunity, not enmity. The White House did all it could to create an opening for these companies"Had we attempted to isolate Iraq," Secretary of State James Baker wrote later, "we would have also isolated American businesses, particularly agricultural interests, from significant commercial opportunities." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 These clowns will chase any bad guy they can dream up, as long as they live in a sandy place with oil. North Korea, no oil; the Sudan, no oil; any number of Pacific rim nations that no one cares about, no oil. They are all harboring terrorists, or dealing with terrorists in the weapons that will kill Americans, but there's no oil there, so why bother. Pakistan, we gave them the nuclear fuel that will come back one day and bite us in the ass. Saudia Arabia, long as we keep selling the royal family weapons we keep getting oil, but when the royals fall, we're screwed. They know that in Washington, we screwed up Iran and lost our oil when they had their little revolution, the Saudis are near collapse, so we have Iraq now. If these jugheads that are running the country now wouldn't have screwed up so bad in Iraq, we'd have a friendly goverment there now giving us oil, and we wouldn't give a crap about the Saudis. It's a geopolitical shell game right now, and president Cheny has made a huge mess of it. Once we get these clowns out of office, and into the legal system where they belong, then maybe we can get a real republican back in office, hell anyone but Bush/Cheny and their kind. By some strange coincidence, it seems that countries that have oil also have wealth, and countries that have wealth have the capacity to acquire a strong military and interfere with our energy needs. It just seems that it is about oil. Oil is just a weapon that the enemy uses. Over here, Liberals blame crime on guns, not on gone astray Liberals. It is the same mindset as blaming the war on oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imawhosure Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 By some strange coincidence, it seems that countries that have oil also have wealth, and countries that have wealth have the capacity to acquire a strong military and interfere with our energy needs. It just seems that it is about oil. Oil is just a weapon that the enemy uses. Over here, Liberals blame crime on guns, not on gone astray Liberals. It is the same mindset as blaming the war on oil. Wow Trim, every once in awhile you come up with a superb analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unionj Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/03/...in3448621.shtml Just proves my ealier posts that no one is safe whether in iraq, Iran or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/03/...in3448621.shtml Just proves my ealier posts that no one is safe whether in iraq, Iran or not. Hopefully the House and Senate will prove there point and stand by it. Senators warn Bush has no authority on Iran Thirty US senators wrote to President George W. Bush Thursday, warning he had no authority to launch military action against Iran, and expressing concern about the administration's "provocative" rhetoric. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 By some strange coincidence, it seems that countries that have oil also have wealth, and countries that have wealth have the capacity to acquire a strong military and interfere with our energy needs. It just seems that it is about oil. Oil is just a weapon that the enemy uses. Over here, Liberals blame crime on guns, not on gone astray Liberals. It is the same mindset as blaming the war on oil. Who is interfering with our energy needs with there strong military????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpmaster Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 By some strange coincidence, it seems that countries that have oil also have wealth, and countries that have wealth have the capacity to acquire a strong military and interfere with our energy needs. It just seems that it is about oil. Oil is just a weapon that the enemy uses. Over here, Liberals blame crime on guns, not on gone astray Liberals. It is the same mindset as blaming the war on oil. Wow Trim, 100% of the time you're a raving lunatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bored of Pisteon Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 Wow Trim, 100% of the time you're a raving lunatic. Speak for yourself! You talk about the pot calling the kettle black? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.