Gingrich slams Obama over shaking hands with Chavez
- Thread starter FlyLikeAnEagle
- Start date
medicineman
New Member
I am building a new house and haven't the time to sleep let alone play with this and YOU MORONS.
So med please tell me that you know that none of that shit that the morons have posted IS A WEAPON? and lets be done with this crap OK.
Back when I can.
You building a house, now you have made me laugh. I think what you are really saying is, " I am funding the construction of a house". I doubt you know a hammer from a dropsaw. Wow, look at me, the bigman, building a house. Yes idiot, chemicals can be used as weapons, just ask the Iranians. Now ask where those chemicals came from, Uhhhhh, does the CIA strike any Memory channels in that void you call a mind? Stinger missles in Afghanistan, funding the mujahadeen/Taliban/Al-Queda. The USA works in very sneaky ways..............Oh yeah, you would volunteer for waterboarding, what a load of crap, the internet badass.
So med please tell me that you know that none of that shit that the morons have posted IS A WEAPON? and lets be done with this crap OK.
Back when I can.
You building a house, now you have made me laugh. I think what you are really saying is, " I am funding the construction of a house". I doubt you know a hammer from a dropsaw. Wow, look at me, the bigman, building a house. Yes idiot, chemicals can be used as weapons, just ask the Iranians. Now ask where those chemicals came from, Uhhhhh, does the CIA strike any Memory channels in that void you call a mind? Stinger missles in Afghanistan, funding the mujahadeen/Taliban/Al-Queda. The USA works in very sneaky ways..............Oh yeah, you would volunteer for waterboarding, what a load of crap, the internet badass.
Is it so hard for you to answer a simple question?
If a hardware store sells you a hammer and you kill someone with it are they guilty of of selling you a weapon?
Was the hammer a weapon when it was sold?
Did it become a weapon after you used it as one?
ARE THEY WEAPONS ARE NOT?
Quit trying to obscure the issue and just be honest.
bicycle racer
Well-Known Member
what then was our intent in selling them these things. what did we think would be done with these 'products' by the iraqis.
When you go to a store to buy something the stores intent is to sell to you and make a profit, its the way it works. If its a hardware store and they sell you a hammer and you kill someone with it, should we go back to the hardware store and say they sold this hammer knowing full well that it was a duel use item and they are to blame for the way that you used it? So YOU THINK WE SHOULD WORRY ABOUT THIS HARDWARE STORES INTENT?
bicycle racer
Well-Known Member
comparing our sales of certain items to iraq to a hardware stores selling hammers is a poor analogy in this case. we knew what those products would be used for or simply did not care. to say otherwise is not rational.
So you knew what was going on WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT IT? AND WHO DID YOU SAY IT TO. DID YOU EVEN TRY TO STOP IT? I THINK YOUR LIYING. I thought the same thing when you said that you shot a H&H, I have only seen a handfull [one is a handful] eight to be exact that I could and did hold in my hands and few have been where I have been. I didn't post back BECAUSE I didn't believe you, not that I was sure but its what I thought.
The analogy is perfect and is exactly what they did, they came here to buy and did, just as you or I could have bought the same things.
Whats poor is YOUR knowledge and understanding of this subject.
bicycle racer
Well-Known Member
why would i lie about something as trivial as firing a rifle? anyways what else do you feel im lying about your post confuses me. america as a country makes bad choices sometimes just like any other country. the american government was once allies with iraq or at the least quiet supporters because of mutual interest at the time and we did sell them equipment useful in achieving there goals. friends become enemys and enemys become friends all the time.
I understand that you are confused its easy for me to see just how confused you are. Saying shit like the US sold iraq anything, as if it was one country selling to another. The US didn't sell a single thing to iraq.
Try to understand that.
The US for a time alowed iraq to buy from here and for that time they were like most of the countrys in the world that would let iraq buy what was for sale in their country, the rest russia, france, china and germany were who sold them weapons.
Why do you care? If you do care why do you only care what came from the US? Why wouldn't you care who sold them their weapons?
tipsgnob
New Member
this is from a senate hearing.....Like most foreign-policy insiders, Rumsfeld was aware that
Saddam was a murderous thug who supported terrorists and was
trying to build a nuclear weapon. (The Israelis had already
bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak.) But at the time,
America's big worry was Iran, not Iraq. The Reagan
administration feared that the Iranian revolutionaries who
had overthrown the shah (and taken hostage American diplomats
for 444 days in 1979-81) would overrun the Middle East and
its vital oilfields. On the--theory that the enemy of my
enemy is my friend, the Reaganites were seeking to support
Iraq in a long and bloody war against Iran. The meeting
between Rumsfeld and Saddam was consequential: for the next
five years, until Iran finally capitulated, the United States
backed Saddam's armies with military intelligence, economic
aid and covert supplies of munitions.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html
Saddam was a murderous thug who supported terrorists and was
trying to build a nuclear weapon. (The Israelis had already
bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak.) But at the time,
America's big worry was Iran, not Iraq. The Reagan
administration feared that the Iranian revolutionaries who
had overthrown the shah (and taken hostage American diplomats
for 444 days in 1979-81) would overrun the Middle East and
its vital oilfields. On the--theory that the enemy of my
enemy is my friend, the Reaganites were seeking to support
Iraq in a long and bloody war against Iran. The meeting
between Rumsfeld and Saddam was consequential: for the next
five years, until Iran finally capitulated, the United States
backed Saddam's armies with military intelligence, economic
aid and covert supplies of munitions.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html
P
PadawanBater
Guest
May, stop being a retard. You know the United States government sold Saddam weapons and equipment specifically for combat. At the time they were fighting against the Iranians, this is not debatable, I listed 5 or 6 different sources a few messages back. If you want to argue about this further, explain the snapshot of Rumsfeld with Saddam, what was that about? Just a friendly meeting? BR's statment is exactly right, friends become enemies and enemies become friends all the time, it just depends on interests.
It wasn't just random Iraqi's buying from random corporations in the United States, it was government to government contracts to purchase weapons to use in combat against Iran. The United States government knew that, the Iraqi government knew that, we all know that now, except for you apparently...
It wasn't just random Iraqi's buying from random corporations in the United States, it was government to government contracts to purchase weapons to use in combat against Iran. The United States government knew that, the Iraqi government knew that, we all know that now, except for you apparently...
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Yes, and the reason why we chose to supply Iraq with arms and armaments is because Carter stabbed the Shah of Iran in the back leading to the rise of the Iranian Theocracy.
tipsgnob
New Member
On October 22, 1979, at the request of david rockefellar, President jimmy carter allowed the Shah into the United States to undergo medical treatment. This act was extremely unpopular with the revolutionary movement, which had been angered by the United States' overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh, and years of support for the Shah's rule. The Iranian government demanded the return of the Shah to Iran to stand trial; the American government refused to turn him over.
This resulted in the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and the kidnapping of American diplomats, military personnel and intelligence officers, which soon became known as the iran hostage crisis.
This resulted in the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and the kidnapping of American diplomats, military personnel and intelligence officers, which soon became known as the iran hostage crisis.
bicycle racer
Well-Known Member
once again we reap what we sow.
medicineman
New Member
It seems that those on the right once again live in some fantasy land where their heros can do no wrong. It is a well known fact that the right supported many terrorist groups accross the planet to further the corporations agenda.Those on the right, known as corporatists, or plutarchs, have set this countries foriegn policy for many years. We are now reaping what we have sown, blowback, accross the third world. Maybe Obama can ease the tension a bit, but we as a country deserve avery bit of the blowback. We the people have sat in our comfort zones and allowed these corporatists to run ripshod over 3/4 of the worlds population. We should not be surprised by the uprising of anti-American sentiment.
bicycle racer
Well-Known Member
my thoughts exactly the dam had to break sooner or later.
You don't seem to know shit or maybe your just lying, I would guess both.
Your just a puffed up wind bag a small pin and a good prick and woosh you would be deflated and go down....... flat, would you like that being pricked and all? So I ask you are you just looking to get pricked or do you have balls don't try hide behind some cut and paste if you do have balls than tell me. What weapons did the US SELL TO IRAQ use your words to tell me what you think the US sold to iraq that can be called weapons.
Show me that you have somethng to swing besides your ass, SHOW SOME BALLS AND TELL us of the weapons?
bicycle racer
Well-Known Member
i dont even understand what the argument is we had mutual interests and helped saddam at one point this goes on all the time were no better than other nations in this regard. this is common knowledge. then our interests changed and we killed him to further our new interests. business as usual none of this is controversial or secret information. whatever relations we have now with various undesirable governments is no different. our morality with regards to foreign policy is no better than most other industrialized nations.