StevenSeagal

Goddamnit! I posted an objective response that established that one of the premises (Taliban leaders visited Texas) is true, the other not true (Bush hosted them...although a conservative blog I searched indicated he "gave approval for the visit"); I passed no judgment otherwise! The fact that is was in 1998--pre 9/11 and pre GWB as prez--is also relevant, don't you think? What, were the Taliban our friends until 9/11?

This is turning into "6 Quotes to glassgowkiss"

Goddamnit! I posted an objective response that established that one of the premises (Taliban leaders visited Texas) is true, the other not true (Bush hosted them...although a conservative blog I searched indicated he "gave approval for the visit"); I passed no judgment otherwise!

No, actually. I believe Mattp only said "a google search will clarify what glasgow what talking about". And that certainly is a true statement.

yeah, right. maybe we should also remember a visit of Taliban leaders to texas and hosted by..... gwb the shrub! Explain. I'll bet you can't. Saudis? Sure. Saudi does not equal Taliban. Why are you so xenophobic and hegemonic, Gutter Slop? Not Bush, but Unocal Texas: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1997%2F12%2F14%2Fwtal14.html http://www.1888articles.com/when-the-taliban-came-to-texas-00x0hcw474.html http://www.counterpunch.org/tomenron.html

Sweet! Now we don't have to drill the arctic, right?

This is interesting. Are you saying Israel would be justified in retaliating against Iran vis a vis the attacks and kidnappings conducted by Hezbollah thugs across the border in Lebanon a couple years back? If a nation (Iran) can't control their dog--go after the one holding the leash! I think we're actually on the same page here! To a point we are...however, I think you would agree that it isn't necessarily as simple as starting a war with Iran. Most observers I think would see that a war with Iran will be a far worse situation to deal with in it's regional (maybe world?) destabilizing effects than continuing the Hezbollah/Israeli army tit for tat attacks/response/attacks/response/...etc. and trying to negotiate a settlement, however unlikely that prospect may seem to all involved parties.

I should have expanded that to include strategic/sphere of influence in addition to or alternative to economic advantages. It would seem that communism has been dying a slow death in southeast Asia over the past 30 something years, in part due to pressure from the outside but mostly due to it's inevitably failings as a system of governance. Yet our hysteria over the domino theory fueled a war that killed 4 million Vietnamese and 58,000 Americans- all so the country ended up communist anyway, and now is slowly becoming an open society- as we'd hoped in the first place- but on it's own terms. Are the Iraqis more free? What do you think? Tens of thousands of non-combatants have been killed. Tens of thousands more were forced to flee to become refugees. Those who remain either have few viable options, or are there to fight. Who the hell would want to stay there if they had a choice? To argue that Iraqis lives are now better than under Saddam is relative- for some it may well be better, but I'd be willing to bet that many would prefer the order of Saddam's police state to the disorder and grave danger of being killed just for being in the market at the wrong time, every single day. Or being killed for being Sunni, or Shia, or American sympathizer, or whatever. In time this situation will change, maybe pass, and perhaps in the future the answer will be more positive. Bosnia: here was a case where we did little to nothing until too late, and should have acted much sooner. But why bother intervening in a massacre of muslims in a poor country that offers us no resources or economic exploits? Because it became too heinous to ignore, and Clinton wanted to make himself look good. Sudan: see above. We talk of human rights and so forth but all we offer are UN "observers". Thousands dead. Ditto Rwanda. Except that featured over half a million dead. East Timor: Didn't Clinton give dictator Suharto a shit load of weapons that helped fuel a massacre of over 300,000 people? Was there some benefit in this for us? Iran/Iraq 1980's: Whatever the long term results, we gave military advice and support to Iraq while knowing they were using poison gas on the battlefield against the Iranians. Gave arms to Iran same period to bribe release of hostages in Lebanon. At least 4 million people died in this war. These people were surely going to fight anyway, but our main concern was that the black gold kept flowing. Central America: Again, see SE Asia- communist governments eventually collapsed under their own flaws, yet we help pile onto the misery of these conflicts by funding secret guerrilla wars. Don't have a body count from that one. Chile: Help fund overthrow of democratically elected President to install military dictator whose apparatus tortures and kills thousands. The argument in favor of this action still is used for justification: Look at how robust Chile is today! Too bad so many people had to be "eliminated". Argentina: Did nothing at all while military government tortured and killed over 30,000 people. Not saying we should have done anything militarily, but again calls into question the motive of giving others freedom and democracy. How easily can one write off so much wholesale murder as being necessary for the "greater good"? What makes you so certain that it's our responsibility to be regularly intervening militarily with the internal problems of other cultures? (e.g. the world policeman argument). The failings of many of the above conflicts are always summarized as that they were the right action, but just poorly executed. Any possibility we've had it wrong from the start?

But getting sucked never gets old. Go figger? Yeah, my ex could suck the chrome off a trailer hitch.

KKKKKKK Take it from me. Getting old sucks.

HI THERE! [font:Arial Black] [/font] DO YOU HAS GOOD ADVICE FOR BUYING HOME DURING LIBTURD CAUSED ECONOMY COLLAPSE?

Um, those were different hostages than the ones in question. And they were held by Hezbolla in Lebanon, not Iran. That Reagan was willing to strike a deal for Iranian influence and spare parts several years after the embassy hostage crisis is an issue separate from the one in question. I think you have your history mixed up. No mix up here. I know exactly which hostages were which. In any case, last I checked, for all practical purposes, Hezbollah=Iran, doesn't it? The issue there is our government publicly proclaimed that "we don't negotiate with terrorists" yet did exactly that, without congressional knowledge. "Spare Parts"? You mean weapons, and if current accusations against Iran are at all true, some remnants of which are probably being used against American troops in Iraq right now. And alright then, I partially retract- I have no source to cite regarding poison gas elements coming from the US to Iraq, I have only heard this from unconfirmed channels- but does it even really matter which killing instruments we gave them? The bottom line is, who do we think we are to provide support for such regimes while supposedly standing as the beacon for human rights in the world? On that note, let's go look at China- currently one of the world's most repressive, brutal, human rights abusing regimes. We give nothing more than tepid condemnation and idle urgings to them. Why? Because we have this great business relationship with them and without it, our economy would fold. They own our asses, and everyone knows it. And how did this come about? So in the end, it seems that human rights, freedom, democracy, is not really what we are concerned with; we're concerned with meddling and interfering in shitty foreign situations in whatever way we can find that might benefit us economically, playing groups off one another and fighting wars whenever we piss off one side enough. Then we invoke the former issues as justification to keep everyone dutifully quiet and supportive.

Doug has asked that you substantiate this outrageous claim. I heard that a young George W. Bush was the courier in fact! Oh Please! Not the famous SR71 Blackbird nonsense. You're too smart to believe that. It's true. When he went AWOL in the 70's, he was actually sneaking around Baghdad in black clothes all ninja style n' shit, delivered a case o' mustard gas to Saddam before Saddam took power. Then he stole outta the country in the back of a goat truck heading for Jordan. You wouldn't believe what I discovered working for the CIA.

You do also remember that hostages held by Iranians were released in exchange for weapons, and there was also some cash in there that ended up funding Central American death squads. All of course enacted in secret without the knowledge of Congress. (read: illegal) So actually, we were on some levels funding BOTH sides, which kind of kills the "clear and present danger", "pick the most altruistic motive for funding murderous regimes" rationalization.

Doug has asked that you substantiate this outrageous claim. I heard that a young George W. Bush was the courier in fact!

A conflict that killed 4 million people that had nothing to do with the US. Yet we chose sides- and we chose to fund the side that gassed it's own people including children. In fact we sold them the gas if I recall. Sorry, but I don't think one can have it both ways here. Funding murderous dictators isn't a matter of convenience- it's not a gray area. Or at least, you don't get to start a war with the same guy later on the basis of his brutality. Should we also have funded Hitler instead of fighting him, since he was fighting the communists? The Soviets ended up being a greater overall threat, afterall.

:noway: They aren't above mine.

Another article Anyway, it's certainly a good thing we didn't listen to those stupid libturds. Otherwise there'd be lots of dead Americans and the Iraqis wouldn't be living in freedom.

What do you call a blonde with pigtails? A blowjob with handles.

Well let me see...um...err...

that should be, "bedtime" Kev. What's the difference between Michael Jackson and Neil Armstrong? Neil Armstrong walked on the moon... and Michael Jackson fucks little boys.

Did you hear about the Michael Jackson sale at the local department store? All little boy's pants 1/2 off.

Q:What's the difference between acne and Michael Jackson? A: Acne doesn't come on your face til your 14. Q:Why does Michael Jackson like twenty eight year olds? A: Because there's 20 of them!

Q:Why do Canadians do it doggy style? A: So they can both watch the hockey game.

Yep, just a nice stroll down to the market. Another beautiful day.