Fairweather Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 (edited) McDermott. McDemocrat. McDupe. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7315752.stm Edited March 26, 2008 by Fairweather Quote
G-spotter Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 More important BBC news. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/7314643.stm Quote
sobo Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 More important BBC news. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/7314643.stm "Sheriff Michael Fletcher said: "The alcohol seems to be at the root of the problem and nothing much can be done about that, given his attitude towards it." I guess that will be my excuse next time, too. Quote
StevenSeagal Posted March 26, 2008 Posted March 26, 2008 Another article During the trip, the lawmakers expressed skepticism about the Bush administration's claims that Saddam was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Though such weapons ultimately were never found, the lawmakers drew criticism for their trip at the time. Oklahoma Sen. Don Nickles, the second-ranking Senate Republican at the time, said the Democrats "sound somewhat like spokespersons for the Iraqi government." Seattle-are conservatives dubbed McDermott "Baghdad Jim" for the Iraq trip. 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. Quote
Doug Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 Gosh, imagine how the the Bush Sr. led CIA felt when they were supplying Saddam with all of that support in their skirmish with Iran. Duped, I'm sure. But they are Republicans, so in the interest of national security and intelligence I guess they are above the law. Quote
StevenSeagal Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 Gosh, imagine how the the Bush Sr. led CIA felt when they were supplying Saddam with all of that support in their skirmish with Iran. Duped, I'm sure. But they are Republicans, so in the interest of national security and intelligence I guess they are above the law. :noway: They aren't above mine. Quote
Fairweather Posted March 27, 2008 Author Posted March 27, 2008 Gosh, imagine how the the Bush Sr. led CIA felt when they were supplying Saddam with all of that support in their skirmish with Iran. Duped, I'm sure. But they are Republicans, so in the interest of national security and intelligence I guess they are above the law. 1) It was less than 1% of his weaponry, which was mostly French and Russian. 2) No one was duped. It was justified at the time versus Iran. You're probably too young to remember that whole "hostage" thing. Quote
Doug Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 Substantiate your 1% figure. Yeah, tell me about the hostage thing will ya? You've got me pegged, FW. Quote
sobo Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 You would think that peeps would think a little harder before they just assume that someone on this site is a young'n or not. But that's just me... Quote
Fairweather Posted March 27, 2008 Author Posted March 27, 2008 You would think that peeps would think a little harder before they just assume that someone on this site is a young'n or not. But that's just me... Since he did not demonstrate even a basic knowledge of the geopolitics of the 1980's it was a pretty safe bet he is/was either too young...or willingly ignorant. Quote
StevenSeagal Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 2) No one was duped. It was justified at the time versus Iran. You're probably too young to remember that whole "hostage" thing. 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. Quote
Fairweather Posted March 27, 2008 Author Posted March 27, 2008 ...the side that gassed it's own people including children. In fact we sold them the gas if I recall. Doug has asked that you substantiate this outrageous claim. Quote
sobo Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 You would think that peeps would think a little harder before they just assume that someone on this site is a young'n or not. But that's just me... Since he did not demonstrate even a basic knowledge of the geopolitics of the 1980's it was a pretty safe bet he is/was either too young...or willingly ignorant. I don't know how you got "...did not demonstrate even a basic knowledge of the geopolitics of the 1980's..." out of "...Bush Sr. led CIA felt when they were supplying Saddam with all of that support in their skirmish with Iran." We all, or at least those of us who were around then, know that the USA was supplying arms to Iraq then. And we liked that idea, because of the way the Iranian students thumbed their noses at us for over a year. Clearly, Doug knew that little tidbit, too. What is more of a stretch was for you to assume that he wasn't around yet just because he didn't know it was a very small fraction of the total weaponry that was being shipped to Iraq. Quote
Fairweather Posted March 27, 2008 Author Posted March 27, 2008 (edited) 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. Now that's a legitimate, albeit rhetorical question. Libtards seem to have much difficulty with the concept of clear and present danger. FDR had a shitty list of options, but the fact the Russian people were suffering under both Stalin and Hitler, while the German people were (mostly) willing participants in Hitler's deeds, makes his decision easier to digest on Monday morning. Edited March 27, 2008 by Fairweather Quote
StevenSeagal Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 ...the side that gassed it's own people including children. In fact we sold them the gas if I recall. Doug has asked that you substantiate this outrageous claim. I heard that a young George W. Bush was the courier in fact! Quote
Fairweather Posted March 27, 2008 Author Posted March 27, 2008 ...the side that gassed it's own people including children. In fact we sold them the gas if I recall. 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. Quote
Fairweather Posted March 27, 2008 Author Posted March 27, 2008 This is Spray, Sobo. Don't go actin' all indignant n' shit. Quote
StevenSeagal Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 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. Quote
StevenSeagal Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 ...the side that gassed it's own people including children. In fact we sold them the gas if I recall. 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. Quote
Bug Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 Oh yeah, and wasn't there some coke involved? (I'm 49 now). Quote
Fairweather Posted March 27, 2008 Author Posted March 27, 2008 (edited) 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. 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. Edited March 27, 2008 by Fairweather Quote
Bug Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 So while we were in the process of incarcerating the largest influx of citizens ever for mere posession, the man who is now our president was crammin that stuff up his nose. Are any of those other guys out yet? Wonder how that affected their lives? "Libtard"; a word used by idiots who think the multi-party system should be abolished and republicans should rule like corporate fascists. Oh wait, that happened. Quote
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.