posted on January 12, 2007 02:14:10 PM new
Once again Linda is trying to re-write history to fit her own agenda. Just because Linda does not like the source I used to back up my argument, she DENIES what took place during the Reagan administration. The FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. If Linda would bother to do her own research she will see that what was presented above ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE.
It would appear as if Linda has been living in alternate reality for the past 25 years now.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on January 12, 2007 02:37:35 PM new
"Desquirrel, I see that you conveniently ignored the fact that the US enabled Saddam for years by sending him money and arms."
I "ignored" nothing. As I said, a major policy of the last 50 yrs is containing Iran. With the Shah gone we had to use Iraq.
"An American military base will never be accepted in the Middle East. They only encourage terrorism and insurgency and don't belong there at all."
There are many of them there now already. Do you get newspapers up there/
logansdad...my recommendation to you would be to re-read the link you provided from fox news.
It's MY opinion that you're reading something into it that's just NOT there.
But I expect that from you.....it's what you always tend to do.
Re-read the ACTUAL words only. Don't add ANYTHING like reading between the lines...or adding what you THINK it says.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 12, 2007 04:54:31 PM new
Thank you, Logansdad. 'How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons' was an interesting read.
Desquirrel, I never said there were no bases there. These countries do not approve of an American presence on their soil and consider it an occupation and interference in their own policies. The fact that they are there just causes more trouble and fuels terrorism.
posted on January 12, 2007 05:01:49 PM new
Linda_k, besides the fact I wasn't here today because I worked I didn't see that you had addressed me personally with any question because my name was not mentioned. Your rudeness is sometimes tolerated as I consider it a product of low breeding and I recognize that you seem to lack the desire to improve yourself.
Other times such as this it is best to ignore any questions by you when accompanied with such rudeness because any answer I attempt to give will send you into a further rage with even more insults towards me. Hopefully you understand my position and realize that I have control over which questions I respond to, not you.
posted on January 12, 2007 05:03:02 PM new
I guess Linda does not understand what the US involvement with Iraq was under the Reagan Administration. She fails to see the following:
According to the senior officials, who asked not to be identified, Reagan, Vice President George Bush and senior military officials supported the program that had more than 60 DIA officers essentially working for Iraq, giving Baghdad detailed information on Iranian strengths and troop deployments, tactical planning, airstrike plans and damage assessment. That support never wavered even though the administration knew that Iraq was using mustard gas, sarin and VX against Iranian soldiers.
She calls the NYT treason but yet the Fox News story confirmed some of the same information.
Additional she blames the NYT article for using unnamed officials, but the Fox News article above does the same thing and she does not have a problem with it. What a hypocrite.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on January 12, 2007 05:06:48 PM newWith the Shah gone we had to use Iraq.
At least dusquirel is admitting Saddam was a pawn used by the US. Are you also admitting that is was right for Iraq to use the chemical weapons as the Regan administration did nothing but continue to support Iraq as long as it achieved Reagan's objectives?
As I stated before, you righties wonder why Saddam did not trust the US and why the Middle East hates us like they do.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on January 12, 2007 07:14:17 PM new
kiara...please do your whining to someone who might feel sorry for you.
I don't..never have...and believe you haven't a CLUE about most of our American politics.
Your opinions mean NOTHING to me....they're NOT based in FACT.
==============
gee logansdad.....I sure don't see ONE mention in your now bolded piece that says we gave chemical weapons to saddam/Iraq - or that we APPROVED of him to using them on his own people....or his enemies.
You obviously have a tough time grasping that though.
YOUR problem....not mine. I know what we did...obviously you need to 'make it up'....according to what you want to believe.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 12, 2007 07:34:58 PM new
"That support never wavered even though the administration knew that Iraq was using mustard gas, sarin and VX against Iranian soldiers."
If 2 people rob a bank and one of the robbers shoots and kills a teller, they will both be charged with felony murder, even though only one of them pulled the trigger. If the US supported someone they knew to be using chemical weapons on his own people or enemies, it is no different than supplying the chemicals. You seem to have a tough time grasping that.
posted on January 12, 2007 07:40:09 PM new
no, coincoach I just have a great deal of disgust for those who are so quick to 'blame America first' club....because they refuse to look at the whole picture.
What in the world do you think the U.S. went to war with Iraq in 1990 over???
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 12, 2007 08:13:55 PM new
The reasons the Bush 41 administration gave for Iraq 1990 changed several times (family trait, I guess). Take your pick.
posted on January 12, 2007 08:14:40 PM new
That certainly wasn't any whine from me, lindak as my style would never reflect yours.
Since my opinions mean nothing to you perhaps you can refrain from commenting on them or asking me any further questions, hopefully realizing that I control how I choose to post and not you. If you find difficulty with this as you have in the past may I once again suggest the ignore button.
posted on January 12, 2007 11:35:26 PM new
So the whack pack thinks we should be "sorry" for supporting Iraq against Iran?
Yeah, I'm real sorry we aided a sawdust caesar to defeat an enemy who attacked US nationals and invaded his country. And no, there is no problem with taking out said caesar who got delusions of grandeur later either. He would still be in power if he was a good little doggie and didn't try to become the areas new Hitler.
posted on January 13, 2007 12:13:20 AM newAnd no, there is no problem with taking out said caesar who got delusions of grandeur later either. He would still be in power if he was a good little doggie and didn't try to become the areas new Hitler.
Seems like 70% agree that Bush got way too many delusions of grandeur by his second term when he named himself the decider so has lost a lot of his power now since he was figuratively taken out a month or so ago.
posted on January 13, 2007 05:49:41 AM new
The point of my post, is that prevarication seems to be the main talent of the Bush administrations (41 & 43). They think If they hide the truth they can do whatever they want. Apparently, it works. Did not mention support or non-support of a country or person.
Edited to add: I am not a big fan of most politicians -Dem or Republican- and realize that they all tend to mislead or lie at some point. Some are just so much better at it.
posted on January 13, 2007 07:43:09 AM newgee logansdad.....I sure don't see ONE mention in your now bolded piece that says we gave chemical weapons to saddam/Iraq - or that we APPROVED of him to using them on his own people....or his enemies.
You read what you want to read Linda.
Never did I post anything that said we gave CHEMICAL weapons to IRAQ. That is what you wanted it to say. I said the US did give Iraq weapons. There is a difference beatween weapons and chemical weapons.
Secondly, I pointed out that Iraq used chemical weapons on his enemies and the US stood by and did nothing and still continued to support him.
What do you not understand about this: There is no doubt that the US government knew Iraq was using chemical weapons. On March 5, 1984, the State Department had stated that "available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons". The March 30, 1984, NYT reported that US intelligence officials has "what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has used nerve gas in its war with Iran and has almost finished extensive sites for mass producing the lethal chemical warfare agent".
However, consistent with the pattern throughout the Iran-Iraq war and after, the use of these internationally outlawed weapons was not considered important enough by Rumsfeld and his political superiors to halt Washington's blossoming love affair with Hussein
In typical Republican style Reagan was a hypocrite. He was helping terrorists - Saddam/Iraq but then preaching "A message to terrorists everywhere, you can run but you can not hide".
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
