1
   

US policy toward Genocide

 
 
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 09:10 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;30347 wrote:
Maybe because every other post from you is about whitey?Don't flater your self, even though your good at it. tell me something, if you didn't wear it on your sleeve how would we know? I agree that your more rooted in being black then being gay.Obsession is your plight with whitey.Black gay men are really important in our society, where else would we get our soul from?Sounds like a quran is in your future, maybe you can study with PW?


Better to be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 09:44 am
@aaronssongs,
aaronssongs;30355 wrote:
Better to be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt


D-Man is an intelligent, polite, patriotic American and responsible poster here. He's one our heroes. Good job, D-Man. I back you 100%.:thumbup:
scooby-doo cv
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 10:31 am
@Pinochet73,
Pinochet73;30365 wrote:
D-Man is an intelligent, polite, patriotic American and responsible poster here. He's one our heroes. Good job, D-Man. I back you 100%.:thumbup:


he keeps getting obama's religion wrong,on purpose,i wonder why ?
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 10:54 am
@Pinochet73,
Pinochet73;30365 wrote:
D-Man is an intelligent, polite, patriotic American and responsible poster here. He's one our heroes. Good job, D-Man. I back you 100%.:thumbup:


Better to be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt
0 Replies
 
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 10:57 am
@scooby-doo cv,
scooby-doo;30397 wrote:
he keeps getting obama's religion wrong,on purpose,i wonder why ?


It's that racism, rearing its' ugly head. Again.
Romney's a Mormon...but haven't heard a peep about that, up in here.
Wonder why?
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 02:30 pm
@scooby-doo cv,
scooby-doo;30397 wrote:
he keeps getting obama's religion wrong,on purpose,i wonder why ?


Yeah....but I keep getting yours right, you Commie gulag guard, you.Very Happy
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 02:34 pm
@aaronssongs,
aaronssongs;30408 wrote:
It's that racism, rearing its' ugly head. Again.
Romney's a Mormon...but haven't heard a peep about that, up in here.
Wonder why?


D-Man is not a racist, Aaron. Neither am I. Anytime anybody runs for public office, he's ripe for the picking. That comes with the territory. Everybody gets roughed up and probed in every orifice. Romney will not be the Repub candidate. Obama will be the next VP. How does that fact fit into your analysis? :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 03:38 pm
@Pinochet73,
Pinochet73;30443 wrote:
Yeah....but I keep getting yours right, you Commie gulag guard, you.Very Happy


Isn't that a personal attack>? I thought we were getting off personal attacks....guess its' more "preachin' to the choir"
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 03:44 pm
@Pinochet73,
Pinochet73;30445 wrote:
D-Man is not a racist, Aaron. Neither am I. Anytime anybody runs for public office, he's ripe for the picking. That comes with the territory. Everybody gets roughed up and probed in every orifice. Romney will not be the Repub candidate. Obama will be the next VP. How does that fact fit into your analysis? :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:


That remains to be seen...or let me just say, I haven't seen an evidence to the contrary.
Obama will not be the next VP...America may be ready for a woman president...it, however is not ready for a black president or VP...just look at some of the responses on this site....and you honestly believe that race doesn't matter in the US? stop drinking the kool-aid.
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 07:36 pm
@aaronssongs,
aaronssongs;30463 wrote:
Isn't that a personal attack>? I thought we were getting off personal attacks....guess its' more "preachin' to the choir"


It was a joke, Aaron.:FU1: :FU1: :FU1: :FU1: :FU1: :FU1:
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 07:38 pm
@aaronssongs,
aaronssongs;30464 wrote:
That remains to be seen...or let me just say, I haven't seen an evidence to the contrary.
Obama will not be the next VP...America may be ready for a woman president...it, however is not ready for a black president or VP...just look at some of the responses on this site....and you honestly believe that race doesn't matter in the US? stop drinking the kool-aid.


Of course it matters, which explains why he's going to be our next VP. A 'first woman, first Black' combo theme like that will prove irresistable to minorities and most female voters. Just watch.:p :p :p :p :p
0 Replies
 
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 08:07 pm
@Pinochet73,
Pinochet73;30487 wrote:
It was a joke, Aaron.:FU1: :FU1: :FU1: :FU1: :FU1: :FU1:


Really? It wasn't preceded by, "this is a joke"....so it was an attack...and you should be receiving an infraction, if the administrators were dealing equitably...but since they're not....I pointed out...so sue me.
politically-wrong
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 03:25 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;30347 wrote:
Maybe because every other post from you is about whitey?Don't flater your self, even though your good at it. tell me something, if you didn't wear it on your sleeve how would we know? I agree that your more rooted in being black then being gay.Obsession is your plight with whitey.Black gay men are really important in our society, where else would we get our soul from?Sounds like a quran is in your future, maybe you can study with PW?


I would be glad to be of help to any one, but i never get into snowball fights, till this one is over keep me out of it.
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 04:48 am
@aaronssongs,
aaronssongs;30496 wrote:
Really? It wasn't preceded by, "this is a joke"....so it was an attack...and you should be receiving an infraction, if the administrators were dealing equitably...but since they're not....I pointed out...so sue me.


Get a life. You have way too much time on your hands.:no: :no: :no: :no:
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 05:11 am
@Pinochet73,
Pinochet73;30513 wrote:
Get a life. You have way too much time on your hands.:no: :no: :no: :no:


Jealous? I never met such a hater. And must you resort to placing smilies on all your posts? I thought you were an adult "man'.
0 Replies
 
tvsej
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 08:38 am
@aaronssongs,
Main article: US support of Iraq in the war between Iraq-Iran


When your finished reading this copy the link below.
History of Iran: Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement



The United States had been wary of the Islamic Republic of Iran since the Iranian Revolution, not least because of the kidnapping of its Tehran embassy staff in the 1979-81 Iran hostage crisis. According to former Iranian president, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, shortly after the 1979 revolution Americans, Israelis, Iranian royalists at a secret meeting in Paris drew up a plan to invade Iran. Soviets then obtained a copy of the plan and sold it to Iran through intermediaries for $200,000. According to Robert Parry there was a secret encouragement by the US administration (President Jimmy Carter, conveyed through Saudi Arabia) which was embroiled in a dispute with the new Islamic Republic of Iran. In the words of Alexander Haig, secretary of state from 1981, "It was also interesting to confirm that President Carter gave the Iraqis a green light to launch the war against Iran through Fahd."
Starting in 1981, both Iran and Iraq attacked oil tankers and merchant ships, including those of neutral nations, in an effort to deprive the opponent of trade. After repeated Iraqi attacks on Iran's main exporting facility on Khark Island, Iran attacked a Kuwaiti tanker near Bahrain on May 13, 1984, and a Saudi tanker in Saudi waters on May 16. Attacks on ships of noncombatant nations in the Persian Gulf sharply increased thereafter, and this phase of the war was dubbed the "Tanker War."
In 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and also supplying weapons. President Ronald Reagan decided that the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran." President Reagan formalized this policy by issuing a National Security Decision Directive ("NSDD") to this effect in June, 1982.
Lloyd's of London, a British insurance market, estimated that the Tanker War damaged 546 commercial vessels and killed about 430 civilian mariners. The largest of attacks were directed by Iran against Kuwaiti vessels, and on November 1, 1986, Kuwait formally petitioned foreign powers to protect its shipping. The Soviet Union agreed to charter tankers starting in 1987, and the United States offered to provide protection for tankers flying the U.S. flag on March 7, 1987 (Operation Earnest Will and Operation Prime Chance). Under international law, an attack on such ships would be treated as an attack on the U.S., allowing the U.S. to retaliate militarily. This support would protect ships headed to Iraqi ports, effectively guaranteeing Iraq's revenue stream for the duration of the war.
An Iraqi plane attacked the USS Stark (FFG 31), a Perry class frigate on May 17, killing 37 and injuring 21. However, U.S. attention was focused on isolating Iran; it criticized Iran's mining of international waters, and sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 598, which passed unanimously on July 20, under which it skirmished with Iranian forces. In Operation Nimble Archer in October 1987, the U.S. attacked Iranian oil platforms in retaliation for an Iranian attack on the U.S.-flagged Kuwaiti tanker Sea Isle City.
On April 14, 1988, the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts was badly damaged by an Iranian mine. U.S. forces responded with Operation Praying Mantis on April 18, the United States Navy's largest engagement of surface warships since World War II. Two Iranian ships were destroyed, and an American helicopter crashed, killing the two pilots.
In the course of these escorts by the U.S. Navy, the cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 with the loss of all 290 passengers and crew on July 3, 1988. The American government claimed that the airliner had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, and that the Vincennes was operating in international waters at the time and feared that it was under attack. The Iranians, however, maintain that the Vincennes was in fact in Iranian territorial waters, and that the Iranian passenger jet was turning away and increasing altitude after take-off. U.S. Admiral William J. Crowe also admitted on Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters (as defined by Iran) when it launched the missiles. The U.S. eventually paid compensation for the incident ($131,800,000), but never apologized.
According to an investigation conducted by ABC News' Nightline, decoys were set during the war by the US Navy inside the Persian Gulf to lure out the Iranian gunboats and destroy them, and at the time USS Vincennes shot down the Iranian airline, it was performing such an operation.

The proof is there Pino... see the photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands in the pictures forum
0 Replies
 
tvsej
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 08:52 am
@aaronssongs,
I wasn't able to attach the picture it said invalid file. Oh well you can see at the link I provided.


Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam Hussien on 19 December - 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984; the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 09:03 am
@tvsej,
tvsej;30546 wrote:
I wasn't able to attach the picture it said invalid file. Oh well you can see at the link I provided.


Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam Hussien on 19 December - 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984; the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."


Tvsej,
You can bring "the proof", and they will still disbelieve...It's not about "the truth", anyway...it's about mantra...."If I say it so many times and so many ways, it will become truth"...it's the way of the Republican party, since the days of Ronald Reagan....."tell them what to think, and they will eventually think it came from their own minds"....It's called "indoctrination" using propaganda and subliminal messaging.
It's 1984", but "for real". What is scary, is some people think that this is okay, and are in fact rushing to jump off the cliff.
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 09:09 am
@tvsej,
tvsej;30546 wrote:
I wasn't able to attach the picture it said invalid file. Oh well you can see at the link I provided.


Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam Hussien on 19 December - 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984; the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."


Puh-leeze! They had videotape of Rodney King's ass being beat down, by at least 4 L.A.policemen, and the police were practically exonerated. A picture doesn't mean a damn thing. Reality doesn't count, only perception counts.
tvsej
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 09:17 am
@aaronssongs,
aaronssongs;30547 wrote:
Tvsej,
You can bring "the proof", and they will still disbelieve...It's not about "the truth", anyway...it's about mantra...."If say it so many times and so many ways, it will become truth"...it's the way of the Republican party, since the days of Ronald Reagan....."tell them what to think, and they will eventually think it came from their own minds"....It's called "indoctrination" using propaganda and subliminal messaging.
It's 1984", but "for real". What is scary, is some people think that this is okay, and are in fact rushing to jump off the cliff.


Yeah I have a real problem with ignoring a challenge, he asked for proof, I said I had some... if they don't believe it I can still rest easy because I did what I said I would do. I am not one of those people who are all talk and no action.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 09:36:27