10
   

Where does the US(Obama) get OFF Denying Countries UN Ambassadors Access To UN?

 
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 12:24 pm
@hawkeye10,
Considering the incredible disconnects from reality we see here at a2k, Hawk, I'm beginning to wonder if y'all are at all able to understand English.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 12:36 pm
The answer here is clear.....the US must be told that if it wants to continue to hold the honor of hosting the UN it must agree that the UN's diplomats will not be barred from attending functions at UN HQ. the only exceptions will be after the US obtains an indictment against individuals from the court in the Hague.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 12:36 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
What do you think all the right wing nutjobs would be saying if he'd been given a visa
Were do you get your information? Reports have it that every D voted to deny this visa.


How does that impact on what I said? Are Fox News, Rush Limbaugh et al up in arms demanding he be allowed in?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 12:41 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
ow does that impact on what I said
You are painting this as a D/R issue, which it is not. You are lying.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 12:43 pm
@hawkeye10,
You're the one who puts Obama down for everything, just because he's Obama. Lots of false outrage, if he'd given him a visa you'd have started a thread about why that was a bad thing.

JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 12:45 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
e only exceptions will be after the US obtains an indictment against individuals from the court in the Hague.


How can you even mention that without feeling incredible shame, Hawkeye? The USA makes a mockery of justice and the rule of law.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 12:48 pm
@izzythepush,
And you are the one defending Obama the war criminal and terrorist, Izzy. And you mock Hawk from your perch on your donkey.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 12:48 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

You're the one who puts Obama down for everything, just because he's Obama. Lots of false outrage, if he'd given him a visa you'd have started a thread about why that was a bad thing.




Accusations are cheap. Where is your evidence?

I am clearly arguing pro justice, not anti Obama. But then I get accused of being pro rapist and pro child abuser when I argue for justice in sex crime cases, so this twaddle of yours is not new to me.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 01:04 pm
@hawkeye10,
Your posts are evidence enough, whatever Obama does, you say it's bad. Why not provide a link to a post you've made where you say Obama did something right for once?

At least posters like Coldjoint are honest about their political motivation. You claim to be a Socialist, but have yet to post anything remotely so. You often echo the Nazis when you say "retards" should be forcibly sterilised. That's what they started out saying.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 01:07 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:

Your posts are evidence enough, whatever Obama does, you say it's bad


Even if what you say about Hawkeye is true, izzy, what Obama is doing is bad.

How has that escaped you, you little coward?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 01:36 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I am clearly arguing pro justice, not anti Obama.


Why does your pro justice stand fail you completely when it comes to the USA, Hawk?

Quote:

But then I get accused of being pro rapist and pro child abuser when I argue for justice in ... .


And I get accused of being anti-American for just wanting the USA to be what it is supposed to be, not what it really is.

Why didn't you address these things here in this thread instead of taking it to Boomer's thread? I told you you are a coward. You never seemed to be in the past. What has caused this change in you?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 01:39 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Lots of false outrage, if he'd given him a visa you'd have started a thread about why that was a bad thing.


that's funny - we were just talking about that - that the thread would be the opposite if that's what Obama had done
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 01:47 pm
@ehBeth,
Who is "we", Beth, you and mr fair?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 01:54 pm
@hawkeye10,
The thread,

"CIA Torture Report Leaked - NOW WE KNOW WHAT'S BEING DONE IN OUR NAME"

was started by Bobsal on April 11, Hawk. No responses. Why?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2014 10:37 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
The trouble with Schumer's statement is that he knows better than to imply that we were on the side of the angels in the hostage crisis.

I see no cause for shame in what we did.


Advocate wrote:
We propped up our puppet dictator, the Shah, for self-serving reasons. We even put him in power when we helped depose his predecessor, who was democratically elected.

The US played a small role in that revolution. The people mainly responsible for putting the Shah in power were the very same Islamic clerics who later deposed him in 1979.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2014 01:45 am
@hawkeye10,
Still no link to anything positive you've said about Obama. You've just proven my point.

Chickenlittle wrote:
If the Chinese are on the ball they will offer to host, and will promise that they will never pull this BS.


This shows that you just don't think before you post anything. The air quality in China is appalling, nobody would want to stay there long term if they could avoid it. My daughter is there right now, the rain is orangey brown, and stinks. If you get caught in the rain your clothes need to be washed straight away.

And the part of China she is staying in is considered the least polluted.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2014 07:32 am
@oralloy,
Oralboy the ignorant liar.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2014 08:23 pm
@oralloy,
You said:

The US played a small role in that revolution. The people mainly responsible for putting the Shah in power were the very same Islamic clerics who later deposed him in 1979.


That is pure BS.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2014 08:58 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:

The history of America's relationship with Iran illustrates the distance between the claim that we stand for democracy and freedom throughout the world and what the U.S. actually does when that principle is stacked up against another interest: controlling the spigot of the world's oil supply. In 1953 the U.S. toppled Iran's popular prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, putting the Shah of Iran firmly in control. By 1979 our support of the Shah had turned most Iranians into bitter enemies of the United States. They chased him out of power and installed a fundamentalist Muslim regime that bedevils us to this day.

The reason the U.S. toppled the Mossadegh regime boils down to one word, the same word that governs most of our policy in the region: oil. When Mossadegh became prime minister, Iran had one-quarter of the world's proven oil reserves. And yet his country received more income from the sale of its carpets abroad than from its petroleum. The British Empire held a controlling interest in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), and they were not shy about exerting that control.

When Britain assumed control of AIOC in 1913, Iran's share of royalties was 16%, and was based only on the sale of its crude, not on the more profitable refining business. The Iranian government was never allowed to audit the books to ensure they were getting a fair deal, nor were any Iranians involved in the management of the company. Even the drinking fountains-on Iranian soil-were marked "not for Iranians."

But by 1951 the Saudis had cut a deal for a 50-50 split of the profits for the jointly owned company with the U.S., and a similar arrangement had been made in Venezuela. The British, however, were unwilling to go quite that far-until it was too late. When negotiations bogged down, the Iranian legislature voted to nationalize the AIOC. Mossadegh was then swept into office on a wave of nationalist fervor, determined to use oil revenue to construct highways and railroads and improve the educational system.

The Iranian prime minister offered Britain compensation, including a continuing 25% of net profits, as well as retention of all British employees. His Majesty's government responded with a threatening flotilla of gunboats, followed by an economic blockade and a boycott of all Iranian oil products, enforced by oil companies worldwide. Rather than modernizing his country, Mossadegh presided over its decline into chaos.

As the crisis deepened, both Iran and Britain turned to the U.S. for assistance. The Truman Administration was uninterested in helping the British get their oil company back, but when Dwight Eisenhower became president in 1953, his secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, saw Iran as yet another pawn in the Cold War. Iran's communist party, the Tudeh, received little support from Moscow, and was illegal in Iran. But Dulles saw Mossadegh as insufficiently keen to suppress the Tudeh, and feared the economic decline caused by the British boycott might strengthen the party's hand. Then, too, Dulles and his brother Allen (head of the CIA) were also corporate lawyers who represented a number called the Shah a "miserable wretch," and announced that "it will be difficult for us to tolerate you much longer.... The nation will not allow you to continue this way." Predictably, the Shah had Khomeini arrested, and just as predictably, the streets of Iran's cities erupted in fury. In three days of rioting, 86 people were killed, and it took martial law to restore order. Though the Shah would sit on the Peacock Throne for sixteen more years, this was the beginning of the end for him. Ironically, his U.S.-backed purge of leftists and centrists left open no other avenue for dissent besides Islamic militancy.

Khomeini challenged his authority again the following year, denouncing a treaty which allowed U.S. citizens immunity from Iranian laws. For this affront, the Ayatollah was sent into exile in neighboring Iraq. There he continued to spread the word of militant Islam through writings and audiocassettes, widely distributed in his homeland.

Shah Reza Pahlavi entered a downward cycle of ever greater repression of the Iranian people, which stirred up ever more opposition to his rule. By 1976, Amnesty International announced that Iran had the worst human rights record on Earth, no small distinction on this particular planet. The secret police, SAVAK, trained by Israel and supplied by the U.S., were infamous for the use of torture and assassination. And meanwhile the Shah's personal corruption grew ever more blatant. Iran's vast oil wealth was squandered on palaces and ceremonies, used to enrich a small class of cronies and collaborators, and funneled into massive weapons purchases from the U.S.

READ ON AT,

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zepezauer_Mark/Iran_Boomerang.html
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Apr, 2014 09:00 pm
@Advocate,
You've been warned many times of oralloy's lying nature, Advocate, but you defended him many times just because he supports your delusion about Israel.
 

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 04/26/2024 at 01:02:37