About Us

jps

https://www.facebook.com/CulturesOfR...type=1&theater

F*O*A*D

On 4/13/14, 2:54 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 11:39:32 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

The Iran-Contra affair was the Reagan Administration's. Period.

I agree it was all Reagan's doing. I am also not sure how terrible it
actually was. We gave Iran weapons to wage war against Saddam Hussein
... but I assume you liked Saddam.
You saw no value in us tossing him out..
Clearly Israel thought Saddam was a bigger threat to them than the
Ayatollah was, since they brokered the weapons deal with Iran and made
money on it.. That is also why we eventually went after Saddam so
Israel wouldn't do it.
That was the scandal that never came to light.

Oh, right. Sure.

F*O*A*D

On 4/13/14, 3:50 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 15:22:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/13/14, 2:54 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 11:39:32 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

The Iran-Contra affair was the Reagan Administration's. Period.

I agree it was all Reagan's doing. I am also not sure how terrible it
actually was. We gave Iran weapons to wage war against Saddam Hussein
... but I assume you liked Saddam.
You saw no value in us tossing him out..
Clearly Israel thought Saddam was a bigger threat to them than the
Ayatollah was, since they brokered the weapons deal with Iran and made
money on it.. That is also why we eventually went after Saddam so
Israel wouldn't do it.
That was the scandal that never came to light.

Oh, right. Sure.

Again, what part was wrong?

It was wrong to give arms to the Iranians. That part was wrong.

Our invasion of Iraq and deposing of Saddam Hussein was built on
Bush-Cheney bull****.

Mr. Luddite

On 4/13/2014 3:50 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 15:22:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/13/14, 2:54 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 11:39:32 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

The Iran-Contra affair was the Reagan Administration's. Period.

I agree it was all Reagan's doing. I am also not sure how terrible it
actually was. We gave Iran weapons to wage war against Saddam Hussein
... but I assume you liked Saddam.
You saw no value in us tossing him out..
Clearly Israel thought Saddam was a bigger threat to them than the
Ayatollah was, since they brokered the weapons deal with Iran and made
money on it.. That is also why we eventually went after Saddam so
Israel wouldn't do it.
That was the scandal that never came to light.

Oh, right. Sure.

Again, what part was wrong?

Part of the history revisionists (like Harry) have is they like to
relate to an event that happened 30 years or so ago under a completely
different set of circumstances and global issues to something that is
going on today. Simplistic, but that's how Wishy-Washy, Never-Never
Land liberals think.

F*O*A*D

On 4/13/14, 4:18 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/13/2014 3:50 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 15:22:43 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/13/14, 2:54 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 11:39:32 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

The Iran-Contra affair was the Reagan Administration's. Period.

I agree it was all Reagan's doing. I am also not sure how terrible it
actually was. We gave Iran weapons to wage war against Saddam Hussein
... but I assume you liked Saddam.
You saw no value in us tossing him out..
Clearly Israel thought Saddam was a bigger threat to them than the
Ayatollah was, since they brokered the weapons deal with Iran and made
money on it.. That is also why we eventually went after Saddam so
Israel wouldn't do it.
That was the scandal that never came to light.

Oh, right. Sure.

Again, what part was wrong?

Part of the history revisionists (like Harry) have is they like to
relate to an event that happened 30 years or so ago under a completely
different set of circumstances and global issues to something that is
going on today. Simplistic, but that's how Wishy-Washy, Never-Never
Land liberals think.

I'm not revising anything. Reagan and his gang broke a serious law, sold
weapons to the Iranians, and used the proceeds to bolster murderous
right-wing extremists in Nicaragua. Reagan, George H.W. Bush, et al,
lied to Congress and the American people about this, and, of course,
that traitor Oliver North was implicated up to his eyeballs.

That's not "revisionism," that's what happened.

F*O*A*D

On 4/14/14, 12:23 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:01:23 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/14/14, 10:54 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 06:29:15 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

I certainly prefer Mrs. Clinton as POTUS to any of the GOP clowns and
crazies. Your assumption the Israelis might have attacked Iraq back then
is nothing more than conjecture.

Israel did attack Iraq, Lebanon and Syria so it was not only possible
but the most likely scenario.
They also had no problems murdering anyone who ****ed them off.

I know what Israel *did*. *You* were trying to convince all that if we
hadn't attacked Iraq, Israel would have, for sure. That's the position
of an absurdist.

What is absurd is you ignoring, not only what they did but what they
threaten they are going to do in the future.
With the Israelis, the military option is always a reality.
Unfortunately we end up sharing the blame when Israel embarks on one
of these misadventures and if they ever do get in over their head we
will be drawn in.

There's no question Israel is a pugnacious state. If it were otherwise,
it would have ceased to exist after declaring itself in the late 1940s.

That being said, your claim that Israel would have attacked Iraq if we
hadn't at the time in question is nothing more than conjecture and in
this case, a forecast in reverse.

What Israel claims it may do in the future does not tell you what it may
have done at the time in question.

Israel is a firm and longtime ally of the United States.
Thanks to President Jimmy Carter, Israel and its most powerful former
enemy, Egypt, are at peace and will remain so. I don't see an Arab state
landwar against Israel sans Egypt.

If the Iranians start lobbing missiles at Israel and they do serious
damage to the population, it is likely Iran will cease to exist as a
nation, a move that, of course, would please Russia, since Iran is a
client state of the latter.

F*O*A*D

On 4/14/14, 4:03 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:42:06 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

That being said, your claim that Israel would have attacked Iraq if we
hadn't at the time in question is nothing more than conjecture and in
this case, a forecast in reverse.

Maybe you should just set the way back machine to 2002-03 and see what
THEY were saying they were going to do. Although we did not make a big
deal of it, a lot of the intelligence about WMD was coming from
Mossad.

Everybody engages in saber rattling. You have no way of knowing what the
Israelis would have don

F*O*A*D

On 4/14/14, 4:48 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 16:06:57 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 4/14/14, 4:03 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:42:06 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

That being said, your claim that Israel would have attacked Iraq if we
hadn't at the time in question is nothing more than conjecture and in
this case, a forecast in reverse.

Maybe you should just set the way back machine to 2002-03 and see what
THEY were saying they were going to do. Although we did not make a big
deal of it, a lot of the intelligence about WMD was coming from
Mossad.

Everybody engages in saber rattling. You have no way of knowing what the
Israelis would have don

You are certainly a great apologist for them but what they have done
and what they say they will do is pretty compelling.

They have been pretty successful in getting us to do their dirty work
for the last 2 decades so who knows. As long as we have neocons like
Schumer, McCain and Hillary Clinton around I doubt they will have to
do anything.

I'm not apologizing. I am stating a fact: you do not know what the
Israelis might have done...you're just guessing.

F*O*A*D

On 4/14/14, 5:19 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:11:04 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

I'm not apologizing. I am stating a fact: you do not know what the
Israelis might have done...you're just guessing.

Not any more than you guessing what McCain or Romney might have done
and you seem to be a regular Nostradamus about that.

Right, because we know McCain and Romney care a lot about the lower and
middle income groups. For me, the scariest part of McCain was his
running mate, Bat**** Crazy Sarah Palin.

H*a*r*r*o*l*d

On 4/14/2014 4:06 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 4/14/14, 4:03 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:42:06 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

That being said, your claim that Israel would have attacked Iraq if we
hadn't at the time in question is nothing more than conjecture and in
this case, a forecast in reverse.

Maybe you should just set the way back machine to 2002-03 and see what
THEY were saying they were going to do. Although we did not make a big
deal of it, a lot of the intelligence about WMD was coming from
Mossad.

Everybody engages in saber rattling. You have no way of knowing what the
Israelis would have don

I doubt the Israelis would have Don.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Good for a laugh	jps	General	33	October 24th 11 04:46 PM
Need a good laugh?	Harryk	General	29	July 1st 11 06:08 PM
What makes a good Democrat laugh...	HK	General	8	May 5th 09 08:27 PM
Good laugh - must read	Roger Long	Cruising	1	September 30th 06 03:03 PM
yesterday, sauces laugh among good houses, unless they're blank	Alvin	ASA	0	April 22nd 05 01:11 PM

Menu

About Us