 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Craig
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 4:22 am Post subject: Re: subject |
 |
|
| Marine's Wife wrote: | Craig/Sparky, you can attack me all you want. I can take it. I may be THROWN off the board but YOU won't drive me away. Got it? Don't you DARE disrespect my grandson,you ignorant pieces of crap! You're not fit to discuss my grandson! You sit on your A-- and imagine yourself fit to judge the Military. YOU are not fit to lick their boots.You are EXACTLY the kind of rejects Kerry draws,and just for the record, save your "kisses".I wouldn't let you kiss my A-- !  |
When you chose a topic to discuss it is up to you to decide if what you bring up is fit for another to discuss. You wanted to carry on about your grandson and the media saying something that did not make a bit of sense to me so I questioned it.
Now you are having a conniption and I suppose I am supposed to be all nicy nice while you who seem to claim to be female act belligerent as all get out.
Well, I am one who figures that women got equal rights and all that. So don't expect me to KA when you want to have a fit.
If you wish to be treated with respect then don't un-earn it by posing a snottier attitude than you are willing to put up with in return. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | 1. Iraq was a "buddy" only so far as they contained Iran and fundamentalism. When they failed in that, they weren't a buddy anymore.
2. US support to Iraq consisted primarily of Intelligence data, nothing more. The rest of the claims are spin.
3. Iraq was a Soviet supported state. Hussein could get and did get all the military armaments he desired from the Soviets (although they would not give him WMDs).
4. Saddam wasn't given the green light to attack Kuwait by anyone. That is a lovely bit of spin that completely ignores not only the actual words used in the meeting in question, but the cultural realities of the Middle East. |
Iraq was also our Buddy because they were in OUR camp and not the Soviet's. We also liked buying Iraqi oil. And there hasn't been a dictator or junta the US has supported that didn't give us a short-term gain or advantage without blowback -- often worse blowback -- in the long run.
From The National Security Archive:
1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)
Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.
One of these directives from Reagan, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 99, signed on July 12, 1983, is available only in a highly redacted version [Document 21]. It reviews U.S. regional interests in the Middle East and South Asia, and U.S. objectives, including peace between Israel and the Arabs, resolution of other regional conflicts, and economic and military improvements, "to strengthen regional stability." It deals with threats to the U.S., strategic planning, cooperation with other countries, including the Arab states, and plans for action. An interdepartmental review of the implications of shifting policy in favor of Iraq was conducted following promulgation of the directive.
Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons.
Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting.
Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests." Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration's "willingness to do more" regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but "made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights." He then moved on to other U.S. concerns [Document 32]. Later, Rumsfeld was assured by the U.S. interests section that Iraq's leadership had been "extremely pleased" with the visit, and that "Tariq Aziz had gone out of his way to praise Rumsfeld as a person"
Former Reagan administration National Security Council staff member Howard Teicher says that after Ronald Reagan signed a national security decision directive calling for the U.S. to do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq's defeat in the Iran-Iraq war, Director of Central Intelligence William Casey personally led efforts to ensure that Iraq had sufficient weapons, including cluster bombs, and that the U.S. provided Iraq with financial credits, intelligence, and strategic military advice. The CIA also provided Iraq, through third parties that included Israel and Egypt, with military hardware compatible with its Soviet-origin weaponry.
--------- end pastes -----
As for April Glaspie, I don't believe it was deliberate. Just stupid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
waltjones
PO2
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 392
Location: 'bout 40 miles north of Seattle
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 4:46 am Post subject: Start yopur own topic! |
|
|
Are you Kerry hacks (you know who you are) off topic, or what? Sheesh! If I want to see your BS, I'll go on over to moveon. Then again, thanks for keeping Kerry's band of brothers picture at the top of the list! Thatisall ....
_________________
Walt Jones (USMC, '65 - '69) It says much about the person who defends a man with no honor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marine's Wife
PO3
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 267
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 5:05 am Post subject: subject |
|
|
"When you chose a topic to discuss it is up to you to decide if what you bring up is fit for another to discuss. You wanted to carry on about your grandson and the media saying something that did not make a bit of sense to me so I questioned it.
Now you are having a conniption and I suppose I am supposed to be all nicy nice while you who seem to claim to be female act belligerent as all get out.
Well, I am one who figures that women got equal rights and all that. So don't expect me to KA when you want to have a fit.
If you wish to be treated with respect then don't un-earn it by posing a snottier attitude than you are willing to put up with in return."
I believe I said I wouldn't LET you kiss my A--, you ignorant P---- !
WHERE did you serve Oh Mighty One.? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 5:36 am Post subject: Re: subject |
|
|
| Marine's Wife wrote: |
I believe I said I wouldn't LET you kiss my A--, you ignorant P---- !
WHERE did you serve Oh Mighty One.? |
Since you did not ask polite I guess you are just stuck with clicking on my profile and searching through my messages if you feel great need to know.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sparky wrote: | | Quote: | 1. Iraq was a "buddy" only so far as they contained Iran and fundamentalism. When they failed in that, they weren't a buddy anymore.
2. US support to Iraq consisted primarily of Intelligence data, nothing more. The rest of the claims are spin.
3. Iraq was a Soviet supported state. Hussein could get and did get all the military armaments he desired from the Soviets (although they would not give him WMDs).
4. Saddam wasn't given the green light to attack Kuwait by anyone. That is a lovely bit of spin that completely ignores not only the actual words used in the meeting in question, but the cultural realities of the Middle East. |
Iraq was also our Buddy because they were in OUR camp and not the Soviet's. |
That explains the T-72s, and ZSU23-4s, and BMPs, and AKs, and T-64s, and Scuds, and SA-7s, and SA-6s, and SA-4s...
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 11:29 am Post subject: Re: post |
|
|
| Craig wrote: |
3. And US fixed him up with Anthrax and some other interesting diseases for sake that it was trusted that one who would gas thousands of civilian folks would not use the materials for malign purpose? |
Take it up with the Center for Disease Control (notice the name). That is who provided the samples.
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marine's Wife
PO3
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 267
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 3:36 pm Post subject: Re: subject |
|
|
| Craig wrote: | | Marine's Wife wrote: |
I believe I said I wouldn't LET you kiss my A--, you ignorant P---- !
WHERE did you serve Oh Mighty One.? |
Since you did not ask polite I guess you are just stuck with clicking on my profile and searching through my messages if you feel great need to know. |
Craig : You wanted to carry on about your grandson and the media saying something that did not make a bit of sense to me so I questioned it.
Now you are having a conniption and I suppose I am supposed to be all nicy nice while you who seem to claim to be female act belligerent as all get out.
Well, I am one who figures that women got equal rights and all that. So don't expect me to KA when you want to have a fit.
If you wish to be treated with respect then don't un-earn it by posing a snottier attitude than you are willing to put up with in return."
I wouldn't waste my time on your "profile". You've certainly expressed your contempt for all branches of the Military.I SUPPORT all branches. And about my grandson, he is in harms way every day,and I'll "go on "about him any time I want.If you don't like it ,don't read it ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
waltjones
PO2
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 392
Location: 'bout 40 miles north of Seattle
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 6:21 pm Post subject: The subject of this topic |
|
|
| waltjones wrote: | Kerry's real band of brothers:
Note: See topic "Calling All Marines" for a full explanation of this despicable dustcover photo. |
_________________
Walt Jones (USMC, '65 - '69) It says much about the person who defends a man with no honor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Greenhat wrote: | | sparky wrote: | | Quote: | 1. Iraq was a "buddy" only so far as they contained Iran and fundamentalism. When they failed in that, they weren't a buddy anymore.
2. US support to Iraq consisted primarily of Intelligence data, nothing more. The rest of the claims are spin.
3. Iraq was a Soviet supported state. Hussein could get and did get all the military armaments he desired from the Soviets (although they would not give him WMDs).
4. Saddam wasn't given the green light to attack Kuwait by anyone. That is a lovely bit of spin that completely ignores not only the actual words used in the meeting in question, but the cultural realities of the Middle East. |
Iraq was also our Buddy because they were in OUR camp and not the Soviet's. |
That explains the T-72s, and ZSU23-4s, and BMPs, and AKs, and T-64s, and Scuds, and SA-7s, and SA-6s, and SA-4s...
|
Pick a group that US supported whether it be a dictarorship government of rebels against an elected government - whether corrupt ot not - and tell me which were not using AK's.
Sh*t! probably a lot of folks would not have wanted such as M 16 at all if they could have something that worked in combat conditions - like an AK.
Tell you what. You get forced to have a duel and there has been AK and M 16 tossed into mudhole the week before and you must dig one out to have your shootout. Are you going to pick mudhole Ak or mudhole M 16?
No one has claimed that US gave anyone US weapons, you silly person. Aside from illegal that would have left too much tracks in an appreciable numbers. Bad enough what tracks was left dealing in illegal mischief.
Myself would consider that it be treasonous elected person on both sides of the isle who let it go on - aside from the ones who aided. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 18, 2004 11:37 pm Post subject: Re: post |
|
|
| Greenhat wrote: | | Craig wrote: |
3. And US fixed him up with Anthrax and some other interesting diseases for sake that it was trusted that one who would gas thousands of civilian folks would not use the materials for malign purpose? |
Take it up with the Center for Disease Control (notice the name). That is who provided the samples. |
Take it up with the Center for Disease Control (notice the name). That is who provided the samples.[/quote]
No. You give me reason why the folks in CDC would not be brought up on charges for doing something proscribed with something of weapons grade.
And it was not just anthrax.
And no one needs special Claustridium strains. Give me the lab to mess with it and I could have you some started next week finding my own starter.
Botulin? - Myself would think to work with perfringens to be a damned nuisance to every abrasion that someone might receive.
That kind of crap is not WMD but is terrorist **** even if out own uses it.
Anthrax could certainly be a WMD but the problem with it is that it would come home.
Oh well. there was some other clusters of diseases that Saddam was provided along with weapons and support to attain weapons. You seem to support the deniable plausibility that government officials and some CEO's with gov' officials in their pockets can get away with but lower level criminals are not allowed.
Even if Kerry be a dishonorable POS I would be one to go with the less dishonorable POS - and the current administration is certainly proved themselves in times past. - Except for the Dubya. He has proved his self right well not to be totally devoid of any personal integrity and we can all watch and be amazed to see the Bush jaw wagging while the Chaney does not seem to move his lips. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greenhat
LCDR
Joined: 09 May 2004
Posts: 405
|
| Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Craig,
I find it rather amusing that you think you are better qualified to judge what cultures should be provided to countries than the Center for Disease Control. I also find it very amusing that you see T-72s, ZSU23-4s, SA-4s, SA-6s and SCUDs in the same category as AKs.
Reaching a bit, aren't you?
_________________
De Oppresso Liber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Greenhat wrote: | Craig,
I find it rather amusing that you think you are better qualified to judge what cultures should be provided to countries than the Center for Disease Control. I also find it very amusing that you see T-72s, ZSU23-4s, SA-4s, SA-6s and SCUDs in the same category as AKs.
Reaching a bit, aren't you? |
Cute, I find you to be laughable to assume to have a clue what I think about anything.
I do not even assume that you think.
Your little list of making an attempt to appear knowledgeable just marks you as a fool trying to act smart.
Same catagory? You are not a complete fool. I would suggest that you get into Tao to find your completion. But in the mean time just carry on with your silly clown acts and pounding your head against an St1
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="kate"]more...of Kerry's Band of Brothers
And the flag they marched under in Wash DC
April 1971
Not even funny what you post.
You do not show where Kerry was in that crowd. You just dishonestly show some folks and you attribute it to Kerry.
Folks where I was who were against the war may well have had a go at kicking the asses of some of the folks you display.
But then there are always ******** who equate anti war with pacifist..
But flying the other sides flag? That is nothing but foul slander on your part, and I suppose I should not say "sorry piece of crap" since maybe the administrator allows to say anything vile against Kerry of Democrat but I am supposed to not get so personal at the creeps who want to get foul.
But i would challenge you anyway to demonstrate that you are not sorry POS accusing that Kerry had anything to do with ******** who displayed the flag of the other side.
Just demonstrate to me please so I can not have to view you as some low piece of trash who would make any spurious foul accusation in a vain attempt to make someone appear more despicable than your own self.
And if Administrator would get on my **** or ban me for expressing what sorry trash you are then it would just display this group for what it is.
I had a difficulty expressing myself without getting violent in them days for sake of ******** who seemed to thing because US was in error meant that the other side was righteous.
So, when you would unfairly associate someone with such as that I only find you to be more despicable than them even.
The more I think of it the more I think that if Administrator lets that **** stand then the Administrator is not opposed to any degree of vulgarity when it come to making accusations about anyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navy_Navy_Navy
Admin
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 5777
|
| Posted: Wed May 19, 2004 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Craig"] | kate wrote: | more...of Kerry's Band of Brothers
And the flag they marched under in Wash DC
April 1971
Not even funny what you post.
You do not show where Kerry was in that crowd. You just dishonestly show some folks and you attribute it to Kerry.
Folks where I was who were against the war may well have had a go at kicking the asses of some of the folks you display.
But then there are always ******** who equate anti war with pacifist..
But flying the other sides flag? That is nothing but foul slander on your part, and I suppose I should not say "sorry piece of crap" since maybe the administrator allows to say anything vile against Kerry of Democrat but I am supposed to not get so personal at the creeps who want to get foul.
But i would challenge you anyway to demonstrate that you are not sorry POS accusing that Kerry had anything to do with ******** who displayed the flag of the other side.
Just demonstrate to me please so I can not have to view you as some low piece of trash who would make any spurious foul accusation in a vain attempt to make someone appear more despicable than your own self.
And if Administrator would get on my @*$! or ban me for expressing what sorry trash you are then it would just display this group for what it is.
I had a difficulty expressing myself without getting violent in them days for sake of ******** who seemed to thing because US was in error meant that the other side was righteous.
So, when you would unfairly associate someone with such as that I only find you to be more despicable than them even.
The more I think of it the more I think that if Administrator lets that @*$! stand then the Administrator is not opposed to any degree of vulgarity when it come to making accusations about anyone. |
Truth hitting you in a painful spot, Craig?
You didn't know that Kerry led the marches under these flags?
You didn't know that he participated in Operation Dewey Canyon or Operation RAW?
She's just posted the truth.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
