Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]
Saddam and Rumsfeld
    #2176755 -



Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: Swami]
    #2176765 -

This is REALLY in your craw isn't it?

What's the matter, Swamster?  A Bush victory got you down?

Don't worry, another one will come in November 2004.

:lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: ]
    #2176843 -

The ex-CIA director William Casey commented on this support for bin Laden in his writings. But many a dog has turned around and bitten his master. Overnight the CIA's hero and courageous "freedom fighter" in Afghanistan, has suddenly become the "enemy of civilisation".


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: Swami]
    #2176868 -

You might need a stress pill. 

Here :pill:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: ]
    #2176999 -

Swam has wonderful points.

Don't get blinded by the fact that this guy was captured. The Tyranny against the Iraqi people still remain, in some form. It just isn't embodied into one person anymore.

The point is, the US boosted him up, and Osama. Then they became dinner table talk for the end of the civilised world.

Another victory in 2004? God I hope the American people aren't this shallow... (oh wait.. SHIT!)


--------------------
Blas'?trid (bl?s tr?d)
    n.  3rd generation derivitave of a combination of 'bastard' and 'blasted'.  Used as both an insult or an expletive.
    ex.  Blastrid!

Stereopattern  <--My music.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: Blastrid]
    #2177024 -

Shit is right Bro.

Remember they also elected Clinton twice!  :eek:

At that point I lost all faith in the voting intelligence of the American people.

The fact is that we deserve every shitty rotten ignorant asshole that gets elected to the presidency.

Why?

Because most American voters come in two stripes:

The willfully ignorant and the truly ignorant.

The first one can learn but won't and the second is incapable of learning.

Welcome to the Bright Bright World of American Politics! :smile:

Noticed also how liberals think EVERYONE should have the right to vote, even people that are mentally handicapped and clinically insane.

Then, they bitch when people like Bush are elected.

Oh Brother :rolleyes:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: ]
    #2177203 -

Mr_Mushrooms said:
This is REALLY in your craw isn't it?

What's the matter, Swamster?  A Bush victory got you down?

Don't worry, another one will come in November 2004.

:lol:


Obviously once the US makes a decision on foreign policy, nothing can ever change that.  If we made a mistake (and at the time, it was the lesser of two evils), well by golly,we can't do anything at any time in the future to change it!

Why was noone showing the rumsfeld/saddam pic when clinton was in office?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: ]
    #2178945 -

As long as democracy is reduced to a puppet personality show then voters will show little interest in the whole thing. It is not down to ignorance it is down to an understanding of the whole futility of pretending your vote really means something.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2178950 -

Its not about making mistakes. Its about manipulating situations, creating fear, telling lies and keeping unsavoury truths secret. Otherwise known as the PNAC. It is certainly not about liberation, truth, freedom or any of those other little buzz words that fall stumblingly out of Bush's dull glazed face as he concentrates on the auto cue.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: GazzBut]
    #2180559 -

HA!


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: GazzBut]
    #2181500 -

GazzBut said:
As long as democracy is reduced to a puppet personality show then voters will show little interest in the whole thing. It is not down to ignorance it is down to an understanding of the whole futility of pretending your vote really means something.


Well that is one way to absolve oneself of the responsibity to vote. But the fatal flaw in that line of reasoning is that it is the voters who decide in ALL cases who even runs for office in the first place. I am afraid there is no wiggle room on this one.

Democracy is dead. Long live the King!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: ]
    #2181616 -

Any political historian knows that we are not a democracy, but a republic. We now have (or almost have) the means to be the first true democracy for many millenia via the internet. We could vote directly on the issues instead of voting for a man who will generally not have our interests at heart unless they directly coincide with his own interests.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: Swami]
    #2181637 -

Yes, and given the fact that most voters are stupid and lazy will not be solved by any technology, no matter how ingenious.

Democracy is flawed for that reason plus many others.

Thank God for the Constitution.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: Swami]
    #2181672 -

Quote:
We could vote directly on the issues instead of voting for a man who will generally not have our interests at heart unless they directly coincide with his own interests.


I'm still amazed anyone thinks that is a good idea.

If people want to vote to reinstitute slavery?
If people want to vote to keep drugs illegal?
If people vote to (add the idea you'd like least here)

You'd have nothing more than mob rule.


Bad idea.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2181683 -

I'm still amazed anyone thinks that is a good idea.

"We, the people..." is a bad idea? A government of, by and for the people is a bad idea?

The idea of decisions that will make a politician and his cronies even wealthier and more powerful at the expense of "the people" is a good idea?

Do you believe that Halliburton "fairly" got the Iraqi contracts even though aware people "knew" this would happen well over a year ago? Does this in any way support "the people"?

Do you know how Baby Bush made his millions off the back's of Texas taxpayers?

Is it OK to fleece the ignorant?


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: Swami]
    #2181686 -

Swamster, we have a government of, by, and for the people.

How's it workin'?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: Swami]
    #2181701 -

Quote:
"We, the people..." is a bad idea? A government of, by and for the people is a bad idea?


We have that now, but with checks and balances. A direct vote could quite possibly have no checks. You have people who don't care, who do care but are idiots and some who will vote against what's right just for laughs. And what of accountability? We have some (little) of that now, we'd lose that as well.



Quote:
The idea of decisions that will make a politician and his cronies even wealthier and more powerful at the expense of "the people" is a good idea?


I don't recall saying that. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point it out to me?


Quote:
Do you believe that Halliburton "fairly" got the Iraqi contracts even though aware people "knew" this would happen well over a year ago? Does this in any way support "the people"?


Actually those contracts were originally awarded back in Bubba's day.



Quote:
Do you know how Baby Bush made his millions off the back's of Texas taxpayers?


I'm aware of G-dubs history. I have no problem with how he made his money. Rhetoric, and weak rhetoric at that, does not an arguement make.


Quote:
Is it OK to fleece the ignorant?


Perhaps you'd point out where I said that as well?


It should however be OK to euthanise the ignorant.  :kiss:


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #2181709 -

:lol:

It is about time that we ALL face up to the fact, as Americans, who really is to blame.

I know, I know, it's soooooo much easier to blame the top dog when you don't like him.

But if you don't vote, don't bitch, I always say.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: ]
    #2181719 -

It is about time that we ALL face up to the fact, as Americans, who really is to blame.
Uh huh. The Iraqi people were not to blame because Saddam had guns and money and media control to back up his decisions unlike Bush who has guns and money and media control to back up his decisions.

But if you don't vote, don't bitch, I always say.
And if you do vote and petition and write your Congressman and your rights are still trampled on...?


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Saddam and Rumsfeld [Re: ]
    #2181723 -

Swamster, we have a government of, by, and for the people.

The government is NOT for the people, but for big corporations. Again you have made six posts and nothing about the Rumsfeld hypocrisy on supporting an "evil-doer".


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* "Bush is an idiot, but he was right about Saddam" EchoVortex 1,681 14 03/22/03 11:03 PM
by Xlea321
* Democracy takes root beneath the turmoil in Iraq luvdemshrooms 723 8 09/03/03 03:38 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* Interesting take on war reasons Xlea321 611 2 09/02/17 04:34 PM
by sprinkles
* Rumsfeld sees no link between Iraq/9-11
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 LearyfanS 6,456 100 09/20/03 01:33 PM
by Phred
* Saddam Hussein
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Anonymous 3,966 60 07/23/03 12:55 PM
by Anonymous
* US troops to 'protect oil interests' in Africa? Edame 857 1 07/11/03 12:55 PM
by Xlea321
* the Project for a New American Century
( 1 2 all )		 iglou 3,586 26 05/02/03 08:53 AM
by Madtowntripper
* American imperialism - for RailGun headphone 1,582 4 09/06/01 01:08 AM
by MrKurtz

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,542 topic views. 0 members, 73 guests and 21 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 16 queries.