We Wouldn't Be In This Mess With Iran If
- Thread starter Edgetho
- Start date
OldLady
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 69,568
- 19,614
- 2,220
Toldja
He made it up to look like a hero, not realizing how these things really work and that he was digging himself a nice hole.
candycorn
Diamond Member
And apparently learned nothing
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
Of course YOU don't care. You can take on Iran all by yourself. You're just that tough!
But Trump cannot take on Iran all by himself. The imposition of sanctions on Iran relies upon European nations honoring those sanctions. And why should they?
You talk like the ONLY opinion on world affairs that matters is that of Donald Trump. This is where you idiot Russians reveal yourselves. Europe matters, both strategically and economically. Without Europe, Trump has few allies. Israel, South Korea, Japan and the Saudis. I personally don't think that the Saudi's are your friends. I think that with friends like the Saudi's, who needs enemies. 9/11 being the case in point.
The Europeans have watched Trump pull out of the Paris Accord, and pull out of the Iran Agreement, which was negotiated with 6 other nations. They know a fool when they see one.
wrong again
whutTHEYsay
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 28,259
- 6,106
- 245
Have you ever read the entire speech.
This was October 2002. There were no inspections in Iraq at that time. Hillary was correct in all she said,
But the lie you are telling is that you leave out the parts where Senator Clinton wanted and got an AUMF that wouid force inspections to resume and with Saddam cooperating on inspections there wouid be no need for war.
Even TrumpO must know that inspectors found no WMD and Iraq was cooperating fully prior to the invasion and for that reason TrumpO tells you that Bush lied to make war.
There was no need for war - that was a huge lie.
Dragonlady
Designing Woman
The hostilities are already under way. Wars today are fought in cyberspace, not battlefields.
Dogmaphobe
Diamond Member
In respect to the dynamic vis a vis Britain and Iran, it was (and is) Iran considering the British oil developers the infidels, not the other way around. Those representing the anglo-Iranian company were not representing Christianity, so your assertion that it was the British considering the Iranians as infidels is ludicrous.
As to your other cut and paste, yes, it is the financial arrangements to which the Iranians agreed that was the bone of contention, but this by no means proves they had been colonized as you stated. It simply means they had second thoughts about the contract they had signed. We have foreign owned businesses operating in the United States today, but that by no means indicates colonialization, nor doe it give us the right to seize their assets should we have reservations about the legal contracts we have signed allowing them to do business here.
Dogmaphobe
Diamond Member
Have you ever noticed how none of the other leftists ever hold this thing's feet to the fire over its antisemitism, yet the very same posters try to portray antisemitism as strictly a far right view?
Edgetho
Diamond Member
- Mar 27, 2012
- 19,166
- 11,438
- 1,255
- Thread starter
- #291
Look at how dimocrap scum promote Islamists and tacitly or implicitly support them despite the way the Islamists treat their women.
They're 'Fellow Travelers'
To dimocrap scum, they've never met an Ally they didn't love...... Islamists, Anti-Semites, Nazis, Segregationists, the KKK, rapists.....
They just don't care.
Look at how they're all sticking up for Iran? Given a choice, they prefer Iran over America.
Because they're not in charge of America right now.
They feel it is their God-Given right to rule over us.
I.Am.NOT. just saying this. Just keep that in the back of your mind when you mull over the things dimocrap scum do and say.
I am correct.
Dogmaphobe
Diamond Member
I remember the Viet Nam war era quite well, having grown up during it, and I also knew members of the Students for a Democratic society. In the early days of the S.D.S., it was filled primarily with liberal students concerned with the loss of life the war was causing and who questioned why we were there. They did NOT side with the Viet Kong, nor support communism. Gradually, however, professional leftist agitators entered their ranks and subverted the mission of the SDS as they DID support communism and DID support the Viet Kong. You can think Jane Fonda as their poster girl.
In today's left, the actual liberals are almost nonexistent as these pathetic leftists we have in this forum DO defend the Islamists and they do it at every turn. They remind me of what the SDS turned in to instead of how it started out. They have no love for their country, no consideration for their fellow Americans or any positive view as to how people should behave. All they have is their negativity, as they have no freaking idea what they stand FOR, only against, and #1 among that which they stand against is the very country and very culture in which they live.
Dogmaphobe
Diamond Member
Dare I mention that just this January, I received 2000 unrooted cuttings of various annual crops from a nursery in......GASP.....Israel?
Markle
Diamond Member
Flat out lie. Typical of Progressives, lying in an effort to re-write history. Shame on you!
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
- President Clinton in 1998 “
[…], when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.”
- President Clinton , Jan. 27, 1998 – State of the Union
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 .
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqis nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”
“Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.”
“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”
- President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."
- Madeline Albright, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "
Update: September 8, 2005 - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser was sentenced to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them..
[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 .
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 .
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 .
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 .
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 .
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 .
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 .
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003" (Currently President Barack Hussein Obama’s Secretary of State)
I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Saddam is gone and good riddance," former President Bill Clinton said yesterday, but he urged President Bush to resist trying to get even with nations that opposed the war.
"There are German and French soldiers in Afghanistan today. Does the President want them to come home?" Clinton said at a Manhattan forum on corporate integrity.
Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction)
He [President Clinton] praised Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for their handling of the war, but said Bush should have waited longer before attacking for the "chance that either [Saddam Hussein] would have disarmed or . . . we would have had far more members of the Security Council with us."
Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found.
"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.
- Former President Clinton Wednesday, April 16, 2003
"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."
- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010
How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going? How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President? Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities. Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.
Edgetho
Diamond Member
- Mar 27, 2012
- 19,166
- 11,438
- 1,255
- Thread starter
- #298
I remember it, too. Partly because I spent two years there.
After my 2nd tour, I spent the next 1-1/2 years at Ft Devens, right outside Boston. 1969-1971
I watched the liberal movement closely. Had friends involved in it. I happen to love liberals and I think we need them. If for no other reason than to be a voice of reason from time to time. And also, because TRUE liberals are genuinely nice people for the most part.
Here's the thing -- Today's dimocrap scum are NOT liberals. Not by any stretch of the imagination. There is NOTHING liberal about the dimocrap scum party. There may be liberals in the dimocrap party, but they have no power, no control. Never have, really.
The dimocraps still try to 'own' the word, but it's a lie. A complete lie. In fact, the Republican party of today is FAR more liberal then the current collection of dimocrap scum that routinely shuts down College Speech, violently attacks peaceful protesters, attempts to murder sitting Congressmen, calls for violence publicly, doxxes Sitting US Senators, etc, etc, ad nauseam.
People are aware of it. They're not completely stupid, but because the DISGUSTING FILTH in the media runs cover for the RADICAL scum in the dimocrap party, they hypnotize themselves into believing it's really just okie-dokie.
The media gives them cover. They can justify the Anti-American, thuggish behavior of dimocrap scum radicals because.... Well, because the media doesn't seem to think it's important.
And we're talking about people that live their lives according to what the media thinks. I shit you not. It's a real thing.
The true enemy of The People is the DISGUSTING FILTH in the national media.
Without them, the dimocrap party doesn't exist. Without them, it can NOT exist.
The American Media is the enemy of the American People.
Believe it
and dimocraps are scum
OldLady
Diamond Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 69,568
- 19,614
- 2,220
YOUR assertion that only Muslims call Christians "infidels" is dead wrong. The definition not only includes "not Christian" but I provided you a quote proving "infidel" was being used against Thomas Jefferson in 1790 or so by an admitted American. So just give it up; you lost.
As for the rest of it, you did not read what I offered you, did you? The Brits did not overtake and rule Iran per se, no. It wasn't like what they did in India, although that too started with business contracts, didn't it? That was why in my post I said "basically colonized" as in had an inordinate foreign influence on Iran's leadership and resources.
You just going to keep spouting the same shit over and over, I'm going to find someone better informed to talk to.
It's all pretty much petty details anyway. The fact is, Iran has a bug up their ass about the US and I'm not sure it matters a whole lot at this point if it is our fault or Iran's or God's, it is not a good attitude. I'll pull a Pogo and argue with you ALL DAY LONG about the usage of 'infidel' though, because I know how to use words and you don't get to call me stupid for using them correctly.
Markle
Diamond Member
You're joking right? You pick part of one of the numerous examples I provide and, I guess, you think that means none of them exist?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
ICE Confirms 65,000 Deportations, Majority With Criminal Records- Started by Mack The Finger
- Replies: 5
-
Bondi claims 1/3 of all Americans would have died in last 100 days if not for Trump.- Started by BULLDOG
- Replies: 15
-
