Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 48

Thread: Veterans for Kerry

  1. #1
    Registered Member Thespis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    0


    Yes | No

    Default Veterans for Kerry

    If Kerry gets elected, I sure hope are new allies aren't going to be all our old enemies while he alienates our current allies.
    ~Thespis~

    If you believe in nothing, you become nothing.

  2. #2


    Yes | No

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thespis
    If Kerry gets elected, I sure hope are new allies aren't going to be all our old enemies while he alienates our current allies.
    A lot of bush admin was best buddies with Saddam in the 80s I dont see you crying about that.
    -Solaris Flare / Lejes the Heretic / Tippo WynnZ

  3. #3


    Yes | No

    Default

    But they met with Iraq when they were our ally against a greater threat, Iran.

    Kerry met with the North Vietnamese when we were at war with them, which is blatantly treasonous. They have pictures honoring him in North Korea as a war hero FOR THEIR SIDE.
    "Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. "
    - Robert A. Heinlein

  4. #4
    Senior Member Merauk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    4


    Yes | No

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phrack
    But they met with Iraq when they were our ally against a greater threat, Iran
    Actually we supported both countries (during the entire Iran/Iraq War). We sold Iran weapons via Israel (yes that is right Israel was selling weapons to Iran).

  5. #5


    Yes | No

    Default

    I'd like to see a reference on that.
    "Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. "
    - Robert A. Heinlein

  6. #6
    /em =! Moderator Luko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    2


    Yes | No

    Default

    Iran/ Contra?

  7. #7


    Yes | No

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phrack
    But they met with Iraq when they were our ally against a greater threat, Iran.

    Kerry met with the North Vietnamese when we were at war with them, which is blatantly treasonous. They have pictures honoring him in North Korea as a war hero FOR THEIR SIDE.
    What Merauk said and it doesn’t always serve the long term interest of anyone to support certain pricks in the world just to stick it to another prick.
    -Solaris Flare / Lejes the Heretic / Tippo WynnZ

  8. #8
    Senior Member Merauk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    4


    Yes | No

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phrack
    I'd like to see a reference on that.
    During the Reagan Administration they split down the middle roughly. Bud McFarlane, Howard Teicher, and Ollie North favored arming Iran. Casper Weinberger and George Shultz favored Iraq. Teicher in particular concluded in the last 70's that Saddam would prove to the bigger threat to the region long term and in particular he was a stronger threat to Israel (which the Israeli's agreed with which is why they served as the conduit for the TOW missiles and other items). Teicher was right but when Iran/Contra came out the Administration pretty much stopped all support for Iran and increased their support of Saddam.

    You only need to research the details of how Iran Contra to see how the Israeli goverment was involved. They were however sending parts and other supplies to Iran much earlier then 1985 under Haig's approval.

    House of Bush/House of Saud is a pretty interesting read if you can cut through some of the partisan spin in it. It gives a good picture into some of the deals we did with Iraq, Iran, Israel, and the Saudi's in the 80's and early 90's.

  9. #9
    Registered Member Thespis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    0


    Yes | No

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Solaris Flare
    A lot of bush admin was best buddies with Saddam in the 80s I dont see you crying about that.
    You have made it blatantly obvious that you really don't understand politics or pay much attention in many threads. For one, indignation and crying are not the same thing. More than once, I've said politics nauseates me because of how much you have to sacrifice in order to "play the game". It's like a chess game, and it is a game that Reagan played very well. Decisions in politics are more often made based on gains and losses than about what's right or wrong.

    Reagan was dealing with much bigger issues relating to Russia. The leadership of our nation had to pick and choose its battles based on what they felt they could accomplish and what would benefit us the most. I've said in several past threads that I think it was a mistake to leave Saddam in power during the Gulf War. Bush Sr gave into the pressure of the liberals and UN to back off, which is why we've gotta deal with it now. Again liberals want us to back off, which would again not solve the problem and only delay resolution for the future. If you want to flame somebody and at least do a decent job of it, give it a little thought first before hitting the submit button.
    ~Thespis~

    If you believe in nothing, you become nothing.

  10. #10


    Yes | No

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thespis
    You have made it blatantly obvious that you really don't understand politics or pay much attention in many threads. For one, indignation and crying are not the same thing. More than once, I've said politics nauseates me because of how much you have to sacrifice in order to "play the game". It's like a chess game, and it is a game that Reagan played very well. Decisions in politics are more often made based on gains and losses than about what's right or wrong.

    Reagan was dealing with much bigger issues relating to Russia. The leadership of our nation had to pick and choose its battles based on what they felt they could accomplish and what would benefit us the most. I've said in several past threads that I think it was a mistake to leave Saddam in power during the Gulf War. Bush Sr gave into the pressure of the liberals and UN to back off, which is why we've gotta deal with it now. Again liberals want us to back off, which would again not solve the problem and only delay resolution for the future. If you want to flame somebody and at least do a decent job of it, give it a little thought first before hitting the submit button.
    Seems to me Saddam played both sides(US/Russia) like a fiddle in the 80s to get what he wanted. Fucking Liberals didn't have power but they somehow played a evil role in this I am sure.

    We don't know why Bush Sr backed off in Gulf War 1 because we don't know if Saddam would of gassed Israel. This would of forced Israel to do something to stupid like nuked or attack Iraq. Either way Bush Sr is a big boy and I don't think some lefties pressured him into pulling out. But I don't think anyone knows the full story so it's about impossible to debate the issue fully.
    -Solaris Flare / Lejes the Heretic / Tippo WynnZ

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
◮ Top