Just another Democrat

[BT]

So?

The fact that Carter and Reagan supported it makes it somehow less of a miserable failure? That changes the fact that we supported Iraq or that Donnie Rumsfeld was there kissing Saddam's orifices?

You seem to want to make this one-sided. We also aided Iran in the war, providing weapons via Israel. Classic triangulation. Keep the two major players in the region busy for a while. Geo-politics in action.

[Plane]

You don't recall special envoy Donnie Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand with a big shit-eating grin? They sent thousands of people to their death. Hussein even bombed his own Kurdish people with chemical weapons, but your boy Ronnie Reagan cared more about attacking Iran.

I guess you don't recall that Iraq invaded Iran in Sept 1980, months before Reagan's election. The war was launched with Carter's blessings.

So?

The fact that Carter and Reagan supported it makes it somehow less of a miserable failure? That changes the fact that we supported Iraq or that Donnie Rumsfeld was there kissing Saddam's orifices?

What was a failure about it?

[Xavier_Onassis]

What was a failure about it?
========================
I don't see that profiting from prolonging a war is any sort of moral act.

[Plane]

What was a failure about it?
========================
I don't see that profiting from prolonging a war is any sort of moral act.

Good , because nobody profited.

Iran lost a lot of population , Iraq lost a lot of resorces and a bit less manpower.

It was an all around looser.

But the US  , in the bleachers , saw sworn enemys kicking each other in the head.

[Xavier_Onassis]

So you don't care how many innocent people die as a result of the connaivance and idiocy of your own government.


And you claim to be an actual Christian?

Incredible.

[Plane]

So you don't care how many innocent people die as a result of the connaivance and idiocy of your own government.


And you claim to be an actual Christian?

Incredible.

Innocent?

Which one would it have been good to see win?

If Chamberlan had found a way to get Italy and Germany to fight each other there might have been several more years without fighting for England.

[_JS]

So you don't care how many innocent people die as a result of the connaivance and idiocy of your own government.


And you claim to be an actual Christian?

Incredible.

Innocent?

Which one would it have been good to see win?

If Chamberlan had found a way to get Italy and Germany to fight each other there might have been several more years without fighting for England.

It never worked like that. The United States Government was furious with Israel for their military aid to Iran. The truth is that we were scared shitless of the possibility of Iran exporting right-wing Shia Revolution to the rest of the Islamic world. Saddam was our man and Iraq was our horse in the race. Israel was duly chastised for shipping military hardware to Iran and it did not last long.

Your analogy is amusing, but sophomoric. Germany all but conquered Italy during the war anyway. It would certainly not have taken "several more years" for an army that defeated Poland and France in a matter of months of actual combat. Furthermore, you're simply avoiding the argument. It was not a question of military or political strategy, it was a question of whether or not Christian ethics support such strategies where countless thousands (or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands) of people lose their lives.

It is a very good question. The strategy you are defending cost a number of Kurdish and Iranian men, women, and children their lives. It sent many Iraqis to Saddam's torture facilities, some of them were even veterans of the war. You may dislike the governments that ruled both nations at the time, but the people who die in wars are almost never the people in power.

While many people in this very forum attack Muslims for not respecting human life, or they attack the liberal-left for not standing against abortion - they turn around and support wholesale slaughter including massive deaths of innocents, even torture. People will not follow you to Christ if you paint Him in the blood of innocents.

[Plane]

So you don't care how many innocent people die as a result of the connaivance and idiocy of your own government.


And you claim to be an actual Christian?

Incredible.

Innocent?

Which one would it have been good to see win?

If Chamberlan had found a way to get Italy and Germany to fight each other there might have been several more years without fighting for England.

It never worked like that. The United States Government was furious with Israel for their military aid to Iran. The truth is that we were scared shitless of the possibility of Iran exporting right-wing Shia Revolution to the rest of the Islamic world. Saddam was our man and Iraq was our horse in the race. Israel was duly chastised for shipping military hardware to Iran and it did not last long.

Your analogy is amusing, but sophomoric. Germany all but conquered Italy during the war anyway. It would certainly not have taken "several more years" for an army that defeated Poland and France in a matter of months of actual combat. Furthermore, you're simply avoiding the argument. It was not a question of military or political strategy, it was a question of whether or not Christian ethics support such strategies where countless thousands (or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands) of people lose their lives.

It is a very good question. The strategy you are defending cost a number of Kurdish and Iranian men, women, and children their lives. It sent many Iraqis to Saddam's torture facilities, some of them were even veterans of the war. You may dislike the governments that ruled both nations at the time, but the people who die in wars are almost never the people in power.

While many people in this very forum attack Muslims for not respecting human life, or they attack the liberal-left for not standing against abortion - they turn around and support wholesale slaughter including massive deaths of innocents, even torture. People will not follow you to Christ if you paint Him in the blood of innocents.

I think all of America is innocent in causeing that fight. Giveing assistance to both sides isn't tipical for us but to quote Henry Kissinger at the time "  too bad they can't both loose.". It was a smart policy to make the inevitable turn out to our favor with such small cost for us.

What indeed would have been the smarter, or more moral, policy choice?

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/11715  (agrees with you)

[Brassmask]

Rewarding good behavior
by kos
Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:05:46 AM PDT

So many of you are upset that I pulled back my credit card last night, making a last minute decision to hold back on a $2,300 contribution to Obama. Let me explain further:

First of all, obviously Obama is a great candidate who is running a great 50-state race. That much cannot be denied. But he's had a rough couple of weeks.

First, he reversed course and capitulated on FISA, not just turning back on the Constitution, but on the whole concept of "leadership". Personally, I like to see presidents who 1) lead, and 2) uphold their promises to protect the Constitution.

Then, he took his not-so-veiled swipe at MoveOn in his "patriotism" speech.

Finally, he reinforced right-wing and media talking points that Wes Clark had somehow impugned McCain's military service when, in reality, Clark had done no such thing.

All of a sudden, there was a lot of cowering when, just days ago, we got to read this:

   

When Mr. Wenner asked how Mr. Obama might respond to harsh attacks from Republicans, suggesting that Democrats have "cowered" in the past, Mr. Obama replied, "Yeah, I don?t do cowering."

Could've fooled me, and maybe he is. Maybe what looks like cowering to me is really part of that "moving to the center" stuff everyone keeps talking about. But there is a line between "moving to the center" and stabbing your allies in the back out of fear of being criticized. And, of late, he's been doing a lot of unecessary stabbing, betraying his claims of being a new kind of politician. Not that I ever bought it, but Obama is now clearly not looking much different than every other Democratic politician who has ever turned his or her back on the base in order to prove centrist bona fides. That's not an indictment, just an observation.

Now I know there's a contingent around here that things Obama can do no wrong, and he must never be criticized, and if you do, well fuck you! I respect the sentiment, but will respectfully disagree. We're allowed to do that here. But fair notice -- I will never pull a Rush Limbaugh and carry water for anyone. Not for the Democratic Congress, and not for our future Democratic president. When anyone does something I don't care for, I will say so. I've never pulled my punches before, so why start now?

Obama will be fine without my contribution, and he may even still get it before this thing is said and done, but it would be at a time when he has done something positive. That's called rewarding good behavior. And if that opportunity fails to arise because Obama goes on a Sister Souljah'ing rampage, then no worries. Chances are good that the DNC would get the money instead. But at this time, I simply have no desire to reward bad behavior. Some of you don't care about his behavior, or don't think it's bad behavior, or whatever. I didn't ask any of you to follow suit, and don't care whether you do or not. I didn't pull him from the Orange to Blue list. I'm not going to start praising Nader or Barr. I'll still vote for him. Yadda, yadda, yadda. At the end of the day, I'm pretty irrelevant in the whole affair. Obama is going to raise a ton of dough and win this thing whether I send him money or not.

Ultimately, he's currently saying that he doesn't need people like me to win this thing, and he's right. He doesn't. If they've got polling or whatnot that says that this is his best path to victory, so much the better. I want him to win big. But when the Obama campaign makes those calculations, they have to realize that they're going to necessarily lose some intensity of support. It's not all upside. And for me, that is reflected in a lack of interest in making that contribution.

That's it. No need to freak out. It is what it is. Others will happily pick up the slack. We're headed toward a massive Democratic wave, and what I decide to do with my money means next to nothing, no matter how much hyperventilating may happen on this site's comments and diaries about it all.

And if for some crazy hard-to-see reason my money actually is important to the Obama campaign, then they can adjust their behavior to get it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/1/05546/22532/562/544544

I guess Kos has been reading my diaries.  I never dreamed.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I think all of America is innocent in causeing that fight. Giveing assistance to both sides isn't tipical for us but to quote Henry Kissinger at the time "  too bad they can't both loose.". It was a smart policy to make the inevitable turn out to our favor with such small cost for us.

What indeed would have been the smarter, or more moral, policy choice?
=======================================================
It was not smart. It was unspeakably stupid, just like overthrowing the secular elected government of Mossadeagh was stupid.

The evidence is that the US has been involved in two wars in that area since then.

Kissinger should be taken out and shot for treason. He was and always was been an agent for Rockefeller and ExxonMobil, and nothing he has ever done has benefitted the people of this country. Thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of others have dies because of his evil manipulative, lying trickery.

The US should have never allowed the sick Shah in the US. He was dying, and everyone knwew that there was no hope to save him. He could have gotten every bit of attention in dozens of places other than the US.

The US should have withdrawn all its people from the Teheran Embassy after the Shah died. They had a printing press and plates for minting money in that embassy, and it was all captured and used extensively by the Revolutionary guides and their buddies. The records of every bit of trickery of the CIA for decades was also there, and captured. Why weren't these items and the staff evacualted from that embassy? Because Kissinger recommended that it all stay there.

Besides being stupid, it was immoral to prolong a war and profit from it.

[Plane]

"They had a printing press and plates for minting money in that embassy,..."

Huh?

[Amianthus]

and nothing [Kissinger] has ever done has benefitted [sic] the people of this country.

What are your problems with detente and the SALT treaty?

[Xavier_Onassis]

"They had a printing press and plates for minting money in that embassy,..."


Huh?

============
The State Department had a printing press for printing US currency in the Teheran Embassy. The plates and equipment were captured and were used for many years to produce money for the Revolutionary Guard and  the Iranian government. Either some of the plates were given to Lebanese in the Bekaa Valley or identical copies were given to them, and for decades, untraceable authentic US currency was printed and spent by Hamas and others.

There is a reason why they have been changing US currency, and that is why.

Kissinger knew this, and did nothing to cause state secrets, currency printing plates and personnel from being evacuated from the Embassy. He  treacherously advised Carter that the people and contents should remain in that embassy.

Jimmy Carter was too trusting to think that Kissinger was not an evil ratbastard traitor, and he paid the price, as did we all. He followed Kissinger's advice and was set up for a fall.

Then the Rockefellers, who are heavily into banking, got bumbling old Reagan in power and managed to feast on the Banking crisis, as far less supervision of natural resources and pretty much every regulated corporate activity.


Carter saw an energy crisis coming, and put up solar panels on the Whitehouse and encouraged conservation.

Reagan ripped them off, and did nothing about energy other than to suck up to Big Oil.

[Amianthus]

There is a reason why they have been changing US currency, and that is why.

Money has been changed periodically throughout the history of the country. This is nothing new, and nothing driven by the loss of printing plates. The dollar bill, for example, had 14 major design changes since 1928, and a bunch of minor design changes. The $20 bill - the one most counterfeited - had 19 major design changes since 1928 and a total of 36 changes (both major and minor), an average of one change every 2.22 years. Interestingly enough, the current redesign process was ordered by a judge due to the ADA - older style paper money is too hard for those with sight impairments to use, since the bills all look very similar.

Jimmy Carter was too trusting to think that Kissinger was not an evil ratbastard traitor, and he paid the price, as did we all. He followed Kissinger's advice and was set up for a fall.

Well, I gotta wonder why Jimmy was smart enough to criticize Kissinger while campaigning against Ford, and all of a sudden got stupid enough to trust him after he was elected. Was he lobotomized or something?

[Plane]

"They had a printing press and plates for minting money in that embassy,..."


Huh?

============
The State Department had a printing press for printing US currency in the Teheran Embassy. The plates and equipment were captured and were used for many years to produce money for the Revolutionary Guard and  the Iranian government. Either some of the plates were given to Lebanese in the Bekaa Valley or identical copies were given to them, and for decades, untraceable authentic US currency was printed and spent by Hamas and others.

There is a reason why they have been changing US currency, and that is why.

Kissinger knew this, and did nothing to cause state secrets, currency printing plates and personnel from being evacuated from the Embassy. He  treacherously advised Carter that the people and contents should remain in that embassy.

Jimmy Carter was too trusting to think that Kissinger was not an evil ratbastard traitor, and he paid the price, as did we all. He followed Kissinger's advice and was set up for a fall.

Then the Rockefellers, who are heavily into banking, got bumbling old Reagan in power and managed to feast on the Banking crisis, as far less supervision of natural resources and pretty much every regulated corporate activity.


Carter saw an energy crisis coming, and put up solar panels on the Whitehouse and encouraged conservation.

Reagan ripped them off, and did nothing about energy other than to suck up to Big Oil.

Why would a mint be located in an embassy?