Smearing chavez american lies!

[unclepercy]

Yea well i say Death to the neocons and everything they stand for NWO yes men is all they are and the biggest bunch of chickenshits this planet has ever seen :twisted:

My dear, I challenge you to go to the military sites and listen to what Canadian and American vets say. You have no actual experience in this matter at all/therefore, the things you say have credence only because they are the popular opinion of this forum.
Death to me because you think I'm a neocon? Isn't this a bit over the top -- even on this forum?

Remember, only a military site. They exist. I've been there, and I certainly respect what they say more that what you say.

Uncle

 

[#juan]

Well, the current group of neo-cons that make up the Bush administration sure as hell have a few things to answer for. `I would be happy if we could get them in front of the World Court.

 

[unclepercy]

Re: RE: Smearing chavez ameri

If Jimmy and Nero really believe so much in the "W" doctrine why don't they sign up to the army and put their money where their mouths are and go to Iraq or Afghanistan?

Why don't you?

Canada complicit in Iraq war

MISSISSAUGA, Ont. (CP) - Despite its refusal to fight in Iraq, Canada is complicit in the U.S. war on terrorism and should withdraw from Afghanistan, an outspoken left-wing British MP said Saturday

URL: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/09/17/pf-1221619.html

Uncle

 

[peapod]

knock knock!!

UN Security Council mandate, i.e. qualified as "self defense" or "pre-emptive self-defense

Iraq was invaded for its natural resources, afghanistan was not.

 

[jimmoyer]

It isn't your tax dollar rebuilding Iraq oil lines and refineries. And the Iraqi ministry is going to make sure Americans (not one) control the oil resources.

Your view was one echoed long ago about Americans and British running the oil in Saudi Arabia.

We developed it, started it up and the Saudi family waited until all was done and pounced on it.

Does anyone think the same is already happening in Iraq.

LOL !

You can't fight mob opinion.

 

[GL Schmitt]

1. I bring up Milosovec and Hussein to expose the selectiveness of the world's righteousness.

Canada fought both dictators in multinational wars, not on trumpted up lies. I prefer that kind of selectiviety.

2. I bring up Milosovec and Hussein to expose the selectiveness of the world's passion.

Both are being tried for their crimes, if handed over to the World Court, the world would try Saddam. The world just wasn’t so passionate about trying Saddam that they judged it worth killing up to a hundred thousand Iraqis to bring Saddam to justice, when he was already contained.

Who was so passionate that they resorted to lies?

3. I warn about Chavez only because the world opinion overreacts equal to how it sees Amerika opinion overreact.

The world has observed America's covert wars for half a century. They are becoming more overt and less ignorable. It is about time that the world begins to react, to stay America’s acquisitiveness. Better late that never, say I.

4. I bring up Milosovec to expose particularly the comfort of the European who wishes not to disturb their convenience by stopping slaughter in their own backyard, something we were promised after WWII.

Yet it was America, taking advantage of a Soviet absence from the United Nations, which led the world into the next big conflict – The Korean War, and then backed into the Vietnam War.

5. I bring up the dead Arafat because the world is so righteous about Palestine that it forgets Jordan could have given the west bank independence during the 20 years it ruled the west bank.

And how did America support this where the rest of the word failed?

6. I bring up the world's ignornance in its righteousness because many a Kurd scratches his head in mystery about the Palestinian squeaky wheel, having asked Europe at the Versaille Peace treaty for a country of its own.

And so America gave Saddam missiles to deliver gas attacks against the Kurds, which improved their condition how?

7. I will continue to rail away at a hypocrisy that has no Amerikan monopoly, the hypocrisy of selective righteous condemnation

.

I will fail to answer your questions if you fail to write a sentence which makes sense.

I see the liberal intellectuals behaving no better than the christian rightwingers or the manipulated Muslim suicide bomber.

Yes but by definition the Christians are supposed to be imitating Christ. The liberals merely have to be willing to respect and accept behavior or opinions different from their own. Christians are also supposed to love them.

As far as Bush, he is in great trouble with us conservatives.

Gracious! Do you mean that you won’t let him try for a third term if he shows you how he can screw the vote again?

 

[peapod]

uh huh...and its not your tax dollars either jimmy...what a load of poppycock!!! You go bomb the country..and destroy infractructure, funny innit...cept of course the oil one :roll: :roll: :roll: Than..you make a big deal about fixing what you destroyed. :roll: :roll: :roll: Uh huh...and haliburton is just there coz they wanna help out..The iraq people will have to pay for your bombing and repairs, with their blood and their money...

 

[Ocean Breeze]

It isn't your tax dollar rebuilding Iraq oil lines and refineries. And the Iraqi ministry is going to make sure Americans (not one) control the oil resources.

so you admit that "americans" will continue to CONTROL the natural resources in Iraq??? ( after bombing the crap out the country , killing thousands to achieve just that: control of the Iraqi oil.

Shame , shame , shame on america. Instead of using the megabucks that they spent on killing people and taking control of THEIR resources (THEFT) , they could have used the money to find alternative energy to keep america humming on their freeways....

Remember: each time you fill your gas guzzler......there is Iraqi blood there. You are driving on Iraqi blood.

 

[jimmoyer]

GL Schmitt? Perhaps we'll have a conversation one day about the truth inherent in both of our perspectives, because I don't think your truth trumps mine or mine trumps yours. And to cancel entirely what the other says never adds a bit to progress.

And Peapod, you're just too gleeful with your own self.

LOL !

 

[unclepercy]

knock knock!!

UN Security Council mandate, i.e. qualified as "self defense" or "pre-emptive self-defense

Iraq was invaded for its natural resources, afghanistan was not.

 

[peapod]

Well jimmy your lil experiment has failed...call it what you want, I don't care what you think...ehm...wrong word there, I mean the think part. Of course jimmy, I understand that you do not know the difference between glee and disquist, anymore than you know how to write something that makes sense.

 

[jimmoyer]

Ouch !

That really hurts.

You float like a butterfly and sting like a bee, Peapod Ali.

 

[peapod]

Well I am not peapod ali, I am not a muslim. hey I am starting to sound like you guy 8O 8O 8O

 

[Reverend Blair]

Remember, only a military site. They exist. I've been there, and I certainly respect what they say more that what you say.

Why? Are they more experienced at life? Do they have special political training? Do they have a higher than average level of education?

Of course not. In fact members of the military have lower than average levels of education and are less likely to have taken political science or philosophy courses. As a group, they tend to be conservative and have a narrow world view. They are trained not to question authority.

 

[PoisonPete2]

Re: RE: Smearing chavez american lies!

It isn't your tax dollar rebuilding Iraq oil lines and refineries. And the Iraqi ministry is going to make sure Americans (not one) control the oil resources.

Answer - it isn't our tax dollars that bombed the crap out of a defenceless country's infastructure either. The Americans are trying to get Iraq's oil to pay for American caused damage. Did I mention the 10s of thousands of civilians that the american bombs slaughtered. Bunch of War Pigs.

But the topic is Chavez in South America. Another land America covets.

 

[unclepercy]

Remember, only a military site. They exist. I've been there, and I certainly respect what they say more that what you say.

Why? Are they more experienced at life? Do they have special political training? Do they have a higher than average level of education?

Of course not. In fact members of the military have lower than average levels of education and are less likely to have taken political science or philosophy courses. As a group, they tend to be conservative and have a narrow world view. They are trained not to question authority.

If you would go over to one, read a bit, then you would discover what I am getting at. They say things that make you immediately realize just how little you know. Both of us. Sitting in our computer chairs, typing away at our keyboards.

Ahhh, so you have to have special training? Well, I guess you would call your doctor for a plumbing problem because he is better educated. Experience counts for a lot more than tumid political prose.

Uncle

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Smearing chavez ameri

They have seen the problems filtered through a certain narrow scope of vision, Uncle. Ask a military person about Oil for Food, then see if he knows the real facts. Ask several military people about geo-political goals and see if their views vary significantly. Ask somebody in your military about Hugo Chavez and see if they know that he was elected, won a US-backed trumped up recall election, overcame a CIA-backed coup, survived an US backed strike by the wealthy operators in Venezuela's oil patch, has provided medical care and education to the poorest of his people, and is instituting land reforms.

You know what the answer will be? I've heard it a thousand times. They'll tell you that he is a communist. Actually what they'll say is that he's a "red" or a "commie". They'll say that he's a dictator. They won't know any of the facts, but they'll insist that they know that.

Or try the Oil for Food thing. Point out that US had complete oversight. Tell them that Oil for Food had no control over smuggling...that it was the US and Britain that were supposed to enforce sanctions. Those are the true facts, but you'll be told that you are wrong. If you persist, one or more of them will send you vaguely threatening e-mails or private messages.

Don't ever assume that I haven't talked to these people, Uncle. I have. I found them sorely lacking in information and unwilling to even consider an alternative viewpoint.

 

[jimmoyer]

Or try the Oil for Food thing. Point out that US had complete oversight. Tell them that Oil for Food had no control over smuggling...that it was the US and Britain that were supposed to enforce sanctions. Those are the true facts, but you'll be told that you are wrong.---------------------------Reverend Blair

I agree with the Rev that most people do not know there was some indications of American support for the coup on Chavez. To what degree beyond shadows offering aid I don't know, but I do believe there is something to this accusation.

I also think whatever Amerika had to do with that coup was bumbling and stupid, very much like the Bay of Pigs.
In fact both operations were led by much higher ups who would not back up the people who had to do the skullduggery. No honor among thieves eh?

But the UN Food For Oil Program is a whole other matter where the Rev has gone to excessively misleading statements.

First America knew it in that political environment it would be pilloried for voting against the Food For Oil program.

If a program has a good title, it must be good.

Secondly, if America had tried to bully its way through all the UN obstacles to require a legitimate audit and actually be allowed to interdict shipments for inspection (Reverend's spin on US and UK not enforcing it) then of course fascist America would be blamed for that also.

Now a critical mass of enough of the world actually has come around to knowing what an abortion that program was from its inception and REV knows that the environment at this program's inception was hostile to any questioning or auditing.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Smearing chavez ameri

Are you in the military, Jimmy? I ask because you seem to have the facts so completely skewed that you don't know which way is up.

I suggest you check the Oil for Food Facts website. They do a pretty good job of debunking the myths.

I've been through this with you Bush apoligists and UN haters too many times to want to bother again. I will say though that Oil for Food had nothing, not a single fecking thing, to do with smuggled oil. That was to be dealt with under the US-led sanctions and the US was supposed to enforce it.

I will also reiterate that the US had complete oversight. Not only that, but the UN actually brought examples of corruption to the attention of the US. The US chose to do nothing.

 

[jimmoyer]

I don't want to go around and around this one either, but suffice it to say, that not all of the corruption was handed so nicely and openly for US inspection, in fact even a Houston oil guy is one of the suspects along with many UN characters.

If your slant could level out a little bit, you'll find us in great agreement, but you can't help yourself but skew towards one and not the other.

Even examples of corruption brought to the attention of the US ? Man, what a semi-crock that is.

The funny think about your statement is that such matters were brought to attention by Americans and Brits to themselves and knew that there was too much support for this program and too much resistance to a real audit.

C'mon man.

I don't think you're the final arbiter of truth on this one.