OT: "Overthrow Iran" - John Bolton

[popinjay999]

Just watching Redeye on Fox and John Bolton is one of the panel. He
says he thinks the goal should be to first make sure they don't have
nuclear weapons, and then the long term goal should be to overthrow
the regime.

That's John Bolton's exact words.

[Hollis2]

Good idea.

____________________________________________________________________ 

[popinjay999]

On Feb 22, 9:16 am, "Hollis2" <a3a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Feb 22 2012 3:18 AM, popinjay999 wrote:
>
> > Just watching Redeye on Fox and John Bolton is one of the panel.  He
> > says he thinks the goal should be to first make sure they don't have
> > nuclear weapons, and then the long term goal should be to overthrow
> > the regime.
>
> > That's John Bolton's exact words.
>
> Good idea.
>

That whole Iraq-Afghanistan thingie has worked out well. And our
economy, with its budget surpluses, can only get better.

How many of your own kids can we mark you down for?

[The Real Truth Seeker]

Bring back the draft. And no Bush-like deferments.

[Hollis2]

Iraq has been an overwhelming success for the US. Saddam, and his sons,
are dead and buried, Al Qaeda thought they could drive the US out of Iraq,
but they were handed a major defeat and they were the ones who were driven
out. There's a pro-Western democratic government in Iraq. That's a
triple victory for the US. I can't see how Iraq could have turned out any
better.

Things might turn out well in Afghanistan and, even if they don't, that's
the Afghan's problem.

My oldest son is considering a career in the military. I have no problem
with that as long as he finishes college first. My youngest son is 14.
He wouldn't even consider joining the military, but it would do him a
world of good. The kid has a bad attitude.

______________________________________________________________________ 

[phlash74]

On Feb 22 2012 11:38 AM, Hollis2 wrote:

> On Feb 22 2012 12:27 PM, popinjay999 wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 9:16 am, "Hollis2" <a3a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > > On Feb 22 2012 3:18 AM, popinjay999 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just watching Redeye on Fox and John Bolton is one of the panel.  He
> > > > says he thinks the goal should be to first make sure they don't have
> > > > nuclear weapons, and then the long term goal should be to overthrow
> > > > the regime.
> > >
> > > > That's John Bolton's exact words.
> > >
> > > Good idea.
> > >
> >
> >
> > That whole Iraq-Afghanistan thingie has worked out well. And our
> > economy, with its budget surpluses, can only get better.
> >
> > How many of your own kids can we mark you down for?
>
> Iraq has been an overwhelming success for the US. Saddam, and his sons,
> are dead and buried, Al Qaeda thought they could drive the US out of Iraq,
> but they were handed a major defeat and they were the ones who were driven
> out. There's a pro-Western democratic government in Iraq. That's a
> triple victory for the US. I can't see how Iraq could have turned out any
> better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency_(post_U.S._withdrawal)

Iraqi insurgency (post U.S. withdrawal)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Iraqi insurgency after U.S. withdrawal or Iraqi attacks since U.S.
withdrawal[5] relates to the violent terror activities engaged by Iraqi,
primarily radical Sunni, insurgent groups against the central government
and the warfare between various factions within Iraq, in the aftermath of
the U.S. withdrawal. The events of post U.S. withdrawal violence succeeded
the previous insurgency in Iraq (prior to 18 December 2011), but have
showed different patterns, raising concerns that the surging violence
might slide into another civil war.[5]

[edit]December 2011
20 December: 4 killed Falluja: 1 killed by bomb inside shop. Baghdad: 1
university lecturer by AED. Mosul: 1 by gunfire. Haswa: 1 by IED.
21 December: 6 killed Mosul: 2 by gunfire. Kirkuk: 2 by AED. Abu Ghraib: 1
Sahwa chief by AED. Baghdad: 1 by gunfire.
22 December: 85 killed Baghdad: 75 killed in several bombings. Baquba: 6
by gunfire. Mosul: 2 by IED, 1 body found. Kirkuk: 1 body.
23 December: 11 killed Baghdad: 5 by IEDs. Mosul: 3 by IEDs. Kirkuk: 1 by
AED, 1 body. Gatun: 1 by gunfire.
24 December: 9 killed Baghdad: 2 by IED. Kirkuk: 2 by AED, 2 bodies.
Hawija: 2 policemen by IED. Mosul: 1 body.
25 December: 17 killed Garma: 6 policemen by gunfire. Arbat: 2 by gunfire.
Baquba: 1 body. Falluja: 1 policeman by gunfire. Abu Ghraib: 2 by IED.
Baghdad: 1 by AED. Dujail: 1 by suicide car bomber. Mosul: 1 Christian by
gunfire. Tikrit: 2 by car bomb.
26 December: 14 killed. Baghdad: 7 by suicide car bomber. Mosul: 2 by
gunfire. Baiji: 1 body. Mussayab: 2 bodies. Al-Sieniya: 1 Sahwa member by
gunfire. Baquba: 1 Sahwa member by IED.
[edit]January 2012
5 January 2012 Iraq bombings - 73 people killed, 149 injured.
14 January 2012 Basra bombing - 53 killed, 130 injured (mainly Shia
pilgrims).
26 January 2012 - 17 people died in bombings around Iraq, including seven
people in attacks on Baghdad's s two predominantly Sunni districts,
suggesting that Shiite militants could be retaliating amid fears of a
reignited sectarian conflict in the war-ravaged country.[5]
27 January 2012 - Zafaraniyah funeral procession bombing in Baghdad kills
32 (+1 suicide bomber), half of them policemen, the rest - Shia
pilgrims.[5] The attack also wounded 65 people.[5]
[edit]History

Since the United States completed its pullout on mid-December 2011,
militant groups, ****mainly al-Qaeda in Iraq****, have stepped up attacks
targeting the country's majority Shia population to undermine confidence
in the Shia-led government and its efforts to protect people without
American backup.[5]
-----------------------------

Is it opposite day in your world, or are you really that fucking dense?

Michael

-----------------
"> phlash
On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list. Should be disqualified for
that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
8/22/2010

"Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
Igotskillz, 4/6/2011

________________________________________________________________________ 

[Hollis2]

Why use the draft when a 100% voluntary military is so much better.

Joining the National Guard is not a deferment. However, in the Vietnam
era, the National Guard rarely were involved in active combat. So joining
the National Guard was a way to avoid combat rather than military service.
The same is not true today. Lots of National Guard units ended up
fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If they ever have to reinstate the draft, they should do away with student
deferments.

---- 

[BillB]

On 2/22/2012 11:38 AM, Hollis2 wrote:

> Iraq has been an overwhelming success for the US.

My God. It is hard to imagine the true depth of their stupidity.

[Wilhelm Kuhlmann]

We have to be getting trolled. As I said in a post which has yet to
show up, there is no way anyone could be stupid and ignorant enough to
actually believe anything Hollis wrote.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[chandler]

On Feb 22 2012 2:38 PM, Hollis2 wrote:


>
> Iraq has been an overwhelming success for the US.

Holy Crap...

Chandler

_____________________________________________________________________ 

[popinjay999]

On Feb 22, 11:38 am, "Hollis2" <a3a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>
> Iraq has been an overwhelming success for the US.  Saddam, and his sons,
> are dead and buried, Al Qaeda thought they could drive the US out of Iraq,
> but they were handed a major defeat and they were the ones who were driven
> out.  There's a pro-Western democratic government in Iraq.  That's a
> triple victory for the US.  I can't see how Iraq could have turned out any
> better.
>

Yet we have allowed Castro to subvert and arm every anti-American
entity in our hemisphere for 50 years. Why not freedom for the Cuban
people, only 90 miles away, before we "help" the folks on the other
side of the globe? Obviously "freedom for the Iraqi people" was a
sham and a lie.

[Wilhelm Kuhlmann]

On Feb 22, 11:38 am, "Hollis2" <a3a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> Iraq has been an overwhelming success for the US.  Saddam, and his sons,
> are dead and buried, Al Qaeda thought they could drive the US out of Iraq,
> but they were handed a major defeat and they were the ones who were driven
> out.  There's a pro-Western democratic government in Iraq.  That's a
> triple victory for the US.  I can't see how Iraq could have turned out any
> better.

This has got to be a Colbert-type parody of a braindead right-wing
warmongering Bush fellator. Nobody could possibly be stupid and
ignorant enough to believe anything in the above paragraph.


Wlliam Coleman (ramashiva)

[phlash74]

Wuzzy's retarded little brother, maybe?

Michael

-----------------
"> phlash
On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list. Should be disqualified for
that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
8/22/2010

"Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
Igotskillz, 4/6/2011

-------- 

[ChrisRobin]

On Feb 22 2012 2:58 PM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:

> We have to be getting trolled. As I said in a post which has yet to
> show up, there is no way anyone could be stupid and ignorant enough to
> actually believe anything Hollis wrote.

I certainly hope so.

------- 

[Hollis2]

Castro should have been taken care of by Kennedy, but he failed to get the
job done. After he screwed up the Bay of Pigs invasion, he had to agree
not to invade Cuba to get Khrushchev to pull the Soviet missiles out. A
tragedy for both the US and Cuba.

Anyone who thinks that Iraq has been anything other than a major success
for the US just won't admit that they've been wrong. It was a triple
victory, better than anyone could have hoped for. Just getting rid of
Saddam would have been enough. No outcome could have been worse that
leaving Saddam in power. The rest was icing on the cake.

______________________________________________________________________ 

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:50:59 -0800, "Hollis2"
<a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>On Feb 22 2012 12:35 PM, The Real Truth Seeker wrote:
>
>> On Feb 22, 9:27 am, popinjay999 <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> > On Feb 22, 9:16 am, "Hollis2" <a3a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Feb 22 2012 3:18 AM, popinjay999 wrote:
>> >
>> > > > Just watching Redeye on Fox and John Bolton is one of the panel.  He
>> > > > says he thinks the goal should be to first make sure they don't have
>> > > > nuclear weapons, and then the long term goal should be to overthrow
>> > > > the regime.
>> >
>> > > > That's John Bolton's exact words.
>> >
>> > > Good idea.
>> >
>> > That whole Iraq-Afghanistan thingie has worked out well.  And our
>> > economy, with its budget surpluses, can only get better.
>> >
>> > How many of your own kids can we mark you down for?
>>
>> Bring back the draft. And no Bush-like deferments.
>
>Why use the draft when a 100% voluntary military is so much better.

Because people would be a whole lot less ready to jump into wars if
their own kids were at risk of getting sent to the front lines.

[BillB]

I call him John "WWIII" Bolton. He wants to bomb and invade everything
in sight...Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Iceland, whatever. Just bomb it! The
guy is certifiably insane. He's a neo-con's neo-con.

[chandler]

You wouldn't be posting this from an undisclosed location, would you?

Chandler

_____________________________________________________________________ 

[ChrisRobin]

On Feb 22 2012 8:18 PM, Hollis2 wrote:

> Just getting rid of Saddam would have been enough. No outcome could have
been worse that
> leaving Saddam in power.

Saddam was a staunch ally until we turned on him and started the first
Gulf War. Nothing like the hypocrisy of a short memory.

> The rest was icing on the cake.

A million+ dead, millions more displaced, and an entire country's history
and infrastructure shattered. If this is "icing on the cake," then there's
really no way to say this politely: You're a sick human being.

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[BTSinAustin]

On Feb 22 2012 2:38 PM, Hollis2 wrote:

> On Feb 22 2012 12:27 PM, popinjay999 wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 9:16 am, "Hollis2" <a3a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > > On Feb 22 2012 3:18 AM, popinjay999 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just watching Redeye on Fox and John Bolton is one of the panel.  He
> > > > says he thinks the goal should be to first make sure they don't have
> > > > nuclear weapons, and then the long term goal should be to overthrow
> > > > the regime.
> > >
> > > > That's John Bolton's exact words.
> > >
> > > Good idea.
> > >
> >
> >
> > That whole Iraq-Afghanistan thingie has worked out well. And our
> > economy, with its budget surpluses, can only get better.
> >
> > How many of your own kids can we mark you down for?
>
> Iraq has been an overwhelming success for the US.

Iraq was like a trip to Vegas where you lost a trillion dollars, thousands
of your friends dead, killed half the city, left the rest in ruins with no
electricity or running water, and bands of thugs kill each other daily.
Oh and everyone else in the world now hates you. Worked out well I would
say.

> are dead and buried, Al Qaeda thought they could drive the US out of Iraq,
> but they were handed a major defeat and they were the ones who were driven
> out. There's a pro-Western democratic government in Iraq. That's a
> triple victory for the US. I can't see how Iraq could have turned out any
> better.
>
> Things might turn out well in Afghanistan and, even if they don't, that's
> the Afghan's problem.
>
> My oldest son is considering a career in the military. I have no problem
> with that as long as he finishes college first. My youngest son is 14.
> He wouldn't even consider joining the military, but it would do him a
> world of good. The kid has a bad attitude.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

[Hollis2]

It doesn't matter if you volunteered or were drafted, every member of the
military is somebody's kid.

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[Hollis2]

On Feb 23 2012 11:33 AM, ChrisRobin wrote:

> On Feb 22 2012 8:18 PM, Hollis2 wrote:
>
> > Just getting rid of Saddam would have been enough. No outcome could have
> been worse that
> > leaving Saddam in power.
>
> Saddam was a staunch ally until we turned on him and started the first
> Gulf War. Nothing like the hypocrisy of a short memory.

The US did help Iraq during its war with Iran because it was in the US
interests to do that. Saddam was never an ally.

> > The rest was icing on the cake.
>
> A million+ dead, millions more displaced, and an entire country's history
> and infrastructure shattered. If this is "icing on the cake," then there's
> really no way to say this politely: You're a sick human being.

I would say that the million plus dead is clearly not true. In any case,
I will quote another sick human being, Joe Biden trying to take credit for
Bush's achievements.


"I am very optimistic about-about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the
great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000
American troops come marching home by the end of the summer.

"You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving
toward a representative government. I spent-I've been there 17 times now.
I go about every two months-three months. I know every one of the major
players in all the segments of that society.

"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."

Anyone who can't admit the obvious fact that the war in Iraq has been an
overwhelming success for the US is living in a fantasy world. If Joe
Biden can admit it, why can't you?

------- 

[BTSinAustin]

Well played troll. GG sir

____________________________________________________________________ 

[phlash74]

On Feb 23 2012 8:37 AM, BTSinAustin wrote:

> Iraq was like a trip to Vegas where you lost a trillion dollars, thousands
> of your friends dead, killed half the city, left the rest in ruins with no
> electricity or running water, and bands of thugs kill each other daily.
> Oh and everyone else in the world now hates you. Worked out well I would
> say.
>

Way to violate the nondisclosure clause by giving away the whole plot of
"The Hangover, Part III".

Michael

-----------------
"> phlash
On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list. Should be disqualified for
that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
8/22/2010

"Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
Igotskillz, 4/6/2011

________________________________________________________________________ 

[ChrisRobin]

Indeed.

______________________________________________________________________ 

[BTSinAustin]

On Feb 23 2012 12:25 PM, phlash74 wrote:

> On Feb 23 2012 8:37 AM, BTSinAustin wrote:
>
> > Iraq was like a trip to Vegas where you lost a trillion dollars, thousands
> > of your friends dead, killed half the city, left the rest in ruins with no
> > electricity or running water, and bands of thugs kill each other daily.
> > Oh and everyone else in the world now hates you. Worked out well I would
> > say.
> >
>
>
> Way to violate the nondisclosure clause by giving away the whole plot of
> "The Hangover, Part III".
>

NH

---�

[chandler]

Well if Biden said it it must be true... If your face hasn't felt the
slap of the cold hard hand of reality after 10 years, nothing I say is
gonna make any difference. It's like a surgeon amputating the right arm
of a patient who came in for a kidney transplant. The operation was an
unequivocal success. The arm is gone. Patient is alive and recovering.
Couldn't have hoped for anything better.

Chandler

____________________________________________________________________ 

[ChrisRobin]

On Feb 23 2012 3:45 PM, chandler wrote:

> Well if Biden said it it must be true... If your face hasn't felt the
> slap of the cold hard hand of reality after 10 years, nothing I say is
> gonna make any difference. It's like a surgeon amputating the right arm
> of a patient who came in for a kidney transplant. The operation was an
> unequivocal success. The arm is gone. Patient is alive and recovering.
> Couldn't have hoped for anything better.

Lol. Spot on.

---- 

[Frisbieinstein]

On Feb 22, 4:18 pm, popinjay999 <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Just watching Redeye on Fox and John Bolton is one of the panel.  He
> says he thinks the goal should be to first make sure they don't have
> nuclear weapons, and then the long term goal should be to overthrow
> the regime.
>
> That's John Bolton's exact words.

I always kill people who do things I don't like.

[Pepe Papon]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:01:08 -0800, "Hollis2"

<a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>On Feb 23 2012 12:32 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:50:59 -0800, "Hollis2"
>> <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >On Feb 22 2012 12:35 PM, The Real Truth Seeker wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Feb 22, 9:27 am, popinjay999 <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> > On Feb 22, 9:16 am, "Hollis2" <a3a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > On Feb 22 2012 3:18 AM, popinjay999 wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > > Just watching Redeye on Fox and John Bolton is one of the panel.  He
>> >> > > > says he thinks the goal should be to first make sure they don't have
>> >> > > > nuclear weapons, and then the long term goal should be to overthrow
>> >> > > > the regime.
>> >> >
>> >> > > > That's John Bolton's exact words.
>> >> >
>> >> > > Good idea.
>> >> >
>> >> > That whole Iraq-Afghanistan thingie has worked out well.  And our
>> >> > economy, with its budget surpluses, can only get better.
>> >> >
>> >> > How many of your own kids can we mark you down for?
>> >>
>> >> Bring back the draft. And no Bush-like deferments.
>> >
>> >Why use the draft when a 100% voluntary military is so much better.
>>
>> Because people would be a whole lot less ready to jump into wars if
>> their own kids were at risk of getting sent to the front lines.
>
>It doesn't matter if you volunteered or were drafted, every member of the
>military is somebody's kid.

Is that as far as your thinking goes? In the absence of the draft, my
kid, for example, has zero chance of being sent to war. Zero. With
a draft, everyone has to worry about their kids being sent.

But that's only part of the equation. Now, let's look at the people
whose kids are at risk under the status quo. Which socioeconomic
level would you guess is most heavily represented among that group?
How many kids of billionaires, for example, would you guess there are
in the combat divisions of the military? How much political pull you
think the parents of today's soldiers have in the decision of whether
or not to go to war?

[Pepe Papon]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:33:55 -0800, "ChrisRobin"
<a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>On Feb 22 2012 8:18 PM, Hollis2 wrote:
>
>> Just getting rid of Saddam would have been enough. No outcome could have
>been worse that
>> leaving Saddam in power.
>
>Saddam was a staunch ally until we turned on him and started the first
>Gulf War. Nothing like the hypocrisy of a short memory.
>
>> The rest was icing on the cake.
>
>A million+ dead, millions more displaced, and an entire country's history
>and infrastructure shattered. If this is "icing on the cake," then there's
>really no way to say this politely: You're a sick human being.

Let's not forget that Saddam was the major force in the region for the
containment of Iran. With Saddam gone, Iran gained a lot of power.
That's not exactly beneficial to US interests.

[Pepe Papon]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:09:18 -0800, "Hollis2"
<a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>
>Anyone who can't admit the obvious fact that the war in Iraq has been an
>overwhelming success for the US is living in a fantasy world. If Joe
>Biden can admit it, why can't you?

OK, then, that settles it. But from now on, in order to be
consistent in your reasoning, if Joe Bidden says something, then you
must accept it as fact.

[Pepe Papon]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:37:37 -0800, "BTSinAustin"
<a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>
>Iraq was like a trip to Vegas where you lost a trillion dollars, thousands
>of your friends dead, killed half the city, left the rest in ruins with no
>electricity or running water, and bands of thugs kill each other daily.
>Oh and everyone else in the world now hates you. Worked out well I would
>say.

But the casino made a fortune. Mission accomplished!

[Pepe Papon]

Frisbenstein, have you met my friend Beldin?

[ChrisRobin]

On Feb 23 2012 11:53 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> Let's not forget that Saddam was the major force in the region for the
> containment of Iran. With Saddam gone, Iran gained a lot of power.
> That's not exactly beneficial to US interests.

He was also a U.S. ally until we tacitly allowed him to invade Kuwait...
and then turned on him.

_____________________________________________________________________ 

[Clave]

"ChrisRobin" <a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:u1qj19x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

> On Feb 23 2012 11:53 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> Let's not forget that Saddam was the major force in the region for the
>> containment of Iran. With Saddam gone, Iran gained a lot of power.
>> That's not exactly beneficial to US interests.
>
> He was also a U.S. ally until we tacitly allowed him to invade Kuwait...
> and then turned on him.

Saddam the Suicidal Fool made the Euro his petrocurrency. Everything since
fell out of that.

Jim

[BTSinAustin]

Indeed and on that topic, I'm reading this book right now.

http://wemeantwell.com/blog/about-the-book/

Very enlightening.

------ 

[Hollis2]

Once your kid is 18 there's not much you can do to stop him from joining
the military. My oldest kid is considering joining the military.

In any case, I don't think that the decision to go to war is based on
whether or not you have a draft. Israel has a universal draft (everyone
goes) and they fight all the time.

> But that's only part of the equation. Now, let's look at the people
> whose kids are at risk under the status quo. Which socioeconomic
> level would you guess is most heavily represented among that group?
> How many kids of billionaires, for example, would you guess there are
> in the combat divisions of the military? How much political pull you
> think the parents of today's soldiers have in the decision of whether
> or not to go to war?

Generally the officers come from a higher strata than the grunts. There
are some arguments in favor of the draft, but I've never seen any evidence
that it would change a nation's decision to go to war.

------ 

[Hollis2]

No, but Joe Biden is just stating the obvious that the war in Iraq has
been a major achievement for the US. There's no doubt that the US, and
its many coalition partners, won the war.

-------- 

[Hollis2]

On Feb 23 2012 11:53 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:

Iran's power is what it would have been with or without the war in Iraq.
So you're talking in relative terms. I don't think the Iranians are about
to invade Iraq. If you want to argue that the US would be better off if
Saddam was still in charge in Iraq, go ahead, but it's a very difficult
position to defend.

---- 

[BTSinAustin]

The great thing about trolling is you don't even have to keep a straight
face.

______________________________________________________________________ 

[Pepe Papon]

Propaganda!

[Hollis2]

Are you also a 9/11 truther, or is this the only harebrained conspiracy
theory you believe in?

____________________________________________________________________ 

[Clave]

"Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:cidl19x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

> On Feb 24 2012 2:26 AM, Clave wrote:
>
>> "ChrisRobin" <a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:u1qj19x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>> > On Feb 23 2012 11:53 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> >
>> >> Let's not forget that Saddam was the major force in the region for the
>> >> containment of Iran. With Saddam gone, Iran gained a lot of power.
>> >> That's not exactly beneficial to US interests.
>> >
>> > He was also a U.S. ally until we tacitly allowed him to invade
>> > Kuwait...
>> > and then turned on him.
>>
>> Saddam the Suicidal Fool made the Euro his petrocurrency. Everything
>> since
>> fell out of that.
>

> Are you also a 9/11 truther, or is this the only harebrained conspiracy
> theory you believe in?

What part are you having trouble with?

Jim

[chandler]

So we might agree that the Iraq war was a complete literary success,
anyway...

Chandler

____________________________________________________________________ 

[Hollis2]

One harebrained conspiracy theory is as bad as another. In any case, the
9/11 truthers are as crazy as bat shit, but the petroeuro people just
don't understand basic economics.

BTW, I'm still waiting for the US to take control of all those Iraqi oil
fields.

-------- 

[Clave]

"Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message

news:q2sl19x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

> On Feb 24 2012 5:11 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>> "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:cidl19x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>> > On Feb 24 2012 2:26 AM, Clave wrote:
>> >
>> >> "ChrisRobin" <a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> >> news:u1qj19x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>> >> > On Feb 23 2012 11:53 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Let's not forget that Saddam was the major force in the region for
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> containment of Iran. With Saddam gone, Iran gained a lot of
>> >> >> power.
>> >> >> That's not exactly beneficial to US interests.
>> >> >
>> >> > He was also a U.S. ally until we tacitly allowed him to invade
>> >> > Kuwait...
>> >> > and then turned on him.
>> >>
>> >> Saddam the Suicidal Fool made the Euro his petrocurrency. Everything
>> >> since
>> >> fell out of that.
>> >
>> > Are you also a 9/11 truther, or is this the only harebrained conspiracy
>> > theory you believe in?
>>
>> What part are you having trouble with?
>

> One harebrained conspiracy theory is as bad as another...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html

The petrodollar issue seems more credible to me than anything Bush/Cheney
were proffering at the time -- I think it was more about the threat to the
dollar than the oil itself, and it certainly wasn't about 9/11, WMDs,
Kurd-gassing or no-fly-zone violations.

Jim

[Iceman]

"Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message

news:984l19x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

> On Feb 23 2012 11:50 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> >It doesn't matter if you volunteered or were drafted, every member of
>> >the
>> >military is somebody's kid.
>>
>> Is that as far as your thinking goes? In the absence of the draft, my
>> kid, for example, has zero chance of being sent to war. Zero. With
>> a draft, everyone has to worry about their kids being sent.
>

> Israel has a universal draft (everyone goes) and they fight all the time.

I think the latter explains the former, not the other way around.

[Pepe Papon]

So, Joe Biden's comments are meaningless, but they happen to agree
with your opinion. By the same token, my wife's hairdresser's
husband said, "The war in Iraq was a miserable waste of money and
lives."

[Pepe Papon]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:09:12 -0800, "BTSinAustin"
<a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>> > Let's not forget that Saddam was the major force in the region for the
>> > containment of Iran. With Saddam gone, Iran gained a lot of power.
>> > That's not exactly beneficial to US interests.
>>
>> Iran's power is what it would have been with or without the war in Iraq.
>> So you're talking in relative terms. I don't think the Iranians are about
>> to invade Iraq. If you want to argue that the US would be better off if
>> Saddam was still in charge in Iraq, go ahead, but it's a very difficult
>> position to defend.
>
>
>The great thing about trolling is you don't even have to keep a straight
>face.

I don't think he's trolling. I think he really believes what he's
saying.

[Hollis2]

That's true. When you have as many enemies as Israel and so few people,
you need everyone you can get.

______________________________________________________________________ 

[Hollis2]

The switch to the euro happened while Clinton was still in office. It was
approved by the UN which was "overseeing" the oil for food program. The
US did not oppose the switch.

It's impossible to know exactly if it had any effect on the dollar one way
or the other. The amount of money involved wasn't that great compared to
the global position of the dollar. It would only have had an effect if
nations buying Iraqi oil had to sell dollars and buy euros to get the oil.
Obviously any EU member wouldn't have to do that. Also, countries like
China and Japan had huge trade surpluses with Europe, so they would have
plenty of euros on hand. A country like Russia would have had to sell
rubles to get euros.

What's more, the Bush Administration was in favor of a weak dollar, so
they wouldn't have cared if the dollar fell against the euro. The EU was
more concerned about that than the Americans because selling goods in the
US was very important to the EU economy.

The war was primarily about one thing and that was regime change. That
was the official US policy formulated during the Clinton Administration.
Bush actually did it. Obviously, like all wars, there were many other
factors involved and there were winners and losers, but at its heart, the
war was about getting rid of Saddam.

------- 

[Hollis2]

You never know what will happen in the future, but right now, the war in
Iraq was a huge success. It's only political ideology that prevents the
left from admitting what is obvious to any reasonable person. The left
will never give credit for what is a major accomplishment of the Bush
Administration. You even have people like Biden, who is trying to give
the credit to Obama.

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[Clave]

"Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message

news:7bon19x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

Who cares?

> It was
> approved by the UN which was "overseeing" the oil for food program. The
> US did not oppose the switch.

The US couldn't have done anything to stop it. If you're suggesting that
the US didn't take it as an overtly hostile move, you're quite mistaken.

> It's impossible to know exactly if it had any effect on the dollar one way
> or the other.

By itself, no, but that wasn't the point.

> The amount of money involved wasn't that great compared to
> the global position of the dollar. It would only have had an effect if
> nations buying Iraqi oil had to sell dollars and buy euros to get the oil.
> Obviously any EU member wouldn't have to do that. Also, countries like
> China and Japan had huge trade surpluses with Europe, so they would have
> plenty of euros on hand. A country like Russia would have had to sell
> rubles to get euros.
>
> What's more, the Bush Administration was in favor of a weak dollar, so
> they wouldn't have cared if the dollar fell against the euro. The EU was
> more concerned about that than the Americans because selling goods in the
> US was very important to the EU economy.

Also not the point.

> The war was primarily about one thing and that was regime change. That
> was the official US policy formulated during the Clinton Administration.
> Bush actually did it. Obviously, like all wars, there were many other
> factors involved and there were winners and losers, but at its heart, the
> war was about getting rid of Saddam.

Nice retelling of the party line, but "regime change" is quite simply
horseshit. There are *reasons* behind the desire for regime change you
don't want to talk about, and you haven't provided a single persuasive
reason to think that the threat to the US dollar wasn't a primary casus
belli.

Jim

[Hollis2]

Actually, you haven't shown any evidence that it was and you made the
claim.

------ 

[Clave]

"Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message

news:9qco19x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

> On Feb 25 2012 4:26 PM, Clave wrote:

<...>

>> Nice retelling of the party line, but "regime change" is quite simply
>> horseshit. There are *reasons* behind the desire for regime change you
>> don't want to talk about, and you haven't provided a single persuasive
>> reason to think that the threat to the US dollar wasn't a primary casus
>> belli.
>

> Actually, you haven't shown any evidence that it was and you made the
> claim.

I wasn't being evangelical about it -- it's what I believe is the most
plausible explanation, and you took issue with it.

You want to believe the simplistic horseshit you were fed by the GOP
leadership, that's your choice.

Jim

[Pepe Papon]

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 17:00:25 -0800, "Hollis2"
<a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>> > The war was primarily about one thing and that was regime change. That
>> > was the official US policy formulated during the Clinton Administration.
>> > Bush actually did it. Obviously, like all wars, there were many other
>> > factors involved and there were winners and losers, but at its heart, the
>> > war was about getting rid of Saddam.
>>
>> Nice retelling of the party line, but "regime change" is quite simply
>> horseshit. There are *reasons* behind the desire for regime change you
>> don't want to talk about, and you haven't provided a single persuasive
>> reason to think that the threat to the US dollar wasn't a primary casus
>> belli.
>>
>> Jim
>
>
>Actually, you haven't shown any evidence that it was and you made the
>claim.

Actually, the two of you are essentially in agreement that the war was
about regime change. The question is why was regime change so
important. He gave a plausible answer. You haven't.

[Pepe Papon]

Except that you have people here from both sides telling you that
you're insane.

[VegasJerry]

On Saturday, February 25, 2012 11:20:50 AM UTC-8, Hollis2 wrote:
> On Feb 25 2012 1:51 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:09:12 -0800, "BTSinAustin"
> > <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >> > Let's not forget that Saddam was the major force in the region for the
> > >> > containment of Iran. With Saddam gone, Iran gained a lot of power.
> > >> > That's not exactly beneficial to US interests.
> > >>
> > >> Iran's power is what it would have been with or without the war in Iraq.
> > >> So you're talking in relative terms. I don't think the Iranians are about
> > >> to invade Iraq. If you want to argue that the US would be better off if
> > >> Saddam was still in charge in Iraq, go ahead, but it's a very difficult
> > >> position to defend.
> > >
> > >
> > >The great thing about trolling is you don't even have to keep a straight
> > >face.
> >
> > I don't think he's trolling. I think he really believes what he's
> > saying.
>
> You never know what will happen in the future, but right now, the war in
> Iraq was a huge success.

Really? Did they capture the WMD? You know, right after bombing and killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children. (Let me toss in some pregnant women, too).

> It's only political ideology that prevents the
> left from admitting what is obvious to any reasonable person.

Like, the fact I have still predicted we'll lose. That within a year of us leaving Iraq, it will revert to what it's been for a thousand years?

> The left
> will never give credit for what is a major accomplishment of the Bush
> Administration.

Finding and destroying the WMD? Causing rioting and lawlessness when it could have been avoided? Arresting and tortureing hundereds of innocent people? Why don't you list all these 'accomplishments' you're bragging about?

> You even have people like Biden, who is trying to give
> the credit to Obama.

For getting us the hell out?

Jerry 'n Vegas






>
> _______________________________________________________________________ 

[Hollis2]

Plausible? I don't think so.

________________________________________________________________________ 

[BTSinAustin]

On Feb 25 2012 1:51 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

If you're right and enough people think this way we truly are fucked.

------ 

[Clave]

"Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message

news:l3gq19x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

You'd say that about any reasons I gave other than the White House line, so
it's really hard for me to give a flying fuck *what* you think.

Jim

[Alim Nassor]

Uh no Jerry, for this.

"I am very optimistic about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the
great achievements of this administration. .......You're going to see
a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a
representative government." Joe Biden
>


************************

Why are you stalking me?
Why are you ignoring my replies?

Jerry 'n Vegas

[Hollis2]

That's so unexpected. I was sure that when you read what I wrote, you
would admit that you were totally wrong.

----- 

[ChrisRobin]

On Feb 24 2012 4:54 PM, Hollis2 wrote:

> On Feb 24 2012 2:26 AM, Clave wrote:

> > Saddam the Suicidal Fool made the Euro his petrocurrency. Everything
since
> > fell out of that.

> Are you also a 9/11 truther, or is this the only harebrained conspiracy
> theory you believe in?

Clave isn't a Truther, and his "petrodollar imperialism" explanation for
the Iraq war isn't a conspiracy theory. It's historical fact. Uncle Sam
doesn't like competition.

________________________________________________________________________ 

[Wilhelm Kuhlmann]

On Feb 26, 6:01 pm, "ChrisRobin" <a9db...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> Clave isn't a Truther, and his "petrodollar imperialism" explanation for
> the Iraq war isn't a conspiracy theory. It's historical fact.

LOL. It is not a historical fact that the real reason for the Iraq
War was because Saddam was insisting on payment in Euros for oil.
That's speculation, not fact.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[Clave]

"Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message

news:ib3r19x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

There might have been some chance of that if you'd actually said something.

Jim

[Pepe Papon]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 12:08:53 -0800, "Hollis2"
<a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>> >Actually, you haven't shown any evidence that it was and you made the
>> >claim.
>>
>> Actually, the two of you are essentially in agreement that the war was
>> about regime change. The question is why was regime change so
>> important. He gave a plausible answer. You haven't.
>
>Plausible? I don't think so.

You may not think so, but you've failed to make a case for that
position. And it's certainly more plausible than any explanation
you've come up with.

[Pepe Papon]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:54:50 -0800, "BTSinAustin"
<a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>> >The great thing about trolling is you don't even have to keep a straight
>> >face.
>>
>> I don't think he's trolling. I think he really believes what he's
>> saying.
>
>If you're right and enough people think this way we truly are fucked.

You're just saying that because you're a knee-jerk left-winger. When
you're taking a break from being a teabagger, that is.

[BTSinAustin]

IDK. My gf took my kindle on a trip and I found out reading on the iPad
Kindle app sucks.

________________________________________________________________________