news:5f04ceef-ecaa-44c5-85bf-On Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:05:46 AM
UTC-5, philo wrote:
Precisely. The Saudis funded and executed the 9/11 attack but they were
Bush's BFF's so he went after Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11. He
even flew the Saudis all out of the US on 9/12 when all other air travel was
banned right after the attack.
<Jimmy Carter told the Shah of Iran essentially to F*** off, because of
"human rights". Seems the Shah had the crazy islamic nut jobs locked up
or exiled. How did that work out?>
About as well as our deposing Saddam who had the nut jobs of Iraq locked up
tight. Much of ISIS is being run by Saddam's former military officers. The
Shah was doomed to fail with or without Carter. Not so Saddam. Cheney and
his cabal alleged that Saddam had WMDs that we needed to eliminate. WMDs
that no one could find in ten years of looking. Bush should have looked in
North Korea. He would have found WMD's there. He didn't because the Iraq
war was all about Bush's hard-on for Saddam and had little to do with
*really* eliminating WMDs in the hands of nut jobs. That was just the cover
story for the feeble-minded. Philo seems to understand that.
On Friday, December 19, 2014 3:06:56 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
As usualy, you're full of anti-American lies. There was no Bush authorized
flight for the Saudis, while the airspace was closed. There was no flight
at all. The 911 Commission investigated it and showed it was a myth. The
Saudis in question left once the airspace was open again. This
is pure garbage from the nutty 911 deniers.
And I'm sure we;d all love to see your proof that the Saudi govt executed
the 911 attack. Are you as sure about that as you are about the above lie?
Well, there you go. Which is why destabilizing Saudi Arabia is a dumb
The Shah might have gone eventually anyway, but Jimmy sure helped give
him a big push. "Human rights....." :Human rights....", what a moron.
Based on CIA intelligence. British, Israeli intelligence believed he
had them too. And we know for sure he had them in the past, that he had
used them. Just days before the war began, with 300,000 coalition forces
on Iraq's border, Hans Blix, in his final report to the UN, said that
Iraq was still not fully cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors and
that they could not account for Iraqs WMDs.
It's nice being a Monday morning quarterback. Of course if it had turned
out Iraq had WMDs and later used them, you'd be here harping about what an
idiot Bush was. You'd be saying how everyone knew he still had WMDs. The
CIA knew it, British intel, Israeli intel. You'd cite the many speeches
by Bill, Hillary Clinton, Reid, Kerry, Edwards, saying Iraq had WMDs and
what a threat they were. You'd have been calling for Bush's impeachment
because he didn't act.
He didn't have to look. We knew and the rest of the world knows that
they have had a nuclear weapons program for a long time, at least back
to the days of the Clinton administration. I recall him sending Jimmy
Carter over there, to play footsie with them, giving them aid if they
would just pretend to be nice. Kind of like what Obama and Kerry are
doing right now with Iran.
He didn't because the Iraq
I see, so you're advocating a US bombing and invasion of North Korea?
No president has ever had the guts to take on North Korea.
No president has had the guts to tell our HUGE enemy Saudi Arabia where
North Korea at least does not pretend to be our friend
and they certainly did not sent people over here to blow things up like
the Saudi's did.
At any rate, out of all the problems in the world, that of Cuba is at
the bottom of the list.
On Saturday, December 20, 2014 9:29:10 AM UTC-5, philo wrote:
OK, it's your turn. What exactly would you do right now
to "take on" North Korea?
They aren't our enemy. Just because you don't like them, doesn't
make them our enemy. Would you prefer they became like Libya, Syria,
Iraq? Good grief. We need more stable countries in the ME, not more
Which of course is a lie. The Saudi Govt didn't send anyone here
So why is Obama suddenly kissing their ass? Answer: He's desperate
for anything to take attention off the recent disaster in the Congressional
elections and all his policy failures.
On Saturday, December 20, 2014 11:16:01 AM UTC-5, philo wrote:
In other words, despite all your bloviating of how others have not
"taken on" NK, you have no clue what to actually do yourself.
Which of course is either ignorance or another lie:
Saudi Arabia is a monarchy based on Islam. The government is headed by the
King, who is also the commander in chief of the military.
The King appoints a Crown Prince to help him with his duties. The Crown Pri
nce is second in line to the throne.
The King governs with the help of the Council of Ministers, also called the
Cabinet. There are 22 government ministries that are part of the Cabinet.
Each ministry specializes in a different part of the government, such as fo
reign affairs, education and finance.
The King is also advised by a legislative body called the Consultative Coun
cil (Majlis Al-Shura). The Council proposes new laws and amends existing on
es. It consists of 150 members who are appointed by the King for four-year
terms that can be renewed.
The country is divided into 13 provinces, with a governor and deputy govern
or in each one. Each province has its own council that advises the governor
and deals with the development of the province. "
Not according to the lamestream media. They say the trade embargo is all
but over, tourism, cuban cigars, massive trade are all coming soon.
Ok, all kidding aside.
If any country is a real and serious threat to the US,
then we simply need to blow them the hell up.
If they are not a big enough threat to us that we need to wipe them off
the face of the earth...then we can just leave them the fuck alone.
Yep, like I said...no government
and indeed our enemy.
On Saturday, December 20, 2014 5:17:52 PM UTC-5, philo wrote:
Which obviously again does not answer the very basic question I raised:
"What exactly would you do right now to "take on" North Korea? " You
used the term "take on", said that no US president has had the guts to
take on NK. So, again, specifically, right now, what would you do?
No more bloviating and trying to weasel away.
Aside from that, it's a bizarre foreign policy, call it the
"binary foreign policy".
Also how does this binary policy relate to Saudi Arabia? You keep
saying to tell them to "F off". That isn't leaving them alone, nor is
it wiping them out. Right now, we are leaving them alone. Make up your
Since you dragged any country that is a threat to us into this, add
Iran to the list. Specifics please, what would you do with Iran, right
now? Leave them alone or wipe them out? Your choice.
OK, now you're a liar.
You and Obama do apparently. I guess he didn't follow your binary foreign
policy idea there either, he's neither leaving it alone, nor wiping it out.
Korea is a tough one and I do not pretend to have an answer. It should
have been finished off in 1953 but instead a bandage was placed over a
My original answer of building a Disney Land there may be the best thing
to do. It would not be very civilized of us to blow them off the map.
To me, Saudi Arabia and Iran are both our enemies.
I just give a little more credit to Iran because they are not smiling to
What the US needs to do is abandon /all/ oil imports from the mid-East.
There is enough right here in the US to supply our needs if we
supplement our power requirements with solar.
100 square miles of panels in a place like Arizona is all it would take.
What the US needed to have done in both Iraq and Afghanistan is to have
totally decimated the countries like we did to Germany and Japan then
Heck I was stationed on Germany 25 years after WW-II ended.
Had we treated Afghanistan and Iraq the way we handled Germany and
Japan, we would not be seeing the shit that we see today.
OK, you don't think decimating the two countries is a good idea?
If not, then we need to stay the fuck out.
Applying a bandage to a festering wound is not going to help the victim
but it can infect the care giver
Xere is no government in Saudi Arabia so I guess you are correct when
No I am not a liar. I do not consider a dictatorship a government...and
that's exactly what a monarchy is.
If Saudi Arabia is such a great place, why don't you and your wife move
there, I'm sure she'd love it.
On Sunday, December 21, 2014 9:03:49 AM UTC-5, philo wrote:
It's not very much of an answer. Who exactly is going to build a "Disney L
Certainly not Disney. There is very little foreign investment in NK, excep
China. It's not just the US that has issues and is pissed off at them. Pl
there are currently UN sanctions in place, that would prohibit US investmen
there. So, if you ever want to get to that point, then you'd have to
A - restore normal diplomatic relations
B - end the sanctions
C - Make nice to Kim Jung Un who just this week inflicted $100mil in
terrorism against Sony, threatened the USA with another 911, etc
You'd do that, while they are actively building nuclear weapons, thumbing
their nose at the UN, and directly threatening the USA as well as SK,
Japan, sinking SK ships, firing on them, etc?
Which isn't consistent with your stated policy of leaving them alone or
wiping them off the map. And what we import or don't import from there
isn't going to hurt them. Oil is fungible, there is a world market and it
will be sold anyway. I agree there are economic reasons and national
security reasons why the USA would be better off importing less oil. But
to think we can then ignore the middle east, let anyone take over the oil
there, is naive. How about ISIS takes over the oil?
Sure, solar has been a big success so far..... It's the highest cost
electricity there is, by far. The only reason it's gotten anywhere is
because the govt is heavily subsidizing it, to hide the true cost.
Plus, we aren't burning oil to generate electricity,
with rare exceptions, anyway.
This analysis says you're off by a factor of 100, which sounds about right.
Ain't no way you're going to provide the power for the USA with something
only 100 square miles. I'd be happy to see your math/reference.
We only decimated Germany and Japan because they had formidable military
forces that were still fighting and would not surrender. Iraq/Afghanistan,
we decimated their military, they surrendered. So, you'd go on to needless
kill innocent civilians, women and children that had nothing to do with
Saddam or the Taliban? My God.
Regarding never leaving, we did pretty much leave both Germany and Japan.
We set up democracies, gave them enormous aid. Yeah, we have some residual
troops there, but we're not involved in governing the country. Also
leaving troops anywhere is clearly contrary to your binary foreign policy
of leaving them alone or wiping them out.
So, following 911 you would have stayed out of Afghanistan? Or you
would have bombed all the civilian, women and children, when they had
no military that was capable of threatening the USA? The latter would
have been a war crime, rightly condemned by the whole world.
What you consider, doesn't matter. Look up the definition.
Which of course is irrelevant. Whether it's a great place, whether one
wants to live there, has nothing to do with telling them to F** off,
destabilizing another friendly country in the mideast, etc.
Like I said, I don't have the answer to North Korea and since 1953 no
one else has either. I am quite sure the US has enough missiles
programmed to get there asap should they actually try anything...and
other than containing them there is not much more we can do.
I fully realize the idea of us going in there and just plain blowing up
the entire mid-East is an insane idea and I was speaking figuratively if
I implied I really meant to do that...but no matter what, we need to get
our oil interests /out/ of the mid-East.
If the US were in no way dependent on them for oil it would cloud our
As far as ISIS goes. since no one else is going to do it, the good old
US will have to...and of course get criticized by everyone else on Earth
for doing so
The article you linked to confirmed my figures so I don't see why your
are arguing .
Of course when I said "going solar" that does not mean we need to go
100% solar. There is plenty of oil right here and in Canada. I /think/
we get more oil from Canada than we get from the mid-East anyway
After 911 I would have done sufficient research to find out /exactly/
where the threat came from and completely wiped them out.
Since the terrorists apparently came from Afghanistan then that would
have been the place to go. Although the US did put some effort into
going after terrorists there, the majority of the effort was put into Iraq.
A considerably bigger problem than Iraq (Iraq was not a threat to the
US) is the issue of Saudi Arabia which you say is our good friend. The
Saudis were where the terrorists came from and the US in one way or
another needed to (and still needs to ) address that issue.
Had Bush gone to the source of the problem we'd not be in the mess we
are in today,
Of course we'd just be in some kind of other mess...that's the way the
Iraq was shown to have tried to kill Daddy Bush after he was out of
office. At the time, I noted that the run up seemed to be a Princess
Bride Moment: " I am George W. Bush. You tried to kill my father.
Prepare to die."
?Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.?
I'm not a liar, but when my wife asked me if the new dress she wanted to
buy made her look fat, I said "No". I'm not a liar, but when my
neighbor's kid pressed me for an answer, I said "Yes, Jamie, there is a
Stormin: some things arem't stictly black or white, but various shades
I photocopied my income tax return at work, and now the receptionist is
telling everyone that I'm a thief.
There's a difference between a smoker, some kid who gets an adult to buy
him cigarettes so he can supposedly impress his friends, someone who
will have an occasional cigarette when offered one and someone who never
smokes under any circumstances.
"Not a smoker" means someone who isn't hooked and doesn't normally
smoke. It doesn't mean someone who never smokes under any circumstance.
So, to say "I'm not a smoker, but I had a cigarette at last year's
company Christmas Party" is not a contradiction.
I used to watch that bunk all the time on Sunday morning TV where some
TV evangelist would say "If you ever sinned, you are by definition a
"sinner"", and I thought "What bunk". If I pounded out something that
didn't make sense on a piano, does that make me a "musician"?
There is an old joke I can't remember well enough
to quote. It goes some thing about "I give to the
poor, alms and work for the church. I help little
old ladies across the street. But.... just f-k
Some things only require one.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
On Saturday, December 20, 2014 8:51:56 AM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
Nothing strange just more 911 deniers loony claims, with little basis
in fact. Then guys like you take it to the next level. All you have
in the case of the Bush oil company was that many decades ago, a private
investor who put some money into the Bush oil company, was also
doing business with the Bin Laden family. The person who made the investme
says that it was his own money, had nothing to do with the Bin Ladens.
The investment was a whopping $50K. Does that sound like Bin Laden kind of
money to you? Or more likely it was what the person has said, that
it was just his own money? THAT is all you have. And only a lying loon
would turn that into "Bin Laden's father was Bush's senior partner".
Good grief, how you fabricate and lie.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.