homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Iran Deal (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Iran Deal
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
The 'half million' figure seems questionable. According to Wikipedia:

"The total loss of life resulting from Pontiac's War is unknown. About 400 British soldiers were killed in action and perhaps 50 were captured and tortured to death.[98] George Croghan estimated that 2,000 settlers had been killed or captured, a figure sometimes repeated as 2,000 settlers killed.[99] The violence compelled approximately 4,000 settlers from Pennsylvania and Virginia to flee their homes.[100] Native American losses went mostly unrecorded."

Also, according to wikipedia,
quote:
While it is estimated that 400,000-500,000 (possibly up to 1.5 million) Native Americans died during and years after the Pontiac's War, mostly from smallpox,[77][78][79] ... Smallpox may have reached Native villages through a number of sources. Eyewitnesses reported that Native warriors contracted the disease after attacking infected white settlements on the Juniata River, and spread the disease upon their return home


--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
We pick sides because we think it's in our best interest - even when history shows us time and again it isn't (Hussein in Iraq, Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the Shah in Iran, etc.)

Sorry when did the US ever pick sides with Saddam Hussein? During the cold war he was an ally of the Soviet Union (his main backer in the Iran-Iraq war). After the end of the cold way America was more or less continuously at war with him for 16 years and then finally they ordered him executed. That's a funny way of picking someone's side.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
We pick sides because we think it's in our best interest - even when history shows us time and again it isn't (Hussein in Iraq, Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the Shah in Iran, etc.)

Sorry when did the US ever pick sides with Saddam Hussein? During the cold war he was an ally of the Soviet Union (his main backer in the Iran-Iraq war). After the end of the cold way America was more or less continuously at war with him for 16 years and then finally they ordered him executed. That's a funny way of picking someone's side.
Hussein . . . Hussein . . . sorry, can't remember anyone like that.

Oh right. That guy.

For those who are similarly amnesiac:

quote:
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.
Well, you know how it is. You get so busy and who can remember every dictator you supply chemical weapons to?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
We pick sides because we think it's in our best interest - even when history shows us time and again it isn't (Hussein in Iraq, Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the Shah in Iran, etc.)

Sorry when did the US ever pick sides with Saddam Hussein? During the cold war he was an ally of the Soviet Union (his main backer in the Iran-Iraq war). After the end of the cold way America was more or less continuously at war with him for 16 years and then finally they ordered him executed. That's a funny way of picking someone's side.
Hussein . . . Hussein . . . sorry, can't remember anyone like that.

Oh right. That guy.

For those who are similarly amnesiac:

quote:
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.
Well, you know how it is. You get so busy and who can remember every dictator you supply chemical weapons to?

America (and Israel) also sold a huge amount of weaponry to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. How does selling weapons to both sides in a war equate to picking sides with one side? Iraq's main backer in the war was the Soviet Union. It was Iran that would have lost the war if they had not been able to buy US and Israeli weapons. The US wanted a stalemate in that war. They didn't want either side to win. How does that equate to backing Saddam?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753

 - Posted      Profile for jbohn   Author's homepage   Email jbohn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Sorry when did the US ever pick sides with Saddam Hussein?

When he was fighting the Iranians, who we like(d) even less.

Which isn't to say we didn't sell the Iranians arms, both pre-revolution and secretly later (Google Iran–Contra affair).

--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard

Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Sorry when did the US ever pick sides with Saddam Hussein?

When he was fighting the Iranians, who we like(d) even less.

Which isn't to say we didn't sell the Iranians arms, both pre-revolution and secretly later (Google Iran–Contra affair).

Yes I have heard of Iran-Contra. If the US was 'picking sides' with Saddam in that war and 'liked the Iranians even less' then why did they (and Israel) sell billions of dollars of weapons to Iran during the war, weapons that Iran would have lost the war if it had been unable to buy?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Yes I have heard of Iran-Contra. If the US was 'picking sides' with Saddam in that war and 'liked the Iranians even less' then why did they (and Israel) sell billions of dollars of weapons to Iran during the war, weapons that Iran would have lost the war if it had been unable to buy?

To get a funding stream independent of the Congressional appropriations process to secretly pay for wars in Central America. I'm not sure how it's possible to "have heard of Iran-Contra" and not know this.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Yes I have heard of Iran-Contra. If the US was 'picking sides' with Saddam in that war and 'liked the Iranians even less' then why did they (and Israel) sell billions of dollars of weapons to Iran during the war, weapons that Iran would have lost the war if it had been unable to buy?

To get a funding stream independent of the Congressional appropriations process to secretly pay for wars in Central America. I'm not sure how it's possible to "have heard of Iran-Contra" and not know this.
Yes that was the explanation given by Col North and others. And you evidently believed every word of it.

Don't you think the US government could have found other ways to cook the books and fund the Contras secretly if it had wanted to?

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It didn't want to. It wanted to maintain the balance of power in the ME. And wage the Cold War. And make money.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It didn't want to. It wanted to maintain the balance of power in the ME. And wage the Cold War.

Exactly, the Cold War. Iraq was pro Soviet. Iran was anti-American but crucially it was also anti-Soviet. If Iran had lost its oil fields to Iraq the Islamic government could have collapsed and then there would have been the risk of a pro-Soviet government emerging. That would have meant a Soviet dominated Persian Gulf which would much more of a problem for the US than a pro-Soviet Nicaragua. The Contras were just an excuse, the US sold arms to Iran to make sure they didn't lose the war and fall to the Soviets.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It didn't want to. It wanted to maintain the balance of power in the ME. And wage the Cold War.

Exactly, the Cold War. Iraq was pro Soviet. Iran was anti-American but crucially it was also anti-Soviet. If Iran had lost its oil fields to Iraq the Islamic government could have collapsed and then there would have been the risk of a pro-Soviet government emerging. That would have meant a Soviet dominated Persian Gulf which would much more of a problem for the US than a pro-Soviet Nicaragua. The Contras were just an excuse, the US sold arms to Iran to make sure they didn't lose the war and fall to the Soviets.
You know, you could just spend 5 minutes on Wikipedia and clear this all up.

The US sold arms to Iran in the hope of getting hostages freed. The deal was in secret and contrary to arms embargos. Support for Iraq was open and larger.

[ 16. July 2015, 23:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Sorry when did the US ever pick sides with Saddam Hussein?

When he was fighting the Iranians, who we like(d) even less.

Which isn't to say we didn't sell the Iranians arms, both pre-revolution and secretly later (Google Iran–Contra affair).

Yes I have heard of Iran-Contra. If the US was 'picking sides' with Saddam in that war and 'liked the Iranians even less' then why did they (and Israel) sell billions of dollars of weapons to Iran during the war, weapons that Iran would have lost the war if it had been unable to buy?
The United States at the time "picked sides" by picking its own munitions manufacturers. Who sold weapons to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Arms supplier to the world; it's what we do. That way, we can turn the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about into a perpetual-motion machine, eternally occupied with churning out newer, better weapons than the ones we just sold to our allies / enemies / fifth columns / whatever. You know, whichever they are this week.

We pick sides in order to maintain a steady supply of bogeymen.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes wait until we "find" WMDs in Iran, the way we "found" WMDs in Iraq. Then we can have another 14-year war killing thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iranians, leave the area even further destabilized, and crow about how much we love freedom.

Fuck all that.

Preach it, my brother.

I cannot say much about the behavior of the Reagan administration in regards to the Iran/ Contra affair without slamming us into Hell, but suffice it to say, I don't believe said administration made a single decision in that affair in which the ambition and the advantage of said administration did not take precedence over the wellbeing of the American people.

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
orfeo


In other words you are completely right. I'd forgotten about the 6 US hostages held by Hezbollah.

No Foggy Bottom fog necessary. And even under the most hawkish possible, Christian Zionist Republican cabal, the trillionaire MIC is NOT going to attack Iran in any way under ANY circumstances apart from nuclear launch preparation. There will be NO BOG in Iraq. Ever.

Because we'd have to be WORSE. Much, much worse.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It didn't want to. It wanted to maintain the balance of power in the ME. And wage the Cold War.

Exactly, the Cold War. Iraq was pro Soviet. Iran was anti-American but crucially it was also anti-Soviet. If Iran had lost its oil fields to Iraq the Islamic government could have collapsed and then there would have been the risk of a pro-Soviet government emerging. That would have meant a Soviet dominated Persian Gulf which would much more of a problem for the US than a pro-Soviet Nicaragua. The Contras were just an excuse, the US sold arms to Iran to make sure they didn't lose the war and fall to the Soviets.
You know, you could just spend 5 minutes on Wikipedia and clear this all up.

The US sold arms to Iran in the hope of getting hostages freed. The deal was in secret and contrary to arms embargos. Support for Iraq was open and larger.

Oh please. I know what the story is. Do you really believe it?

Firstly lets look at the claim that 'support for Iraq was open and larger'. Well it was certainly more open, the US government has certainly been keen to spread the idea that they supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. However was it really larger? Now we can never know for certain because the facts in cases like these are so often obscured in lies and propaganda. However some facts are relatively uncontested

Iraq was an ally of the Soviet Union. Its military equipment was mostly Soviet and its main military supplier throughout the war was the USSR.

The Iranian military had mostly American military equipment. Their army was the Shah's army that had been stocked, supplied and trained by the US, with help from Israel. This meant that once the war was underway they needed American and Israeli ammunition, spare parts and replacement equipment and lots of it. Without it they would have lost the war quite quickly.

They got it. Starting in 1981 thy bought huge amounts of the equipment they needed, at first just from Israel (and I don't believe for a second Israel would have done this without US permission) then later direct from the US.

quote:
Arms sales to Iran that totaled an estimated $500 million from 1981 to 1983 according to the Jafe Institute for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. Most of it was paid for by Iranian oil delivered to Israel.[2]:107 "According to Ahmad Haidari, "an Iranian arms dealer working for the Khomeini regime, roughly 80% of the weaponry bought by Tehran" immediately after the onset of the war originated in Israel.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

You'll notice the arms sales started in 1981, a year before the first hostages were taken.

Given that Iran was so dependent on arms supplies from the US and Israel it becomes clear that they would have quickly lost the war without these sales. If the US government wanted Iran to lose the war, if it was backing Iraq to win, it would have done everything it could to block these sales rather than facilitate them. Do you really think that the US had this strategic aim but gave it up because of tender hearted concern for half a dozen hostages?

I have some bad news for you. Remember that time you went to Brooklyn and bought that bridge. Well I'm afraid to have to inform you that the guy who sold it to you wasn't the legal owner.

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Iran is not crazier than, say, Russia under Khrushchev or North Korea under its dictators.

Or as Kelly noted above, the USA under Reagan.

The next big thing in the Middle East, after we're starting to take ski holidays in Iran again, will be to have Iran and Saudi Arabia jostle to determine who will be the regional power. We don't really want Iran nuking Saudi, but Israel will do something very bad to Iran if it looks like they'll win, with or without the global policing of the USA. This will be good for business as noted. European and American companies will freely supply the arms because of the extended decades long recession we pretend we haven't been in because the lovely military-industrial faux-economic engine. The goal? Obvious isn't it? We need the Middle East petro-money to be circulated back to western countries to really deal with 21st century economics. We'll do that by selling then expensive killing machines.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The next big thing in the Middle East, after we're starting to take ski holidays in Iran again, will be to have Iran and Saudi Arabia jostle to determine who will be the regional power. We don't really want Iran nuking Saudi, but Israel will do something very bad to Iran if it looks like they'll win

Why do you think they would do that? Since when were they friends with the Saudis. As the Wikipedia article I linked to in my last post detailed in the Iran-Iraq war Israel backed the Iranians. Why on earth would they back the Saudis in an Iran-Saudi conflict?
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Because Saudi is a USA friend because of oil, which it protects it to guarantee the oil. Despotic theocratic dictatorship that it is, it makes for bitchingly efficient business, notwithstanding chop-chop square etc. Israel sees more risk from Saudi Arabia than it does from Iran.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Oh please. I know what the story is. Do you really believe it?

...

at first just from Israel (and I don't believe for a second Israel would have done this without US permission)

Ah, I see. This is the kind of territory we're in.

I can't disprove whatever conspiracy theories you have, so I'm not going to bother trying.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Oh please. I know what the story is. Do you really believe it?

...

at first just from Israel (and I don't believe for a second Israel would have done this without US permission)

Ah, I see. This is the kind of territory we're in.
Do you really think that Israel (which receives such a huge amount of US foreign aid) would have sold that amount of munitions to Iran, thereby changing the course of the war, without the US government giving the go ahead?

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can't disprove whatever conspiracy theories you have, so I'm not going to bother trying.

What do you mean by 'conspiracy theory'? I'll follow your advice and check Wikipedia

quote:
A conspiracy theory is an explanatory hypothesis that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Now what were you saying earlier

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The US sold arms to Iran in the hope of getting hostages freed. The deal was in secret and contrary to arms embargos.

Now that fits the definition of conspiracy theory quite well doesn't it. I'm pointing out some of the problems with your conspiracy theory.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754

 - Posted      Profile for IconiumBound   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have the impression (can't offer a source) that US aid to Israel and Egypt (90% of all foreign aid) is limited to purchase arms from the US. If so, then any arms given by Israel or Egypt come, indirectly, from the US.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827

 - Posted      Profile for Mere Nick     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Because Saudi is a USA friend because of oil, which it protects it to guarantee the oil. Despotic theocratic dictatorship that it is, it makes for bitchingly efficient business, notwithstanding chop-chop square etc. Israel sees more risk from Saudi Arabia than it does from Iran.

The thought of Saudi Arabia being a friend is galling. As an American, I feel more like we're just hired goons. Whoever wins over there will sell the oil on the world market so just what is it we're supposed to be protecting it from? Yes, I know we sell them lots of weapons. Maybe we're just business partners, then.

[ 18. July 2015, 15:36: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]

--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell

Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
I have the impression (can't offer a source) that US aid to Israel and Egypt (90% of all foreign aid) is limited to purchase arms from the US. If so, then any arms given by Israel or Egypt come, indirectly, from the US.

Yes, exactly. US foreign aid to Israel isn't entirely limited to military assistance, however it may as well be as 99% of US aid to Israel is military in nature. In 2012 this equated to over $400 per capita in military assistance for Israel.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The thought of Saudi Arabia being a friend is galling. As an American, I feel more like we're just hired goons. Whoever wins over there will sell the oil on the world market so just what is it we're supposed to be protecting it from? Yes, I know we sell them lots of weapons. Maybe we're just business partners, then.

quote:
USA president Obama:
Obviously the United States and Saudi Arabia have a long history of friendship.

Obama: U.S., Saudi Arabia have 'strategic relationship'

It's been going for a long time. I think everyone knows about the crony capitalism, self-dealing and personal enrichment between American wealthy politicians in the Bush Jr years pre and post terror attacks in 2001, no reason to think it stopped under the next guy.

[ 18. July 2015, 19:35: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Because Saudi is a USA friend because of oil, which it protects it to guarantee the oil. Despotic theocratic dictatorship that it is, it makes for bitchingly efficient business, notwithstanding chop-chop square etc. Israel sees more risk from Saudi Arabia than it does from Iran.

The thought of Saudi Arabia being a friend is galling. As an American, I feel more like we're just hired goons. Whoever wins over there will sell the oil on the world market so just what is it we're supposed to be protecting it from? Yes, I know we sell them lots of weapons. Maybe we're just business partners, then.
Did it ever occour to you that it was the other way around and that the tail does not wag the dog? That it is not that America is defending the Saudi government not because they just happen to be the people with all the oil. Rather it is that the Saudi government is only there because the US government wanted that country to have a narrow sectarian dictatorship. The narrow sectarian nature of the government there promotes divisions between Saudi and some of its neighbours. Divide and rule.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The US sold arms to Iran in the hope of getting hostages freed. The deal was in secret and contrary to arms embargos.

Now that fits the definition of conspiracy theory quite well doesn't it.
No, it really doesn't. Because what happened was that the secret was revealed and was the subject of extensive investigation by both journalists and the authorities.

Which is in sharp contrast to you asserting things because you refuse to believe otherwise. I'm citing the findings of others, you're citing your own ideas based on some kind of 'vibe'.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The US sold arms to Iran in the hope of getting hostages freed. The deal was in secret and contrary to arms embargos.

Now that fits the definition of conspiracy theory quite well doesn't it.
No, it really doesn't. Because what happened was that the secret was revealed and was the subject of extensive investigation by both journalists and the authorities.
How does a conspiracy theory stop being a conspiracy theory simply because it is presented by 'the authorities' and journalists after they have investigated the matter? I would also point out that 'the authorities' in question were authorities of the US government which is the same government that was doing the selling in question so you may want to consider taking their findings with pinch of salt.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which is in sharp contrast to you asserting things because you refuse to believe otherwise. I'm citing the findings of others, you're citing your own ideas based on some kind of 'vibe'.

This would be a reference to my 'vibe' that Israel would not have sold weapons to Iran without US government permission. Now given the importance of US military aid to Israel I would have thought that this was obvious but you have asked for further evidence.

How about Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh writing in the New York Times? Is that a good enough source for you?


quote:
Soon after taking office in 1981, the Reagan Administration secretly and abruptly changed United States policy and allowed Israel to sell several billion dollars' worth of American-made arms, spare parts and ammunition to the Iranian Government, according to former senior Reagan Administration officials and Israeli officials...Iran at that time was in dire need of arms and spare parts for its American-made arsenal to defend itself against Iraq, which had attacked it in September 1980...

The inquiry did show that Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig Jr. and Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel worked out an agreement in 1981 under which the United States would review and approve Iranian requests to Israel for American-made spare parts and other equipment on a case-by-base basis...But even after the official agreement was broken, American officials said, the Administration made no effort to curb what became a steadily increasing flow of American-made arms from Israel to Iran...The Reagan Administration continued to replenish Israel's stockpile of American-made weapons, despite clear evidence that Israel was shipping them to Iran...No precise estimate of the volume of goods shipped could be made. But in interviews, Israeli and American intelligence officials acknowledged that weapons, spare parts and ammunition worth several billion dollars flowed to Iran each year during the early 1980's.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/08/world/iran-pipeline-hidden-chapter-special-report-us-said-have-allowed-israel-sell.html

[ 19. July 2015, 08:35: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The US sold arms to Iran in the hope of getting hostages freed. The deal was in secret and contrary to arms embargos.

Now that fits the definition of conspiracy theory quite well doesn't it.
No, it really doesn't. Because what happened was that the secret was revealed and was the subject of extensive investigation by both journalists and the authorities.
How does a conspiracy theory stop being a conspiracy theory simply because it is presented by 'the authorities' and journalists after they have investigated the matter?
Because it is no longer a THEORY.

As to you actually providing some decent source material, yes thank you.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827

 - Posted      Profile for Mere Nick     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Because Saudi is a USA friend because of oil, which it protects it to guarantee the oil. Despotic theocratic dictatorship that it is, it makes for bitchingly efficient business, notwithstanding chop-chop square etc. Israel sees more risk from Saudi Arabia than it does from Iran.

The thought of Saudi Arabia being a friend is galling. As an American, I feel more like we're just hired goons. Whoever wins over there will sell the oil on the world market so just what is it we're supposed to be protecting it from? Yes, I know we sell them lots of weapons. Maybe we're just business partners, then.
Did it ever occour to you that it was the other way around and that the tail does not wag the dog? That it is not that America is defending the Saudi government not because they just happen to be the people with all the oil. Rather it is that the Saudi government is only there because the US government wanted that country to have a narrow sectarian dictatorship. The narrow sectarian nature of the government there promotes divisions between Saudi and some of its neighbours. Divide and rule.
I read of the British helping the install them but haven't ever come across anything that shows we were involved with the Sauds taking over. It's Peter O'Toole's fault.

--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell

Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The US sold arms to Iran in the hope of getting hostages freed. The deal was in secret and contrary to arms embargos.

Now that fits the definition of conspiracy theory quite well doesn't it.
No, it really doesn't. Because what happened was that the secret was revealed and was the subject of extensive investigation by both journalists and the authorities.
How does a conspiracy theory stop being a conspiracy theory simply because it is presented by 'the authorities' and journalists after they have investigated the matter?
Because it is no longer a THEORY.

As to you actually providing some decent source material, yes thank you.

Well what is it if not a theory? A fact? If its a fact why did the sales start in 1981, a year before the first hostages were taken?

[ 20. July 2015, 16:11: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The US sold arms to Iran in the hope of getting hostages freed. The deal was in secret and contrary to arms embargos.

Now that fits the definition of conspiracy theory quite well doesn't it.
No, it really doesn't. Because what happened was that the secret was revealed and was the subject of extensive investigation by both journalists and the authorities.
How does a conspiracy theory stop being a conspiracy theory simply because it is presented by 'the authorities' and journalists after they have investigated the matter?
Because it is no longer a THEORY.

As to you actually providing some decent source material, yes thank you.

Well what is it if not a theory? A fact? If its a fact why did the sales start in 1981, a year before the first hostages were taken?
Prove it.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Well what is it if not a theory? A fact? If its a fact why did the sales start in 1981, a year before the first hostages were taken?

Prove it.
I thought I already had. Once again that quote from the New York Times
quote:
Soon after taking office in 1981 , the Reagan Administration secretly and abruptly changed United States policy and allowed Israel to sell several billion dollars' worth of American-made arms, spare parts and ammunition to the Iranian Government, according to former senior Reagan Administration officials and Israeli officials...

The inquiry did show that Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig Jr. and Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel worked out an agreement in 1981 under which the United States would review and approve Iranian requests to Israel for American-made spare parts and other equipment on a case-by-base basis

You can read the full article here

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/08/world/iran-pipeline-hidden-chapter-special-report-us-said-have-allowed-israel-sell.html

From the Wikipedia article about the Lebanon hostage crisis

quote:
1982 July 19 - Abduction: First Westerner abducted is David Dodge, the acting president of the American University of Beirut (AUB) (American).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon_hostage_crisis

1981 was before 1982

Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As I said all along, including 30+ years ago, it's all about balance. Just what Israel wanted.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Thank you.

You're welcome.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I actually think the deal is the best we could have gotten.

The coalition was beginning to show cracks with Russia and China favoring Iran during the negotiations.

The alternative would have been war. It still may be, but I tend to want to engage the Iranians than confront them. When we engage a dictatorship we will eventually see changes in that government; whereas if we confront a dictatorship, it only gives the dictatorship reason to hunker down.

Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hate to say it orfeo, you, we, WEREN'T completely right. By a country mile.

Bibliophile is. Game, set and match to him I'd say.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418

 - Posted      Profile for Bibliophile     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Hate to say it orfeo, you, we, WEREN'T completely right. By a country mile.

Bibliophile is. Game, set and match to him I'd say.

Thank you for saying so. You weren't entirely wrong either. It was about maintaining the balance of power in the Middle East. It was about keeping the war going, divide and rule. I once remember reading a quote from someone, I forget who it was who was speaking about his time in politics. He said that he would worry sometimes that he was being too cynical only to discover later that his mistake was that he wasn't being cynical enough.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827

 - Posted      Profile for Mere Nick     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I actually think the deal is the best we could have gotten.

The coalition was beginning to show cracks with Russia and China favoring Iran during the negotiations.

The alternative would have been war. It still may be, but I tend to want to engage the Iranians than confront them. When we engage a dictatorship we will eventually see changes in that government; whereas if we confront a dictatorship, it only gives the dictatorship reason to hunker down.

What we have now is preferable to war, too, istm. There is still plenty of time for the Iranian government to malignatudinousnessly reveal itself to the world if they are true practitioners of nefariosity and depravicity.

--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell

Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Anyone remember 'weapons of mass destruction". With Iraq it was the reason for the war. With Iran is it the reason for not war. Anyone else confused?

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suppose the difference is that people suspected Iraq of having WMDs (and, to be fair Iraq had had WMDs, and used them, and so it was more a question of whether they'd all been destroyed). No one is claiming Iran has nuclear weapons. The questions are "does Iran want to develop nukes?" and "is the civil nuclear programme Iran wants to follow a step towards developing bombs?". If there is evidence in the future that Iran is using their civil programme for bomb development then presumably the deal can be reassessed.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
(and, to be fair Iraq had had WMDs, and used them, and so it was more a question of whether they'd all been destroyed)

Had they?

Iraq certainly had had chemical weapons. However, I'd always been under the impression that "weapons of mass destruction" (hey, let's invent catchy yet imprecise names!) was intended to refer to something rather different.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It is a vaguely defined (if defined at all) term. But, it's usually used in relation to chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) weapons. Certainly in 2003 it was chemical weapons in Iraq that were the concern; all that was found after the war were some old (and unusable) stocks of sarin and mustard gas, consistent with what Iraq was known to have had but clearly showing no attempt to maintain that capability - let alone develop new weapons.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Certainly in 2003 it was chemical weapons in Iraq that were the concern; all that was found after the war were some old (and unusable) stocks of sarin and mustard gas, consistent with what Iraq was known to have had but clearly showing no attempt to maintain that capability - let alone develop new weapons.

Well, in 2003 chemical weapons in Iraq were the only reasonable concern, but am I the only one who remembers yellowcake, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud", and hundreds of other utterly fraudulent hints by the Bush administration that not only was Iraq very close to having a nuclear weapon but that they were almost certain to turn it over to al-Qæda? That whole panic seems to have disappeared down the memory hole.

Orfeo is right. Using a non-specific catch phrase like "WMDs" was a deliberate tactic to obscure exactly what kind of weapons were being discussed in 2002-3.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The comparison is probably at least mostly unreasonable, but my city like many others is trying to make peace, regulate or ban Uber the car sharing service and Airbnb the bed and breakfast service. Most think they can't. Like street drugs, there's going to be ways around.

With nuclear anything - power, weapons, medical care - isn't it far too late. And why does France or Pakistan get to keep them if Iran can't?

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Anyone remember 'weapons of mass destruction". With Iraq it was the reason for the war. With Iran is it the reason for not war. Anyone else confused?

AFAIUI if a Country has got the Bomb we leave them alone. The only thing confusing me is why it's taking top Iranian scientists so long to work out which bit goes where on the damn thing.
World security has, for sometime now, appeared to me as stranger than fiction which is probably why I've given up worrying about it.

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
AFAIUI if a Country has got the Bomb we leave them alone.

Kind of. This may, in fact, be the primary impetus for Iran wanting a nuclear weapon in the first place. The previous U.S. administration listed them as a charter member of the "Axis of Evil" along with Iraq and North Korea. North Korea developed the bomb. Iraq, rather famously, did not. Looking at the trajectory of those two countries from the "Axis of Evil" speech going forward it would seem to be more favorable to be North Korea (has nuclear weapons, subjected to sanctions and interminable six-way negotiations) than to be Iraq (no nuclear weapons, invaded, occupied, still a chaotic mess more than a dozen years later).

So from an Iranian perspective, it's easy to conclude that the only way to provide long-term security is to have some kind of nuclear deterrent. On the other hand, a regional arms race isn't particularly in their interests either. (Everyone who joins the nuclear club wants to be the last new member.)

At any rate, North Korea can provide a fairly useful example, both positive and negative. In 1994 there was the Agreed Framework, under which North Korea agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program and the U.S. (and allies) agreed to lift some sanctions and help build two light water reactors in North Korea. There was an inspections regime and some secret cheating by the North Koreans. But do you know what there wasn't when the Agreed Framework was in place? A North Korean bomb. The restrictions in place limited the North Korean's ability to advance their program, even given their cheating. In 2002 the Bush Administration decided to abandon the Agreed Framework, at which point the North Korea ejected the inspectors, removed all the monitoring equipment, broke the seals on the fissile material storage areas, and a few years later there was a nuclear armed Hermit Kingdom.

The point of this lengthy analysis is that international agreements, particularly in areas of arms control, shouldn't be evaluated on the basis of "Will every clause be scrupulously followed by all parties?" but "Is the situation better with this system in place than it would be without it?" From the West's perspective the amount of cheating North Korea was able to do within the Agreed Framework was much preferable to what they could do once the Agreed Framework was abandoned. The current Iran deal seems to be of a similar character.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Certainly in 2003 it was chemical weapons in Iraq that were the concern; all that was found after the war were some old (and unusable) stocks of sarin and mustard gas, consistent with what Iraq was known to have had but clearly showing no attempt to maintain that capability - let alone develop new weapons.

Well, in 2003 chemical weapons in Iraq were the only reasonable concern, but am I the only one who remembers yellowcake, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud", and hundreds of other utterly fraudulent hints by the Bush administration that not only was Iraq very close to having a nuclear weapon but that they were almost certain to turn it over to al-Qæda? That whole panic seems to have disappeared down the memory hole.
No, you're not the only one who remembers such things, that's exactly what I was getting at. The message was not that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons and had used them horribly against his own citizens, the message was that Saddam Hussein just might have means of attacking us from afar.

And there most certainly were dark mutterings about Saddam Hussein helping out al-Qaeda. I remember that distinctly, because it fundamentally relied on a gullible population believing that Muslims are basically the Borg collective and not being able to notice the minor detail that Hussein and Islamic fundamentalists hated each others' guts with a passion.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
...Saddam Hussein just might have means of attacking us from afar.
Considers the people who get up in the morning, kiss the kiddies bye-bye, and drive to work in the drone control centres and wonder if the people they bomb think "If I had a rocket launcher". But is shooting down drones enough for them?

The Iran deal better hold for all our sakes.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools