sherpa
-
Posts
3,660 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by sherpa
-
-
10 minutes ago, T master said:
No they didn't but they were pawns of the US gov't to do their bidding so the US wouldn't look like the bad guys then after they did the what the US wanted & asked for help or threatened to let the world know just how crooked the US was our politicians told them no and they turned them into public enemy number 1 & 1A .
So they killed them both to keep their dirty little secrets about Afghanistan & how the US paid for them to fight Russia & how Sadam was getting all of his WMD paid for from the US to keep Iran in place .
The thing of it is the American public is so gullible they believe the BS & still do today ...
Just crazy.
-
4 minutes ago, T master said:
I'd rather call it - Smoke & mirrors or politics & Bull S**T just another file in the Bush family/US governmental legacy of behind the scene political horse s**t because the US government's personal B**CH told them he didn't want to play their game any more so they told a story that made them out to be the bad guy same as they did with Bin Laden ...
Whatever anyone thinks about the war, both Saddam and Bin Laden were very bad guys.
Nobody needed to make that up.
-
3 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:
Soros made a Billion by betting against the bank of England, he thinks he can time markets that are in distress. He does not ponder how soon he is dying, he is still planning his next Billion
He also trashed the Thai Baht, putting millions of people in a far wore position than they were before.
He was trying to do the same with the Mexican peso, all for personal, financial gain, until the US Fed intervened and supported the peso, ending his foray.
He's a horrible man.
-
1
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, JDHillFan said:
One of the more active, left-leaning posters here likes to cite Rolling Stone as a source of information. Tsk, tsk.
Rolling Stone lost whatever it had left with the "Rape on Campus" story featuring "Jackie," a lying attention seeker who basically plagiarized s book to create the story.
Glad they had to pay for that.
Just despicable.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, BillStime said:
You're really upset that your dear leader might be held accountable for breaking laws?
What did they do with Vice President candidate John Edwards when he moved a bunch of bucks to his mistress' camp to hide their love child?
Or Hillary, who paid a fine for mis-accounting campaign funds.
-
Saudi involvement, including individual Saudi gov individual involvement, is not really interesting.
-
39 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Saddam didn't kick the inspectors out, Bush did
Ya. He simply denied them what he had agreed to.
That's kind of "kicking them out."
-
24 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
Ironically, from 1980 to 1988, Washington sided with Iraq in their war with Iran. Then changed their minds to finished off Saddam in the 2nd rendition of the gulf war under Bush 2.
You are omitting the defining event.
Saddam invaded and planned on occupying Kuwait, then grossly violated its' ceasefire agreements.
That was what determined our "change our mind" to use your term.
-
16 minutes ago, Chris farley said:
similar to now and Ukraine in that regards.
the very low estimate has what, 15 K civilians being killed by American/coalition actions in Iraq.
Probably should do this as a message, but I would be interested in your many times expressed view that the 9-11 commission report is suspect.
You have stuck that view in unrelated threads before, and I am interested in your view, as you seem rational.
Maybe start a thread.
Sorry for being off topic, and certainly not hostile, but its not the worst that happens here.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
"After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."
I really wish people would stop with obvious red herrings.
At the time of this invasion, intel agencies across the globe, including US and British, among others, had concluded that Iraq was running a wmd program.
This info was presented to Congressional Committees in both houses, and the President, who all decided to agree to what the US did.
In addition, Iraq was in gross violation of its' cease fire agreement, numerous UN resolutions, countless warnings, and firing on no fly zone aircraft.
The reality was that the no fly zone could not be maintained indefinitely, and there was no sign that Iraq would ever agree to abide by the ceasefire.
Folks on both sides of the isle agreed to that situation, and we got the vote we got to authorize force.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Tiberius said:
Too bad we were not more clear headed 20 years ago when you guys (ya ya, you deny it now, all Conservatives deny they supported the obvious and predictable disaster then) when we invaded Iraq
As did Biden support it, which you seemingly forget.
He was all in.
Biden was head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was responsible for approving other members.
What did he say about the issue?
"I do not believe this is a rush to war,” Biden said a few days before the vote. “I believe it is a march to peace and security. I believe that failure to overwhelmingly support this resolution is likely to enhance the prospects that war will occur …”
The point is that if one continuously blames a group for what is perceived to be a mistake, then blame them all.
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, Roundybout said:
Globalism is the future. Protectionism and isolationism harms America. These ideologies are not comparable with the modern world.Not sure or your point, but there is noting isolationist about exposing the obvious lack of others living up to expressed obligations and causing great weakness in organizations they have agreed to support.
-
1
-
-
I would further add that I don't think the Dems have near the capability on their "bench" to move this country forward.
Look at the Secretary of Transportation, their appointee as FCC Chairman, and their nominee for Administrator of the FAA.
Simply pathetic, and these staff/appointees/nominees have a huge impact on the course of our future.
Hopeless on the Dem side. Never an accomplished, successful candidate from US industry, which is our strength.
Got that?
Our strength is not our politicians.
Our strength is our industrial leaders who have actually done something, and the Dems never draw from that group.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, redtail hawk said:
I think so as well. But there appear to be many that don't.
Mostly R's.
And since u disparaged trump, don't you think that the fact that he can even compete for the presidency shows the stupidity of his base (cult)?
read "affluent"...and lots of other sectors as well..
I have no interest in commenting on Trump in this go around.
He was dead right in NATO and UN comments.
Dead right in energy policy.
Dead right in environmental issues and dead right re the UN.
The problem is that he is obnoxious and incapable of leadership, which this country needs to unify.
Biden and any of the other Dems are incapable of getting any of the things Trump got right, and additionally incapable of leadership.
We need a new group in the Senate, and White House, and we need to commit to being a unified country under a leader who can bring us together.
That is my hope, and I could not care less about Trump's group, MSNBC, CNN, Fox News or any other divisive group seeking money or attention, and attempting to leverage disagreement for commercial advantage.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:
What do you think a referendum in Va on this would show?
I think the entire issue is insanity.
But.......It speaks to the tremendous need this Republic needs for a leader, and the end of idiotic, destructive, polarizing media.
Biden and Trump are useless in this.
-
4 hours ago, redtail hawk said:
Ya know, I'm ok with this as long as Virginia stays blue
You can have Norther Virginia.
I'll take my area, Albemarle County and environs, and the eastern side of the Blue Ridge.
The battle would be over the massive amount of gov funds spent in military installations along the coast.
-
39 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
No, you did not understand what I wrote
I trust his opinion. I do not in any way at all trust anything you say.
I trust his opinion. I do not in any way at all trust anything you say.
Great.
There isn't a single thing on earth I care less about than what you think.
Anyway, some goof expressing false bravado with a stupid picture included, which completely disregards what created his confidence in the first place, is what publicity hounds do.
And by the way, as far as "trust," as you recall and did not respond to, when you questioned my background and I offered to donate any sum of money to a charity of your choice if you I couldn't prove it, you didn't take the challenge.
Your view of my "trustworthiness" is not something I will ever be concerned with.
-
2 hours ago, Tiberius said:
We announced prosecutions of the Nazi leaders before Japan had surrendered. The Japanese did not want the emperor prosecuted (or he didn't want to be) and therefore fought on. Did the announcement of prosecutions make dropping atomic bombs more likely? I've never seen scholarship on the issue but it is an interesting question and the United States was demanding unconditional surrender
The decision to use the atomic bomb was made because the US didn't want a land invasion of the Japanese homeland, especially after Okinawa.
Such an invasion would have been much larger than D day.
Millions would have been killed, especially since the US was in possession of Japan's plan to use every single human in defense.
The Japanese wanted the Emperor to remain seated, and the US relented, because occupation and recovery was made much easier by doing so, but in meetings with MacArthur, the rules of engagement were laid out.
"Fly Boys," and "The Fall of Japan," are great books that go into good detail on this.
-
Just to be clear, the attempt of the previous administration to pry bar other NATO allies to live up to their agreements, which they were woefully and now fully exposed as negligent in not doing, had nothing to do with abandoning our agreements or ending our participation.
Both NATO and the UN need to live up to promises and stop relying on the US to fund and back up systems that are not supported by signatories.
The UN is fatally flawed, and an exposed fraud.
NATO might be put to the test.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
There's always a choice. We can refuse to fulfill the terms of the agreement if something isn't to our liking. Otherwise, that implies the Constitutional powers of Congress to declare war have been transferred though some arrangement to NATO.
If we were to renege on our NATO commitments, that would be the starting gun to challenge everything and every agreement, de facto, making them worthless.
Dishonoring commitments is not a reasonable choice, and would be catastrophic, especially in this case, where you have the underpinning agreement that resulted from Soviet expansion attempts post WWII.
The new Russia has no ability to threaten NATO conventionally.
None.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
Europe is a big place. If conflict spreads let those governments vote to send their forces into the battle first. I think that's fair. In the case of Poland let them commit a couple 100 thousand troops, incur causalities, and then do a temperature check for their enthusiasm.
For America, its a matter of priorities. Our government should worry less about the sovereignty of places like Poland and worry more about public safety in places like Portland.
As members of NATO, we don't have the option to avoid a response if Poland's sovereignty is threatened by some stupid Russian adventure, which they have no conventional warfare ability to successfully conclude.
-
1
-
3
-
-
10 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:
No, Malaysia 370.
Oh. I think crazy pilot with well planned out scheme.
-
1
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:
Cool, I was hoping for that. Russians or crazy pilot per your peers?
If you're speaking of this drone incident, in my view it's Russians being Russians.
Their entire military is completely controlled from the ground, so I'd bet the regime wanted to get rid of the drone without expending a weapon, which would have been obvious.
Not a bad idea to dump fuel on it, but it didn't work.
Instead, the need to get really close resulted in contact, which I'm sure was not intended.
They do really stupid crap all the time.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:
just as an aside but did u see the malaysian Air disappearance doc on Netflix? AWACs were apparently around the plane before it disappeared off radar...
No, I have not seen it, nor will I.
I read a "peer review" of it and it was non complimentary.
Anyway, I think it is highly unlikely, (read ridiculous), that there were AWACS around Malaysia 370.
-
1
-
1
-
Twenty Years Ago Today--Iraq War Began
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
And that isn't what I said.