[quote]pushharder wrote:
Some nuggets of wisdom.[/quote]
hang tite, there PUSHIE!!!
Prez Bush II looked into Putins soul, and gave him a pass - surely that is enough of a recommendation to the current Prez - Aint it?
[quote]Edgy wrote:
Prez Bush II looked into Putins soul, and gave him a pass[/quote]
[quote]Edgy wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Some nuggets of wisdom.[/quote]
hang tite, there PUSHIE!!!
Prez Bush II looked into Putins soul, and gave him a pass - surely that is enough of a recommendation to the current Prez - Aint it?[/quote]
BIOB (Blame It On Bush), No. 42,697
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Edgy wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Some nuggets of wisdom.[/quote]
hang tite, there PUSHIE!!!
Prez Bush II looked into Putins soul, and gave him a pass - surely that is enough of a recommendation to the current Prez - Aint it?[/quote]
BIOB (Blame It On Bush), No. 42,697
[/quote]
I think you left out a few zeros after the 2.
[quote]Edgy wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]Edgy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]AliveAgain36 wrote:
It’s got a thread going in GAL[/quote]
Oh. Seems more appropriate here, but whatever. I just thought it needed representation. [/quote]
PWI is the proper venue for this thread - those asshats in GAL will just make fun of shit, get all hurted feelings and then post kitty pics and boobs - then discuss the benefits of bacon.
they’re a bunch of oversexed brain dead fucknuts there -
trust me, I know this~[/quote]
Yep. GAL is a joke. If a poster with a female name starts a thread complaining about her (or possibly HIS) sex life, it will get 1000 posts.
[/quote]
I am assuming you are from the Sacramento area… and, DYEL?
[/quote]
Born and raised until the state goes bankrupt. And yes, I DYEL err’y day.
Russian commander who shot down plane spins bizarre conspiracy theory:
A top pro-Russia rebel commander in eastern Ukraine has given a bizarre version of events surrounding the Malaysian jetliner crash - suggesting many of the victims may have died days before the plane took off.The pro-rebel website Russkaya Vesna on Friday quoted Igor Girkin as saying he was told by people at the crash site that “a significant number of the bodies weren’t fresh,” adding that he was told they were drained of blood and reeked of decomposition.
Ron Paul is Putin’s New Best Friend
[quote]Edgy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]AliveAgain36 wrote:
It’s got a thread going in GAL[/quote]
Oh. Seems more appropriate here, but whatever. I just thought it needed representation. [/quote]
PWI is the proper venue for this thread - those asshats in GAL will just make fun of shit, get all hurted feelings and then post kitty pics and boobs - then discuss the benefits of bacon.
they’re a bunch of oversexed brain dead fucknuts there -
trust me, I know this~[/quote]
Oversexed?
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]Edgy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]AliveAgain36 wrote:
It’s got a thread going in GAL[/quote]
Oh. Seems more appropriate here, but whatever. I just thought it needed representation. [/quote]
PWI is the proper venue for this thread - those asshats in GAL will just make fun of shit, get all hurted feelings and then post kitty pics and boobs - then discuss the benefits of bacon.
they’re a bunch of oversexed brain dead fucknuts there -
trust me, I know this~[/quote]
Yep. GAL is a joke. If a poster with a female name starts a thread complaining about her (or possibly HIS) sex life, it will get 1000 posts.
[/quote]
Got sick of the boner talk huh? It does get old, but I hold no grudges. I just ignore what’s not interesting to me.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Russian commander who shot down plane spins bizarre conspiracy theory:
A top pro-Russia rebel commander in eastern Ukraine has given a bizarre version of events surrounding the Malaysian jetliner crash - suggesting many of the victims may have died days before the plane took off.The pro-rebel website Russkaya Vesna on Friday quoted Igor Girkin as saying he was told by people at the crash site that “a significant number of the bodies weren’t fresh,” adding that he was told they were drained of blood and reeked of decomposition.
Ron Paul is Putin’s New Best Friend
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/ron-paul-is-putin-s-new-best-friend-20140721[/quote]
I recall a similar conspiracy theory in the 80’s when the United States shot down the Iranian plane over the Gulf.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Is Putin giving these terrorists weaponry any different than the U.S. selling arms to Iran in the early 1980’s? In either case, the end result was essentially the same. Arms were sold to people who had no business possessing them. They were both used for terrorist activities.[/quote]
Why go all the way back to the early 80’s for an example? Obama was supplying arms to terrorists in Libya. Besides, technically the US didn’t sell arms to Iran. It was an “agency relationship” with the US and Iran as principal and third party and Israel as agent. Additionally, there’s no evidence the arms were used for “terrorist activity” - they were used against Iraq.[/quote]
The question still stands.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Is Putin giving these terrorists weaponry any different than the U.S. selling arms to Iran in the early 1980’s? In either case, the end result was essentially the same. Arms were sold to people who had no business possessing them. They were both used for terrorist activities.[/quote]
Why go all the way back to the early 80’s for an example? Obama was supplying arms to terrorists in Libya. Besides, technically the US didn’t sell arms to Iran. It was an “agency relationship” with the US and Iran as principal and third party and Israel as agent. Additionally, there’s no evidence the arms were used for “terrorist activity” - they were used against Iraq.[/quote]
The question still stands.[/quote]
A). Yes it is different
B). The US didn’t sell arms to Iran. Israel did. It was an agency relationship.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Is Putin giving these terrorists weaponry any different than the U.S. selling arms to Iran in the early 1980’s? In either case, the end result was essentially the same. Arms were sold to people who had no business possessing them. They were both used for terrorist activities.[/quote]
Why go all the way back to the early 80’s for an example? Obama was supplying arms to terrorists in Libya. Besides, technically the US didn’t sell arms to Iran. It was an “agency relationship” with the US and Iran as principal and third party and Israel as agent. Additionally, there’s no evidence the arms were used for “terrorist activity” - they were used against Iraq.[/quote]
The question still stands.[/quote]
A). Yes it is different
B). The US didn’t sell arms to Iran. Israel did. It was an agency relationship.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_agency[/quote]
When weapons end up in the hands of people who misuse them, and the TRANSACTION itself was mutually consensual, does the party that provided said weaponry bear responsibility for the ultimate use of the weapons, assuming they are used by the people whom the sellers intended to use them?
American weapons are knowingly turned over to someone who intends to forward them to a terrorist regime.
Russia knowingly turns over weaponry that ends up in the hands of people who use said weapons in furtherance of terrorist activity.
For all practical purposes, are these two scenarios all that different?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
When weapons end up in the hands of people who misuse them, and the TRANSACTION itself was mutually consensual, does the party that provided said weaponry bear responsibility for the ultimate use of the weapons, assuming they are used by the people whom the sellers intended to use them?
[/quote]
Firstly, there is no evidence the weapons were misused. They were almost certainly used against Iraq. Secondly, whether or not Israel had actual or ostensible authority to act as agent has never been tested in court so we can’t say whether the United States was legally responsible.
There is no evidence that they were used in acts of terrorism.
Not only in the furtherance but used directly to kill nearly three hundred civilians. And now they’re lying about it and spinning bizarre conspiracy theories to try to implicate the Ukrainians.
[quote]
For all practical purposes, are these two scenarios all that different?[/quote]
Yes. A better comparison would be Eric Holder supplying cartels with weapons that were then used to murder civilians and a US border guard.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Is Putin giving these terrorists weaponry any different than the U.S. selling arms to Iran in the early 1980’s? In either case, the end result was essentially the same. Arms were sold to people who had no business possessing them. They were both used for terrorist activities.[/quote]
Why go all the way back to the early 80’s for an example? Obama was supplying arms to terrorists in Libya. Besides, technically the US didn’t sell arms to Iran. It was an “agency relationship” with the US and Iran as principal and third party and Israel as agent. Additionally, there’s no evidence the arms were used for “terrorist activity” - they were used against Iraq.[/quote]
The question still stands.[/quote]
A). Yes it is different
B). The US didn’t sell arms to Iran. Israel did. It was an agency relationship.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_agency[/quote]
When weapons end up in the hands of people who misuse them, and the TRANSACTION itself was mutually consensual, does the party that provided said weaponry bear responsibility for the ultimate use of the weapons, assuming they are used by the people whom the sellers intended to use them?
American weapons are knowingly turned over to someone who intends to forward them to a terrorist regime.
Russia knowingly turns over weaponry that ends up in the hands of people who use said weapons in furtherance of terrorist activity.
For all practical purposes, are these two scenarios all that different?[/quote]
Yes, Russia has a vested interest in annexing the Ukraine and the weapons were sent there for that purpose. Second, there is more tying Moscow to the firing of those rockets than the mere presence of the munitions. The details are a bit fuzzy still.
This is not the same as an arms ‘trade’. We did get hostages back…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Is Putin giving these terrorists weaponry any different than the U.S. selling arms to Iran in the early 1980’s? In either case, the end result was essentially the same. Arms were sold to people who had no business possessing them. They were both used for terrorist activities.[/quote]
Why go all the way back to the early 80’s for an example? Obama was supplying arms to terrorists in Libya. Besides, technically the US didn’t sell arms to Iran. It was an “agency relationship” with the US and Iran as principal and third party and Israel as agent. Additionally, there’s no evidence the arms were used for “terrorist activity” - they were used against Iraq.[/quote]
The question still stands.[/quote]
A). Yes it is different
B). The US didn’t sell arms to Iran. Israel did. It was an agency relationship.
[/quote]
When weapons end up in the hands of people who misuse them, and the TRANSACTION itself was mutually consensual, does the party that provided said weaponry bear responsibility for the ultimate use of the weapons, assuming they are used by the people whom the sellers intended to use them?
American weapons are knowingly turned over to someone who intends to forward them to a terrorist regime.
Russia knowingly turns over weaponry that ends up in the hands of people who use said weapons in furtherance of terrorist activity.
For all practical purposes, are these two scenarios all that different?[/quote]
Yes, Russia has a vested interest in annexing the Ukraine and the weapons were sent there for that purpose. Second, there is more tying Moscow to the firing of those rockets than the mere presence of the munitions. The details are a bit fuzzy still.
This is not the same as an arms ‘trade’. We did get hostages back…[/quote]
Actually, we got money for the arms we sold not hostages. We then used the profits to invest in the buying and selling of drugs and arms in central america. So it was basically just a business deal.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Is Putin giving these terrorists weaponry any different than the U.S. selling arms to Iran in the early 1980’s? In either case, the end result was essentially the same. Arms were sold to people who had no business possessing them. They were both used for terrorist activities.[/quote]
Why go all the way back to the early 80’s for an example? Obama was supplying arms to terrorists in Libya. Besides, technically the US didn’t sell arms to Iran. It was an “agency relationship” with the US and Iran as principal and third party and Israel as agent. Additionally, there’s no evidence the arms were used for “terrorist activity” - they were used against Iraq.[/quote]
The question still stands.[/quote]
A). Yes it is different
B). The US didn’t sell arms to Iran. Israel did. It was an agency relationship.
[/quote]
When weapons end up in the hands of people who misuse them, and the TRANSACTION itself was mutually consensual, does the party that provided said weaponry bear responsibility for the ultimate use of the weapons, assuming they are used by the people whom the sellers intended to use them?
American weapons are knowingly turned over to someone who intends to forward them to a terrorist regime.
Russia knowingly turns over weaponry that ends up in the hands of people who use said weapons in furtherance of terrorist activity.
For all practical purposes, are these two scenarios all that different?[/quote]
Yes, Russia has a vested interest in annexing the Ukraine and the weapons were sent there for that purpose. Second, there is more tying Moscow to the firing of those rockets than the mere presence of the munitions. The details are a bit fuzzy still.
This is not the same as an arms ‘trade’. We did get hostages back…[/quote]
Actually, we got money for the arms we sold not hostages. We then used the profits to invest in the buying and selling of drugs and arms in central america. So it was basically just a business deal.
[/quote]
I got my shit confused. My bad. I didn’t look anything up, just tried to do it from memory. Unfortunately I was alive at that time. I am going to look it up, I remember Iran-Contra, just fuzzy on the details.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Is Putin giving these terrorists weaponry any different than the U.S. selling arms to Iran in the early 1980’s? In either case, the end result was essentially the same. Arms were sold to people who had no business possessing them. They were both used for terrorist activities.[/quote]
Why go all the way back to the early 80’s for an example? Obama was supplying arms to terrorists in Libya. Besides, technically the US didn’t sell arms to Iran. It was an “agency relationship” with the US and Iran as principal and third party and Israel as agent. Additionally, there’s no evidence the arms were used for “terrorist activity” - they were used against Iraq.[/quote]
The question still stands.[/quote]
A). Yes it is different
B). The US didn’t sell arms to Iran. Israel did. It was an agency relationship.
[/quote]
When weapons end up in the hands of people who misuse them, and the TRANSACTION itself was mutually consensual, does the party that provided said weaponry bear responsibility for the ultimate use of the weapons, assuming they are used by the people whom the sellers intended to use them?
American weapons are knowingly turned over to someone who intends to forward them to a terrorist regime.
Russia knowingly turns over weaponry that ends up in the hands of people who use said weapons in furtherance of terrorist activity.
For all practical purposes, are these two scenarios all that different?[/quote]
Yes, Russia has a vested interest in annexing the Ukraine and the weapons were sent there for that purpose. Second, there is more tying Moscow to the firing of those rockets than the mere presence of the munitions. The details are a bit fuzzy still.
This is not the same as an arms ‘trade’. We did get hostages back…[/quote]
Actually, we got money for the arms we sold not hostages. We then used the profits to invest in the buying and selling of drugs and arms in central america. So it was basically just a business deal.
[/quote]
I got my shit confused. My bad. I didn’t look anything up, just tried to do it from memory. Unfortunately I was alive at that time. I am going to look it up, I remember Iran-Contra, just fuzzy on the details.[/quote]
I doubt even the main players knew all the details. That seamonster of a clusterfuck had a lot of tentacles and the “facts” depend largely on the sources; many of the sources were part of the underworld so the details are going to be fuzzy.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Is Putin giving these terrorists weaponry any different than the U.S. selling arms to Iran in the early 1980’s? In either case, the end result was essentially the same. Arms were sold to people who had no business possessing them. They were both used for terrorist activities.[/quote]
Why go all the way back to the early 80’s for an example? Obama was supplying arms to terrorists in Libya. Besides, technically the US didn’t sell arms to Iran. It was an “agency relationship” with the US and Iran as principal and third party and Israel as agent. Additionally, there’s no evidence the arms were used for “terrorist activity” - they were used against Iraq.[/quote]
The question still stands.[/quote]
A). Yes it is different
B). The US didn’t sell arms to Iran. Israel did. It was an agency relationship.
[/quote]
When weapons end up in the hands of people who misuse them, and the TRANSACTION itself was mutually consensual, does the party that provided said weaponry bear responsibility for the ultimate use of the weapons, assuming they are used by the people whom the sellers intended to use them?
American weapons are knowingly turned over to someone who intends to forward them to a terrorist regime.
Russia knowingly turns over weaponry that ends up in the hands of people who use said weapons in furtherance of terrorist activity.
For all practical purposes, are these two scenarios all that different?[/quote]
Yes, Russia has a vested interest in annexing the Ukraine and the weapons were sent there for that purpose. Second, there is more tying Moscow to the firing of those rockets than the mere presence of the munitions. The details are a bit fuzzy still.
This is not the same as an arms ‘trade’. We did get hostages back…[/quote]
Actually, we got money for the arms we sold not hostages. We then used the profits to invest in the buying and selling of drugs and arms in central america. So it was basically just a business deal.
[/quote]
I got my shit confused. My bad. I didn’t look anything up, just tried to do it from memory. Unfortunately I was alive at that time. I am going to look it up, I remember Iran-Contra, just fuzzy on the details.[/quote]
I doubt even the main players knew all the details. That seamonster of a clusterfuck had a lot of tentacles and the “facts” depend largely on the sources; many of the sources were part of the underworld so the details are going to be fuzzy.
[/quote]
They had to make it fuzzy. They had to keep the right and the left hands in the dark to pull it off. Honestly, I think what they did worked. It’s a dirty world and sometimes you have to get your hands dirty to deal with it.