BLOG PODCAST ARCHIVES LINKS

 

 

 

 

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

American Conservative Web Ring
Members List
Previous - Next
Random - Join
Previous 5 - Next 5

Site Meter

 

 

 

Powered by Blogger

 

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Look out Iran! The UN might threaten to do something

The president of Iran; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made a "dangerous defiance" according to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. What he's done is resumed his "nuclear research" even though he's broken UN seals at a uranium enrichment plant. Am I surprised he's doing this? No. Is this the first time an evil leader has broken UN rules and the UN is too weak to enforce them? No. Is the UN going to be able to solve this problem? Unfortunately, no. I will explain why they can't and what we should do.

The UN will start off diplomatically as they are, and as I expected, Iran decided to defy them and continue the program. After a few months of negotiations the UN will probably realize that this strategy won't work, and by then the nukes will be completed. Finally, the UN will impose sanctions on Iran, but at that point it won't matter. At this point we will be the ones who have to decide what's going to happen.

That's what's going to happen if we don't realize that the UN is useless, and its always been useless. In almost every case where a potential war has come up, the UN fails at diplomacy. They fail because they are too weak to be the "world police". Heck, circus clowns could do a better job as the world police. If the UN was too weak to make negotiations with Saddam, then why would it be different with Ahmadinejad? It wouldn't, this guy is not a pushover, he's the next Hitler. Don't believe me? Take a look at this picture and with your two index fingers, cover up the left and right side of his mustache and tell me who it looks like.


Let me ask you a question. Do you want to wait for the UN to fail again while this guy finishes up a nuclear stockpile? Or do you want military action before it's too late? Because once you've got nukes, people don't mess with you.

If we don't do something Iran could do one of two things.

The first and more obvious is to drop a bomb on us.

The second and more likely is to intimidate countries so they can do things like demand money, raise oil prices, and basically hurt our economy while helping his.

I don't think we can wait for them to have the ability to do those things, we've got to take action. If we do take military action however, I would like the approval of the new Iraqi government because if the Iraqi's hate us we've lost that war.

This is a really big problem. A widely ignored problem, but a really big one nontheless.

81 Comments:

  • At 12/1/06 11:36 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    We probably shouldn't invade countries and bomb them just because we can. Also, we should probably get out of one mess before we start another one. Just a few thoughts.

     
  • At 13/1/06 6:26 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I never said it had to be bombing. The people of Iran know the government is evil, so our only enemy is the government really. This probably won't turn into a war I'm guessing. All we have to do is destroy the nukes. That shouldn't require an invasion, just some hi-tech weaponry hanging of a B-52 bomber.

    The mess only gets bigger if we wait for the UN to fail again. Their nukes will be FINISHED in a matter of months, some suspect it will only be 3!

    If you read my last post I said I don't mind a major troop reduction in Iraq, I just don't want the information disclosed.

     
  • At 13/1/06 2:27 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Allisoni Balloni said...
    We probably shouldn't invade countries and bomb them just because we can.

    I wish they'd READ the posts rather than make these ridicolous assumptions. The way I saw it you provided several reasons for military action, bombing or not. The problem is these people are too busy trying to abolish bombs rather than study them. If we wanted widespread destruction we'd use bomblets encased in a scatter bomb housing. Do we? No, we use precision bombing methods to take out only military targets.

     
  • At 13/1/06 2:32 PM, Blogger PlaidBaron said…

    Good post Cody.

     
  • At 13/1/06 6:48 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    Ever heard of sarcasm...? We have this mentality that we can take over the world, but the reality of it is that we have made enemies out of allies in the past few years, so we might want to count our losses before we do anymore of that.

     
  • At 14/1/06 8:40 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    So WE'RE the enemy huh? That sure is how it sounds. A reincarnation of Hitler pops up and begins making nukes and somehow we're the bad guys? Not this crazy person?

    Maybe you're just over simplifying things, in fact I know you are. Every war Bush gets into is somehow a mess apparantly. Afghanistan, Iraq. And now Iran is going to be a mess and it'll be Bush's fault. Forget who's actually evil, it's Bush's fault.

    Trust me, nobody WANTS to invade Iran. But when they're doing what they are, someone has to do something. This isn't some oil run like you think it is, it's a large problem and I'm sorry you don't quite get it.

     
  • At 14/1/06 9:26 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Allosoni Balloni said... We have this mentality that we can take over the world,

    Reagan was once criticized by someone saying that. Gorbachev, the leader of the Soviet Union. Interesting isn't it? You and the commies should get together sometime. Of course those of us on the capitilist side follow the argument Reagan made, for a while we were the only nuclear power on Earth. If we had wanted to do it we could have taken over then. We didn't. Say hello to Kim Jung Il for me you Anti-American scum.

     
  • At 14/1/06 10:24 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    On a sidenote Cody, my brother found this on the internet someplace: http://sean.gleeson.us/2004/11/27/new_mini_moonbat_fits_in_your_sidebar

    It's almost like the creator of the program interviewed dkfz for some of the things in it!

     
  • At 14/1/06 11:06 AM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    Yeah, call me a "commie," I'd be intersted to see how much you know about communism. Just because I criticize the mentality of our country doesn't at all mean that I'm a traitor or an evil dictator. If a deomocrat is elected in '08, I will bet millions of dollars that you'll be whining too.
    Remember when we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing millions of innocent people in a matter of seconds? We have the power to do whatever we want. Afghanistan was justified, but we have since withdrawn most of our troops from there and are no longer searching for the man most responsible for the terrorism against the U.S. Republicans use 9/11 as their selling point, yet are lacking greatly in the pursuit of bin Laden due to Iraq, which we poked at and threatened until maybe Sadaam looked like a threat to us. It is not the president that starts the war, it is the justification or lack there of that labels it as a "mess."

     
  • At 14/1/06 11:35 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    This just proves it. Critiscism? No, critiscism would be "I am concerned about our military in the middle east." Not saying we like to take over the world.

    How much do I know about communism? Try me.

    You also said, "Remember when we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing millions of innocent people in a matter of seconds?"

    Yeah, and saving MILLIONS of American lives. MILLIONS! Much more than we killed. Even the JAPANESE say it was the right thing to do. Why? Because we saved their soldiers from killing themselves in Banzai attacks and such. If there is one thing I have no tolerance for it is someone who doesn't know their military history.

    And what is this about taking our focus off Bin Laden? Aside from being untrue you liberals didn't want us in Afghanastan either!

    You say Saddam only LOOKED like a threat? How about the Kurds? Remember that? That was genocide! Are you against stopping genocide? Why you must be racist!

     
  • At 14/1/06 1:01 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Will bush be the world leader who brings about Nuclear Armageddon? It may very well come to pass if bush attacks Iran and they defend themselves.

    Cody O'Connor said... I never said it had to be bombing.

    It WILL be bombing. bush has already made his mind up, just like he did with Iraq. Of course he will (again) go through the motions by trying to convince the world he is interested in a diplomatic solution.

    Cody said... So WE'RE the enemy huh? That sure is how it sounds. A reincarnation of Hitler pops up and begins making nukes and somehow we're the bad guys? Not this crazy person? ...Forget who's actually evil, it's Bush's fault.

    No, the EVIL arrogant megalomaniac (CRAZY) bush is the enemy! Keep in mind that Iran, like the United States, is a sovereign nation. How would we respond if another nation, or a colition of nations, decided that we needed to disarm and submit to inspections. Would we submit??

    Let me guess at what your answer is: Different rules apply to the United States because we're the "good guys". Iran is one of the "bad guys".

    I am MUCH more afraid of what bush will do than what the leader of Iran will do.

    DarkSaturos Said... It's almost like the creator of the program interviewed dkfz for some of the things in it!

    What is it? Your link isn't working: Error 404 - Not Found

    DarkSaturos Said... You say Saddam only LOOKED like a threat? How about the Kurds? Remember that? That was genocide! Are you against stopping genocide? Why you must be racist!

    This pathetic argument doesn't cut it. Iraq is going to cost us around 2 trillion dollars! How can we possibly afford to take out all the dictators on the hit list? How can we liberate Iraq and not these other countries? What about Ethiopia? They are, after all, a Christian nation. Why are there no plans to invade them and remove their evil leaders?? What about Kim Jong Il, who, according to a Parade Magazine article, is the WORLD'S WORST dictator. When are we going to take him out?

    Shouldn't we be doing these invasions in order? Saddam was number 3 -- pretty high, but shouldn't Kim Jong Il (North Korea), and Than Shwe (Burma) have come first? Maybe we could skip ahead to Saudi Arabia (number 5), for obvious reasons.

     
  • At 14/1/06 1:12 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 14/1/06 1:18 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 14/1/06 1:20 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    More conspericy thoery, if an actually SENSIBLE liberal wants to debate things then fine.

    And the link should be http://sean.gleeson.us/2004/11/27/new_mini_moonbat_fits_in_your_sidebar

    Don't know why it didn't work the first time.

     
  • At 14/1/06 1:23 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Argh It still doesn't work. Oh well.

     
  • At 14/1/06 1:28 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

  • At 14/1/06 2:12 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Let me guess at what your answer is: Different rules apply to the United States because we're the "good guys". Iran is one of the "bad guys".

    Excuse me you America hating scum but there is a difference. The difference is that we're not breaking UN seals and Iran is!

    Afghanistan was justified, but we have since withdrawn most of our troops from there and are no longer searching for the man most responsible for the terrorism against the U.S. Republicans use 9/11 as their selling point, yet are lacking greatly in the pursuit of bin Laden due to Iraq, which we poked at and threatened until maybe Sadaam looked like a threat to us.

    Ahh, it looks like we've got two nutcases trying to undermine America here. First off, the reason we've pulled troops out of Afghanistan (and I don't know why YOU are complaining about that) is because we've won there. We took down the Taliban and gave Afghanistan Democracy, but don't look for the MSM to tell you that one.
    Why must you idiots think we've forgotten about Al-Qaeda? We've been searching for them since 9/11. It's just not talked about because if we said where we were going to look for the terrorists THEY WOULD MOVE! Do you guys have brains?

    Saddam only LOOKED like a threat?! It looks like I've got to reverse the delusion Al Franken and his gang has imposed on you.

    Justifications for War in Iraq:

    "The Hussein's regime was in violation of United Nations demands for weapons inspections.

    Hussein's regime produced and possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to the U.S.

    Iraqi government had failed to comply with 19 UN resolutions requiring a full accounting of its weapons of mass destruction and full cooperation with UN inspections.

    That the Hussein's regime had ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations that posed a threat to international safety

    and, promoting democratic self-government in the nearly-entirely autocratic Arab Middle East."

    Now I'm not arguing about WMD's here but at the time, he posed a threat to us, much more than the cockroach, Kim Jong-Il. At the time, Saddam was a much more eminent threat than any other dictator.

    But he wasn't just a threat to us.
    Just look at the tens of thousands of Kurdish people who were gassed, blown up, raped, tortured, and amputated, by Saddam personally and his men.

    No, the EVIL arrogant megalomaniac (CRAZY) bush is the enemy!

    Don't you dare say that you asshole. You are in the wrong place to spread anti-american bullshit to everyone. You're the enemy. The enemy within. siding with cockraches like the president of Iran and putting down America. I swear to God if you said that to me in person you'd have a nosebleed quicker than you could say the word "I'm". It's treasonous rats like you that make me sick to my stomach. You bastards have been hurting America for far too long and I will NOT be pulling my punches any more.

     
  • At 14/1/06 2:29 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Calm down a bit Cody, though all your points are valid. If you stoop to their level you've already lost.

    What irked me though about those comments they made was saying that the rules were not different for us and Iran. That is ridicolous. They don't understand that we are a responsible republic wheras Iran is a Middle Eastern Islamo-facist dictatorship. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you can't draw distinctions between the US and Iran you must really hate this country.

     
  • At 14/1/06 2:54 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Calm down a bit Cody, though all your points are valid. If you stoop to their level you've already lost.

    To stoop to their level I'd have to hate America, and I don't.

    What irked me though about those comments they made was saying that the rules were not different for us and Iran. That is ridicolous. They don't understand that we are a responsible republic wheras Iran is a Middle Eastern Islamo-facist dictatorship. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you can't draw distinctions between the US and Iran you must really hate this country.

    Like I said, the UN rules are the same for all and the reason Iran is in trouble is because they're breaking UN seals. We're not doing that.

     
  • At 14/1/06 3:07 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Not your comments. Thier comments stating that Iran should be able to do whatever they want.

     
  • At 14/1/06 4:01 PM, Blogger Allisoni Balloni said…

    I like how you automatically group me into a category and then tell me that what I commented in in agreement with you is wrong, because heaven forbid, I'm a liberal. If you had a bigger picture of life and of the world you really wouldn't be so defensive. dfkz poses amazing arguments against you but instead of defending your own, you threaten him. Not very effective.

     
  • At 14/1/06 4:07 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I like how you automatically group me

    I "group" you based on what you say, if you want a different "group" then be more careful how you sound when you post.

    dfkz poses amazing arguments

    For anti-American scum I guess he does. Too bad the "arguments" are wrong.

    against you but instead of defending your own, you threaten him. Not very effective.

    Excuse me? I had plenty of counter points, did you read my whole post? If you think my anger was not justified (just read dkfz's comment) then the "group" you end up in, may not be the one you like most.

     
  • At 14/1/06 4:11 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    and then tell me that what I commented in in agreement with you is wrong

    When did this happen?

     
  • At 14/1/06 4:20 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    dfkz poses amazing arguments against you

    If you agree with that bastard then I feel the same hate for you as I do him, and yes you will be "grouped"

     
  • At 14/1/06 4:51 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    dfkz poses amazing arguments against you


    ...I really have nothing to say. If that's the kind of person you associate with then I feel sorry for you. I really do. Conservatives will admit when one of their own is wrong. Apparantally liberals can't even do that.

     
  • At 14/1/06 6:19 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    I am NOT defending Iran's possession of nuclear weapons -- I don't think they should have them. I think we should do everything in our power to persuade the Iranians to give them up. bush is NOT helping the situation by threatening military action. In fact he is making the situation worse! Iran believes they need these weapons as a deterrent against a US invasion and/or attack. I don't blame them -- Iraq didn't have WMDs and they got invaded anyway! So why should Iran give up their weapons? I'm an American and I don't trust bush -- do you think there is one single Iranian who trusts ANYTHING bush says? bush WILL bomb Iran -- his actions are guaranteeing this outcome. Will bush force Iran to use it's nukes to defend itself? THINK ABOUT IT!

    Cody Said... First off, the reason we've pulled troops out of Afghanistan (and I don't know why YOU are complaining about that) is because we've won there. We took down the Taliban and gave Afghanistan Democracy...

    We "won"? If by "won" you mean bush achieved his goal of installing a puppet government who would give his friends the pipline he wanted, then I guess you're right -- "we" won:

    * September 9, 2001: Bush given Afghanistan invasion plan
    * October 7, 2001: Bush announces opening of Afghanistan attacks.
    * June 13, 2002: Hamid Karzai (Former Unocal Consultant) "Elected" as New Afghan Leader.
    * December 27, 2002: Afghanistan Pipeline Deal signed.

    The real question, I think, is have the Afgan people won? Consider the following:

    The State of Affairs in Afganstan, Post Taliban
    Little has changed for Afghan women. After the fall of the Taliban, George W. Bush proclaimed, "The mothers and daughters of Afghanistan were captives in their own homes, forbidden from working or going to school -- today women are free". Not true. Not even true three years later. Ramita Navai reported in the January 23, 2005 Sunday Herald, "In President Hamid Karzai's Afghanistan, women are still imprisoned for running away from home".

    In all fairness, ancient traditions and social mores are deeply engrained and won’t change overnight. However, the point is a lack of any serious attempt at change -- 90% of Afghan women are illiterate today! Added to old mindsets, Afghanistan is still so dangerous that programs of development and social uplift have gone nowhere.

    In late 2003, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) stated, "nearly two years on, discrimination, violence, and insecurity remain rife, despite promises by world leaders, including President Bush and US Secretary of State Colin Powell, that the war in Afghanistan would bring liberation for women".

    Human rights abuses continue. Amnesty International reported in 2002, "Abuses perpetrated by armed groups against women and girls since the fall of the Taliban government in November 2001 include rape, abduction, and forced and underage marriage". In 2003, an Amnesty report stated, "Not only are police unable to guarantee the protection of human rights in Afghanistan, some members of the police are themselves involved in committing human rights violations".

    Then there’s widespread reports of abuse in and out of prisons by US troops and by Afghan security. This includes allegations during summer 2004 of sexual and physical abuse by US marines against 35 civilian villagers detained in central Afghanistan.

    Marc Herold, UNH professor and author of the controversial Afghan civilian body count during US bombing, summed up the human rights situation when interviewed: "If this is a success story, I fear to see what a failure would be".

    What kind of Democracy is this? As Afghanistan’s October 2004 election approached, Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued a report detailing extensive abuse of democratic rights by warlords and their militia throughout Afghanistan. HRW’s report outlines systematic intimidation of political rivals, election organizers, journalists, and coercive methods used to ensure support of ordinary voters. Surprisingly, even the mainstream press in the US criticized the approaching elections in Afghanistan.

    "These days, Mr. Bush and other administration officials often talk about the 10.5 million Afghans who have registered to vote in this month's election, citing the figure as proof that democracy is making strides after all. They count on the public not to know, and on reporters not to mention, that the number of people registered considerably exceeds all estimates of the eligible population. What they call evidence of democracy on the march is actually evidence of large-scale electoral fraud. (New York Times, October 1, 2004)

    It sounds to me like the only winner here is bush and big oil!

    Cody Said... Don't you dare say that you asshole. You are in the wrong place to spread anti-american bullshit to everyone. You're the enemy. The enemy within. siding with cockraches like the president of Iran and putting down America.

    I am NOT putting down America -- I am putting down bush. WHY don't you understand that?! bush is NOT America, despite what you or he believes! "George W. Bush" and "America" and NOT interchangeable!

    Cody Said... I swear to God if you said that to me in person you'd have a nosebleed quicker than you could say the word "I'm".

    If you could take me that would prove you are right?

     
  • At 14/1/06 6:30 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... It looks like I've got to reverse the delusion Al Franken and his gang has imposed on you.

    I commend Al Franken for his efforts to expose Republican lies and corruption. He is truly a great American!

     
  • At 14/1/06 6:37 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Persuade the Iranians? Are out of your friken mind? Listen carefully moron. They. Are. Islamo-fascits. You. Can. Not. Negotioate. With. Them.

     
  • At 14/1/06 8:28 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    What are we waiting for then? Why haven't we already attacked?

     
  • At 14/1/06 8:35 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Because we went into Iraq and scared the crap out of them. That's part of the reason the war is good. Once they get a nuke however it will be a different story.

    Also, you claim to be 33. You were alive during the hostage crises. You should know that its a dangerous country.

     
  • At 14/1/06 9:02 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    I can see that continuing this discussion would be pointless. The Iraq war has NOT been "good". Iran has NOT had the "crap scared out of them".

    bush's policies, however, ARE "bad". They endanger our nation -- and the world.

     
  • At 14/1/06 9:53 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Thanks for those lovely supporting details and clear arguments. (Sarcasm)

     
  • At 14/1/06 10:17 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    My last post included just as many "supporting arguments" as you EVER include. You would have simply dismissed any information provided as "conspiracy theories" anyway.

    Why don't you PROVE Iran has had the "crap scared out of them"???? If that is the case, why aren't there inspectors at their nuclear facilities RIGHT NOW??!!

     
  • At 15/1/06 10:07 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Because as I said before the UN is corrupt! We need miltary action to get inspectors there. Your arguements are mutually exclusive.

    As for your supporting details places like www.bushsucksandeatsbabies.org are not valid resources. At least the other democrats here qoute news sources not conspericy sources.

     
  • At 15/1/06 10:57 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    bush is NOT helping the situation by threatening military action.

    I wish he WAS threatening military action. Instead he's hoping the UN will take care of things. Pay attention to the news.

     
  • At 15/1/06 11:09 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    bush WILL bomb Iran -- his actions are guaranteeing this outcome. Will bush force Iran to use it's nukes to defend itself? THINK ABOUT IT!

    I think you've missed the entire point. We're not talking about bombing cities here. If we dropped a bomb it would would be aimed at the nuclear facility and guess what then? They wouldn't have nukes to use against us!

    I am NOT putting down America -- I am putting down bush. WHY don't you understand that?! bush is NOT America, despite what you or he believes! "George W. Bush" and "America" and NOT interchangeable!

    Calling for the death of your own leader isn't exactly patriotic. Hating the president of the US more than the president of Iran isn't exactly patriotic. The following comment isn't exactly patriotic:

    Let me guess at what your answer is: Different rules apply to the United States because we're the "good guys". Iran is one of the "bad guys".

    You don't even know who the good and bad guys are, and we're talking about the U.S. in comparison to Iran! That's not patriotic!

     
  • At 15/1/06 11:32 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Let me guess at what your answer is: Different rules apply to the United States because we're the "good guys". Iran is one of the "bad guys".

    Uh Hell yes.

     
  • At 15/1/06 2:08 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Because as I said before the UN is corrupt! We need miltary action to get inspectors there. Your arguements are mutually exclusive.

    But I thought they had the crap was scared out of them?? If that is true why aren't they letting in inspectors NOW?? Why does it not surprise me that you are for attacking immediately? I find your warmongering attitude reprehensible.

    If the UN is as corrupt as you say, what good will sending inspectors do? The UN inspectors told bush there were no WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion, but bush didn't believe them! Anyway, bush isn't interested in inspections. He'll go through the motions -- to give the appearance of having done everything short of Military Action -- but in the end he will bomb them. As long as bush is in office he will continue to work towards his goal of increasing hatred for the United States in the Middle East -- and thus convince more young Muslims to become terrorists. I'm sorry, but I can't support that plan.

    Also, the UN is NOT corrupt! There have been instances of corruption, but you fail to realize that the UN is an organization consisting of MANY member nations. As such, keeping corruption to a minimum is a lot harder than with an organization operating under the flag of a single government. In comparrison the bush administration is at least 1,000 times more corrupt! I trust the UN 1 million times as much as I trust the massively CORRUPT Republicans!!

    Cody Said... Calling for the death of your own leader isn't exactly patriotic. Hating the president of the US more than the president of Iran isn't exactly patriotic.

    bush is a War Criminal responsible for THOUSANDS of deaths! He's an evil SOB who champions tax cuts for the wealthy, corporate welfare, and cuts in important needed social programs! This man is despicable. He's not going to get any respect from me just because he was able to steal the presidency.

    Cody Said... The following comment isn't exactly patriotic: "Let me guess at what your answer is: Different rules apply to the United States because we're the "good guys". Iran is one of the "bad guys".

    My point with this comment was that it isn't as simple as labeling one side the "good guys" and another side the "bad guys". The Iranian people do NOT see it that way (despite your comment that they "know" their government is EVIL). Do you think they call us the "Great Satan" for no reason? THEY BELIEVE IT. We won't get them to do what we want by "scaring the shit out of them". Anyone who thinks so is, In my opinion, incredibly simple minded.

    Let me guess: You know that the Iranian people "know" their government is evil because Rusty told you? I know it couldn't possibly be information gleaned from a POLL, since you can only EVER get SLANTED information from polls. I seriously doubt that even those Iranians who are unhappy with their government trust anything bush or the United States says.

    Cody said... You don't even know who the good and bad guys are, and we're talking about the U.S. in comparison to Iran! That's not patriotic!

    As I pointed out, this overerly simplistic way of looking at things sets us up for failure. Iran IS a sovereign nation, and DEMANDING they do something, or THREATENING them is only going to make them angry. Making them angry, and thus strengthening their resolve to defy us, is NOT the best way to accomplish our goals.

    Sunday January 15, 2006

     
  • At 15/1/06 2:13 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    But I thought they had the crap was scared out of them??

    *Tears hair out* NOT BY THE UN! BY US YOU STUPID-ASS!

    If the UN is as corrupt as you say, what good will sending inspectors do?

    NONE! THAT'S WHY WE NEED MILITARY ACTION!!!

    And finally if you don't think that Islamo-fascits are evil then you yourself are evil. Get out of my country.

     
  • At 15/1/06 3:46 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Do you think they call us the "Great Satan" for no reason?

    The terrorists call us that, and the terrorists in the Middle East are an extreme MINORITY.

    As long as bush is in office he will continue to work towards his goal of increasing hatred for the United States in the Middle East --and thus convince more young Muslims to become terrorists.

    If we kill terrorist leaders, there is no one left to BRAINWASH the Muslim children into thinking like them. Moderate Muslims support this too, they're just scared to speak out because the terrorist rats hate nothing more than a Muslim "moderate". The moderate Muslims of Iran hate the Iranian government because it's so radical. It's not exactly a hard concept to understand.

    As I pointed out, this overerly simplistic way of looking at things sets us up for failure. Iran IS a sovereign nation, and DEMANDING they do something, or THREATENING them is only going to make them angry. Making them angry, and thus strengthening their resolve to defy us, is NOT the best way to accomplish our goals.

    Don't you think they're angry at us already? We can leave them angry with nukes, or really angry without nukes. Take your pick. If we bomb their facilities unanounced then they can't do anything about us anymore. They can be angry all they want, but it won't matter because they won't have bombs.

    This discussion is so rediculous, you might as well be telling me you'd rather not piss Hitler off even if he is going to fry jews.

    The only difference is that we're talking about nuclear bombs, not large ovens. That's quite a difference!

     
  • At 15/1/06 3:55 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I find your warmongering attitude reprehensible.

    I don't WANT war, I WANT peace. Peace doesn't work when EVIL governments are possessing nuclear bombs, moron!

    And don't tell me there is a diplomatic option, it's bull. The Iranian government has already defied the UN to continue it's illegal "research". There's no diplomatic way to stop them. Not even sanctions will work on them. Just look at Saddam, he had about a dozen sanctions on him and he did fine! If I were the president I would give the UN one month to see what they could accomplish (nothing). Then I would give the Iranian government a 72 hours to shelf their program, then if they continued I would drop a precision bomb on their facilities unanounced.

     
  • At 15/1/06 4:00 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Maybe if we can switch this around to someone you really think is evil, you'll understand things better.

    Say Bush has a program that makes nuclear bombs that break UN seals, do you think many Americans would support that? The answer is no. And that is why I know the majority of Iranians don't support what their government is doing.

     
  • At 15/1/06 4:07 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    bush is a War Criminal responsible for THOUSANDS of deaths!

    Well if you like to think in those moronic terms then every president must be responsible for thousands of deaths. Because all presidents have waged wars and sent troops to other countries. And of course they're all war criminals as well, because well, they've gotten us into wars, right?

    Such stupid thinking.

    I trust the UN 1 million times as much as I trust the massively CORRUPT Republicans!!

    But the Democrats are just saints right? I bet you believed Howard Dean when he said(lied) that no Democrats were involved in the Abramoff scandal? It was a nearly even number of Democrats and Republicans. Stop being such an ignorant bigot.

     
  • At 15/1/06 4:17 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... *Tears hair out* NOT BY THE UN! BY US YOU STUPID-ASS! NONE! THAT'S WHY WE NEED MILITARY ACTION!!! And finally if you don't think that Islamo-fascits are evil then you yourself are evil. Get out of my country.

    So I guess that the problem is, according to you, we simply haven't DEMANDED that they allow UN inspectors in. Don't you think we could at least do that before bombing them?? Certainly them will acquiesce to any demand we make, since they have the "crap scared out of them". This isn't "your" country and I'm not leaving.

    Cody Said... I don't WANT war, I WANT peace.

    I don't believe you.

    Cody Said... Peace doesn't work when EVIL governments are possessing nuclear bombs, moron!

    Is your calling me a "moron" an example of you not pulling your punches?

    Cody Said... And don't tell me there is a diplomatic option, it's bull. The Iranian government has already defied the UN to continue it's illegal "research". There's no diplomatic way to stop them. Not even sanctions will work on them. Just look at Saddam, he had about a dozen sanctions on him and he did fine!

    According the the Iranian government their nuclear facilities are for the production of electricity only. bush loves nuclear power, so why doesn't he think anyone else has a right use it?

    Cody Said... If I were the president I would give the UN one month to see what they could accomplish (nothing). Then I would give the Iranian government a 72 hours to shelf their program, then if they continued I would drop a precision bomb on their facilities unanounced.

    So, according to you, bush is dictator of the world? No decision of bush can be questioned, as he was divinely appointed? Thinking such as this strongly convinces me that bush most certainly is the Anti-Christ. You think that ONE MAN can be judge and jury of the entire world! I find that extremely frightening.

     
  • At 15/1/06 4:28 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    cody said.. But the Democrats are just saints right? I bet you believed Howard Dean when he said(lied) that no Democrats were involved in the Abramoff scandal?

    No Democrats were involved. Abramoff is a REPUBLICAN. WHY would he give money to Democrats??

    "The Late Edition" with Wolf Blitzer, excerpt from the January 8th transcript (note the section in BOLD):

    BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?

    DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

    BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

    DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...

    BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?

    DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

     
  • At 15/1/06 5:35 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    What have you proven me? That Dean is a liar?

    According to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, "Forty of 45 members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from Jack Abramoff, his associates, and Indian tribe clients."

    quoted from-

    http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200601%5CPOL20060109a.html

     
  • At 15/1/06 5:52 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    This is pathetic. The only reason that Republicans are feebly trying to implicate Democrats is because they know they are caught and there is no way out -- they are attempting to take down the Democrats with them.

    Howard Dean Said... This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

    Howard Dean is no liar. The Republicans are. bush is.

    I've been wondering what would be an appropriate punishment for bush's crimes...

     
  • At 15/1/06 6:10 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Quote of the day:

    "Howard Dean is no liar"
    -dkfz

    Cody Said... I don't WANT war, I WANT peace.

    I don't believe you.

    Yeah you got me there. You're right, I'm just obsessed with war. I just run through the streets with an AK-47 and kill as many civilians as possible.

    What can I say, other than you are as smart as......never mind.

    Don't you understand how bloody things could get if we do NOTHING? Iran will probably nuke Israel, a coalation will retaliate, and then Saudi Arabia and Syria will defend Iran, and Russia and China will supply weapons to the enemy. It'll be WWIII.

    Or, we could bomb the nuclear facilities, which are targetable (see pictures in my new post) and it'll be over right then.

     
  • At 15/1/06 7:20 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Howard Dean Said... This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

    Sorry to disapoint you but... look here

     
  • At 15/1/06 8:28 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Here is a list complete with everone who is involved and from a more reliable source.

     
  • At 15/1/06 8:56 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody O'Connor said... I never said it had to be bombing.

    But you are now. What WERE you saying before???

    Cody Said... Don't you understand how bloody things could get if we do NOTHING?

    Do nothing, or bomb them...

    I didn't know those were our only options. I guess we have no choice. So why haven't we bombed them already? I was expecting this to happen months ago! Really, what is bush waiting for??

    Boy are we LUCKY that bush is president! He surely is the world's saviour!

    No, I think it will be bush's action, NOT his inaction which will cause WWIII.

    Cody O'Connor said... Quote of the day: "Howard Dean is no liar" -dkfz

    I greatly admire Howard Dean. I wish he had run for, and been elected president. We wouldn't be bogged down in the quagmire that is Iraq. Iran wouldn't feel threatened, and would be more inclined to submit to inspections. We would be much less hated in the Middle East. We would be paying down the National debt, instead of adding to it exponentially. The government's reaction to Katrina would have been swift, resulting in many lives being saved. The poor wouldn't be being screwed over to finance yet more tax cuts for America's wealthiest... Yes, the world would be a much better place if the Republicans hadn't stolen the election.

    Apparently you're mocking me with your "quote of the day". But since it's a true statement, I would have to say that you failed in your attempt to make me look bad. You did not refute Howard Dean's assertation that there were no Democrats who took money directly from Jack Abramoff. Your first link proves nothing. Your second link proves nothing. Notice where it says:

    1/12/06 UPDATE: In our efforts to refine this list, we have further researched lobbying data and removed contributions from Indian tribes made before Mr. Abramoff's registration as a lobbyist for the contributor.

    So, In other words it does include contributions from Indian tribes made after Jack Abramoff registered as their lobbyist. Provide a link that shows that any money which was given to Democrats came directly from Jack Abramoff. You can't do it.

    Why would Jack Abramoff, a Republican, give money, or direct money to be given to Democrats? Democrats received money from the Indian tribes, but it is only because The tribes traditionally supported Democrats. There is NOTHING illegal about making or accepting political contributions -- not unless you are buying votes. Which is exactly what Abramoff was doing when he gave money to the Republicans -- and ONLY to the Republicans.

    Abramoff: At the Center of the Culture of Corruption. Jack Abramoff is at the center of the rapidly growing scandals on Capitol Hill that involves Tom DeLay -- the recently indicted former Republican leader -- and led to Abramoff’s guilty plea yesterday. The Abramoff plea deal and scandal is expected to involve many members of Congress along with other lobbyists and congressional staffers. The corruption reaches far and wide:

    * Abramoff Gives Only to Republicans. Jack Abramoff has given over $120,000 to Republican members of Congress. He has not given any money to Democrats.
    * Abramoff used his Republican contacts to create an extensive pay to play system with Republican members of Congress where political money was exchanged for policy outcomes.
    * In every case, he had Republicans as willing partners. Only Republicans have been indicted. Only Republicans are reported as being under investigation by the Department of Justice.
    * Jack Abramoff is the tip of the iceberg in the culture of corruption that Republicans like Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, David Safavian and others have brought to Washington, which is why we need ethics reform and honest leadership.
    * As a Bush pioneer, Abramoff personally raised $100,000 for Bush’s re-election campaign, and later bragged about being a Pioneer and the influence that garnered him at the White House. [Read more about the Abramoff/Republican Corruption Scandal here and here]

    DarkSaturos said... Sorry to disapoint you but... look here

    Sorry to disappoint YOU, but look here. And here.

    It’s now clear that the GOP strategy for limiting the damage from the Abramoff scandal is to employ the "Democrats were doing it too" defense. And the press has been willing to help that strategy along. An Associated Press story, for instance, reported that a contribution to Democratic senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota had been made by the Coushatta Indians on Abramoff’s instructions. But AP failed to note that its source for that story, Jimmy Faircloth, is not just the Coushatta’s lawyer, but a Republican operative. The attempt to tie Democrats to Abramoff is breaking out all across the country -- and the press is buying it. [Read the Rest of the Story]

    "Those S.O.B.s", Abramoff said last week about DeLay and his staffers. "DeLay knew everything. He knew all the details".

    Abramoff's confession in court was "not a surprise because this Republican Congress is the most corrupt in history and the American people are paying the price". House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi

     
  • At 16/1/06 10:28 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Excuse my dk, but my link was off a reliable news sources and yours are democratic websites. Places like busheatsbabies.com don't really count. I'm aware that both sides took money and that this is both sides' scandal. I have said in the past that Cody should calm down, but I don't think so in your case. You are indescribably evil and anti-American. Simply a waste of carbon. Why don't you just leave this country? We don't want your kind here.

     
  • At 16/1/06 11:06 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    But you are now. What WERE you saying before???

    I'm sorry if that came out a little wrong, I meant we shouldn't be bombing anything BUT the nuclear facilities.

     
  • At 16/1/06 11:17 AM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Your link doesn't show where the money came from!

    TRADITIONALLY Democratic Indian Tribes gave legal and above board campaign contributions to Democratic Senators. Jack Abramoff gave money (and expensive gifts, trips and dinners) to Republican Senators for the purpose of BUYING VOTES. End of story. I can't state it any simpler terms. This is a REPUBLICAN scandal.

    My links (none of which were to "busheatsbabies.com") PROVED this to be true. If it is beyond your intellectual capacity to understand this -- then there is nothing I can do to help you. It's sad really... to see someone so young who is so brainwashed.

    You support corruption, pay-to-play government, warentless spying on American citizens, a wealthy ruling class, and illegal preventive wars. ALL of which I would call 100 percent un-American! YOUR kind isn't wanted here! YOU are the one who should leave!

    Monday January 16, 2006

     
  • At 16/1/06 11:20 AM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Your link doesn't show where the money came from!

    It's a list of illegal Abromoff money. That's really all there is to it.

    My links (none of which were to "busheatsbabies.com") PROVED this to be true.

    Sigh, they were Democratically biased and therefore discounted. The Busheatsbabies.com thing was satire, a literary device used to poke fun at something.

    You support corruption, pay-to-play government, warentless spying on American citizens,

    Did you support Clinton, because he did the same thing Bush is doing now.

     
  • At 16/1/06 11:36 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    You support corruption

    You think I don't want to see these Republican congressmen get the boot for this, because they're Republicans? I want to see EVERYONE involved in this get the boot, Democrat and Republican, I do not support corruption in congress, I don't care which side.

    Democrats have been getting money from Indian tribes, yes I get that, but the tribe members are CLIENTS of Jack Abramoff! The tribes get money from Abramoff, then the money goes to the Democrats and is made to look like a donation, when it really is just bribery.

    Aren't you against corruption? If so you would admit that Democrats are involved and say that they should get the boot too.

     
  • At 16/1/06 11:50 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    It's a list of illegal Abromoff money. That's really all there is to it.

    Exactly. There was different ways of going about the bribes but they were all illegal. Everyone mentioned here got illegal bribes, end of story.

     
  • At 16/1/06 12:21 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Did you support Clinton, because he did the same thing Bush is doing now.

    Yes, I support Mr. Clinton (one of our finest Presidents), and NO he did not conduct warentless wiretaps, searches or surveillance of American citizens! (also we've covered this already. If you want a link go back and read my prior post on this subject.)

    DarkSaturos said...It's a list of illegal Abromoff money. That's really all there is to it.

    NO IT ISN'T!! Here is an UNALTERED quote directly from the website Cody linked to:

    1/12/06 UPDATE: In our efforts to refine this list, we have further researched lobbying data and removed contributions from Indian tribes made before Mr. Abramoff's registration as a lobbyist for the contributor.

    This clearly states that campaign contributions from the Indians who employed Jack Abramoff are included!! The money given to Democrats was LEGAL ABOVE BOARD campaign contributions!! I can't state it any simpler!! Clearly this IS beyond your intellectual capacity to understand.

    Cody Said... You think I don't want to see these Republican congressmen get the boot for this, because they're Republicans? I want to see EVERYONE involved in this get the boot, Democrat and Republican, I do not support corruption in congress, I don't care which side.

    I don't believe you. You support Republican corruption.

    Cody Said... but the tribe members are CLIENTS of Jack Abramoff!

    SO WHAT??!! They foolishly employed Jack Abramoff, so that means that the LEGAL ABOVE BOARD campaign contributions they made to Democrats are somehow illegal?? The money Jack Abramoff gave to Republicans was BRIBES. The money the Indian tribes gave to Democrats was legal campaign contributions!

    Democrats have been getting money from Indian tribes, yes I get that... ...The tribes get money from Abramoff, then the money goes to the Democrats and is made to look like a donation, when it really is just bribery.

    No, clearly you DON'T understand! The tribes gave their own money to the Democrats, because they traditionally supported Democrats! No surprise that Native Americans would be Democrats (same as it is no surprise that most African Americans are Democrats). NONE of the money that went to Democrats came from Abramoff. NONE. The Indians and Abramoff weren't BOTH buying votes, ONLY Abramoff was! Abramoff was ripping off the Indians!

    I don't understand what you're saying. Are ALL campaign contributions are bribes? (In which case bush has accepted more bribes than any politician in history!). Maybe it's just campaign contributions from Indian tribes which are bribes? Your logic makes no sense!

     
  • At 16/1/06 12:39 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Your logic makes no sense!

    I wouldn't expect you to understand my logic. Go back to the link, then scroll down past the part you like to use against me, you will see both Republicans and Democrats listed.

    No surprise that Native Americans would be Democrats (same as it is no surprise that most African Americans are Democrats).

    Not only do you hate America but you're incredibally racist too! On Martin Luther King Jr. day too. Jeez, you really are a scumbag. Your party thinks you can hold slave chains on minorities to voting Democrat, chaining their minds from freedom, from different thinking. Because, well, any minority who is a Republican must hate his own race. So you redicule anyone who isn't Democrat, becasue if you don't accept affirmative racism, you must hate yourself.

    Just do us all a favor and take a hike, you make me sick.

     
  • At 16/1/06 12:45 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I don't believe you. You support Republican corruption.

    That's just what you want me to say because it aids your rediculous argument. Just because you're a bigot doesn't mean I am, if the Republicans are doing something wrong I don't support them, unlike you and your Democrat friends. But then again, they're never wrong are they?

     
  • At 16/1/06 2:05 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... Democrats have been getting money from Indian tribes, yes I get that, but the tribe members are CLIENTS of Jack Abramoff! The tribes get money from Abramoff, then the money goes to the Democrats and is made to look like a donation, when it really is just bribery.

    WRONG. No money EVER went from Abramoff to the Indians and then to Democrats.

    Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty. No bribery charges have been brought against any Indian tribes. No Indian tribes have even been accused of bribery! Until that happens your argument is completely invalid. (note: that won't happen.)

    Also, why won't you answer my question: Why hasn't bush already bombed Iran?? If you don't know say, "I don't know".

    Cody Said... Not only do you hate America but you're incredibally racist too! On Martin Luther King Jr. day too. Jeez, you really are a scumbag.

    Another example of twisted Republican logic. You're disputing the FACT that the majority of African Americans vote Democrat?? African Americans vote Democrat because they realize that the Republican party is the party of RICH WHITES. Your LIES concerning this FACT confirm who the real racist is! Also, you are accusing Indian Tribes who were RIPPED OFF by Jack Abramoff of being complicit in his corruption without any PROOF what-so-ever. So who's the racist?!

    Cody Said... Because, well, any minority who is a Republican must hate his own race.

    Wrong again! They aren't traitors to their race, they are traitor to America, the same as anyone of any race that voted for bush!

    Cody Said... That's just what you want me to say because it aids your rediculous argument. Just because you're a bigot doesn't mean I am, if the Republicans are doing something wrong I don't support them, unlike you and your Democrat friends. But then again, they're never wrong are they?

    No I said it (that you support Republican corruption), because it's TRUE. You don't support it outright, you support it by denying it exists! Whatever they tell you, you will believe. If, in the end, they tell you that this Senator and that Senator are guilty, and then they say, "It won't happen again, we fixed this problem, trust us, we can police ourselves" -- Cody will trust them. What we need are publicly financed campaigns! NO MORE PAY-TO-PLAY IN WASHINGTON! The Republicans will NEVER go along with the fixes that are actually needed to prevent this from happening again. Why? Because that would permanently cut off access to the gravy train!

    I, on the other hand, don't support members of my party which are corrupt. I did not said there have never been any corrupt Democrats -- I said that the Democrats aren't involved in THIS scandal -- which they aren't. The facts I presented prove this to be true.

    Cody Said... I wouldn't expect you to understand my logic. Go back to the link, then scroll down past the part you like to use against me, you will see both Republicans and Democrats listed.

    I didn't say I don't understand logic. I said it doesn't make any sense, which it doesn't. You're saying the the legal campain contributions Democrats received from the Indian tribes was, in fact, bribes. PROVE IT. As I said, No bribery charges have been brought against any Indian tribes. No Indian tribes have even been accused of bribery! Yet you're convinced they are just as corrupt as Abramoff! WITHOUT any accusations, proof, or trials! Why is this? Maybe it's because your world would come crashing down if you had to face the reality that this is a REPUBLICAN SCANDAL -- and ONLY a Republican scandal!

    From Washington Monthly: It’s now clear that the GOP strategy for limiting the damage from the Abramoff scandal is to employ the "Democrats were doing it too" defense. And the press has been willing to help that strategy along. An Associated Press story, for instance, reported that a contribution to Democratic senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota had been made by the Coushatta Indians on Abramoff’s instructions. But AP failed to note that its source for that story, Jimmy Faircloth, is not just the Coushatta’s lawyer, but a Republican operative. The attempt to tie Democrats to Abramoff is breaking out all across the country -- and the press is buying it. [Read the Rest of the Story]

     
  • At 16/1/06 2:40 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    So who's the racist?!

    you.

    Also, why won't you answer my question: Why hasn't bush already bombed Iran?? If you don't know say, "I don't know".

    I don't know, I wish he would. Like I said, unlike you I'm not a bigot, if I don't like what a Republican is doing I say so.

    For the Abramoff thing, I misinterpereted things in my last post and I apologize for that, it is incorrect. But I really am sick of discussing it, everything you need to know about it is in my earliar link and this one.

     
  • At 16/1/06 3:06 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    from the link (washington post):

    "Lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an associate famously collected $82 million in lobbying and public relations fees from six Indian tribes and devoted a lot of their time to trying to persuade Republican lawmakers to act on their clients' behalf.

    But Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators."

    Another example of twisted Republican logic. You're disputing the FACT that the majority of African Americans vote Democrat??

    No, where did you get that idea? It's the fact that you say "no surprise" when you say Black people vote that way. Meaning you think all Republicans are racist (even though the party was founded to end slavery) and Democrats aren't (even though they support affirmative racism).

    you support [corruption] by denying it exists!

    I deny it when it really doesn't exist; like the wire-tapping non-issue, and I point it out when it does, like the Abramoff scandal that involves Democrats and Republicans.

    WRONG. No money EVER went from Abramoff to the Indians and then to Democrats.

    True, that one was a mistake on my part. He actually scammed the Indian tribes into taking money from them and used the money to bribe Republicans and Democrats. That, is fact.

    the Republican party is the party of RICH WHITES.

    Then maybe YOU should be a Republican, or maybe this "Democrats are for the little people" scam is just that, a scam. If rich whites can be Democrats (see Bill Gates), why can't poor people and minorities be Republicans? Is it just that you're showing your hypocrisy? I think so.

    Wrong again! They aren't traitors to their race, they are traitor to America, the same as anyone of any race that voted for bush!

    This comment is a keeper. All Republicans hate America. Such childish bigotry. You want to believe Bush is the anti-christ and the Republicans are his demon slaves? Fine. But it only proves how much of an idiot you are. Grow a brain, or at least retain how much of one you have by not listening to Al Franken.

     
  • At 16/1/06 4:13 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Cody how can you even understand what the fuck he's saying? (Apologies for the swearword.) He contradicts himself every post. Its the ramblings of a foolish person.

     
  • At 16/1/06 5:19 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    I asked: So who's the racist?
    Cody Responded: you.

    Unlike YOU I said nothing in any of my posts which was even remotely racist. You are the one accusing these Indian Tribes, which were duped by Jack Abramoff, of buying the votes of Democrats. Even though there haven't even been any accusations! No accusations, no indictments, no admissions of guilt, no plea bargins, no trials -- NOTHING! Jack Abramoff admited he was guilty -- no Indians did. Jack Abramoff implicated other Republicans -- he did NOT implicate any of the Indians he was ripping off! Yet somehow you "know" these Indians are guilty of buying the votes of Democratic Senators. And you're accusing ME of being racist? Amazing!

    Cody said... For the Abramoff thing, I misinterpereted things in my last post and I apologize for that, it is incorrect. But I really am sick of discussing it, everything you need to know about it is in my earliar link and this one.

    Does that mean that you are no longer accusing the Indian tribes of being complicit in Jack Abramoff's scheme to buy votes? You're telling me that you actually think that Jack Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist, gave money to Democrats?! WHY would he do that? Can you provide a single link which proves that Abramoff gave money directly to Democrats? (I'll save you the time of looking -- you won't find such a link because none exist.)

    Cody Said... I don't know, I wish he would [bomb Iran]. Like I said, unlike you I'm not a bigot, if I don't like what a Republican is doing I say so.

    I think bush has determined that it is necessary for him to do his song and dance a little longer -- then, when he's convinced that every is buying it (or everyone who is going to buy it is), he'll bomb Iran. It's the same thing that happened with Iraq. bush duped Colin Powell into making the case for invading Iran before the UN, didn't get their approval, but invaded anyway. bush will do what he wants in the end, but he will again go through the motions of making it look like he is trying to accomplish his goals diplomatically.

    I'm not a bigot, and nothing that I have posted here indicates otherwise. Not "Pulling your punches" includes making baseless accusations against people you disagree with?

    Regarding the article you quoted -- the title says it all: "Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations". YES, they did receive tribal donations -- what they didn't receive was bribes from Jack Abramoff!

    From the Minnesota Star Tribune: Republicans in Washington, nervous as a cat over the Jack Abramoff scandal, lost no opportunity to portray this as a "bipartisan" problem. It is not, however; it's not even close. Not a single dollar did Abramoff give to a Democrat; they all went to Republicans, most notably Reps. Tom DeLay, R-TX; Bob Ney R-OH, and Richard Pombo R-CA plus Senators Thad Cochran R-MI, and Conrad Burns R-MT.

    Clients of Abramoff gave to both Republicans and, in smaller amounts, to Democrats. But whether the recipient was Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., or Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., their relationship with Indian tribes and contributions from those tribes predate Abramoff's efforts on tribal issues. Dorgan is the senior Democrat on the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and Hayworth is cochairman of the Native American Congressional Caucus. [Read the rest of the article]

    From Bloomberg.com:President George W. Bush calls indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff "an equal money dispenser" who helped politicians of both parties. Campaign donation records show Republicans were a lot more equal than Democrats. Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show. At the same time, his Indian clients were the only ones among the top 10 tribal donors in the U.S. to donate more money to Republicans than Democrats.

    Bush's comment about Abramoff in a Dec. 14 Fox News interview was aimed at countering Democratic accusations that Republicans have brought a "culture of corruption" to Washington. Even so, the numbers show that ``Abramoff's big connections were with the Republicans", said Larry Noble, the former top lawyer for the Federal Election Commission, who directs the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.

    "It is somewhat unusual in that most lobbyists try to work with both Republicans and Democrats, but we're already seeing that Jack Abramoff doesn't seem to be a usual lobbyist", Noble said. [Read the rest of the article]

    Cody Said... No, where did you get that idea? It's the fact that you say "no surprise" when you say Black people vote that way. Meaning you think all Republicans are racist (even though the party was founded to end slavery) and Democrats aren't (even though they support affirmative racism).

    First of all, there is no such thing as "affirmative racism". I'm saying that African Americans are smart enough to vote for the party that best represents their interests. Not all Republicans are racist, although the majority are bigoted against poor people.

    Voting behaviour in America: Logic dictates that not all African Americans or women vote Democrat. But the trends indicate that a large proportion of each group does. [Read more]

    Cody Said... Then maybe YOU should be a Republican, or maybe this "Democrats are for the little people" scam is just that, a scam. If rich whites can be Democrats (see Bill Gates), why can't poor people and minorities be Republicans? Is it just that you're showing your hypocrisy? I think so.

    Poor people and minorities who vote Republican are voting against their own best interests. They have been scammed by the lying Republicans.

    Cody Said... This comment is a keeper. All Republicans hate America. Such childish bigotry. You want to believe Bush is the anti-christ and the Republicans are his demon slaves? Fine. But it only proves how much of an idiot you are. Grow a brain, or at least retain how much of one you have by not listening to Al Franken.

    If it is a "keeper", as you say, you could at least get it right. Notice that I referred to people who voted for bush, NOT Republicans in general (although I don't really care for them either, bush supporters are at least 1 million times worse). People who voted for bush hate American because they support corruption, pay-to-play government, warentless spying on American citizens, a wealthy ruling class, and illegal preventive wars! ALL of which I would call 100 percent un-American! We need to get rid of bush and all bush supporters in Government. They are not real Republicans.

    DarkSaturos said... Cody how can you even understand what the f**k he's saying? (Apologies for the swearword.) He contradicts himself every post. Its the ramblings of a foolish person.

    Strange, that is EXACTLY what I think after reading every one of your posts. Why don't you tell me WHERE I've contradicted my self. It sould be easy to find an example, since you say I do it in EVERY post.

    Some good news -- It looks like the majority of voters aren't falling for the Republican lies regarding this scandal, unlike the majority of the posters on this blog.

    From MSNBC: Democrats favored to control Congress. Following Abramoff scandal, public uneasy with Republican Party, AP finds. In an ominous election-year sign for Republicans, Americans are leaning sharply toward giving Democrats control of Congress, an AP-Ipsos poll finds. Democrats are favored 49 percent to 36 percent. The poll was taken this week as Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to tax evasion, fraud and corruption charges and agreed to aid a federal investigation of members of Congress and other government officials.

    President Bush’s job approval remains low -- 40 percent in the AP-Ipsos poll. About as many approve of his handling of Iraq, where violence against Iraqis and U.S. troops has surged. [Read the Rest of the Article]

     
  • At 16/1/06 6:09 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    You are the one accusing these Indian Tribes,

    Ahhh, so now accusing people who are guilty is racist. Why don't we just let Saddam out of prison because he's arabic, right dk?

     
  • At 16/1/06 6:56 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Ahhh, so now accusing people who are guilty is racist. Why don't we just let Saddam out of prison because he's arabic, right dk?

    They are not guilty. As I pointed out earlier, There aren't even any accusations of wrong doing! Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem... I think you should talk to your English teacher about getting some tutoring.

    Also, nice job of providing an example of how I have contradicted myself!

     
  • At 17/1/06 6:42 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    You are the one accusing these Indian Tribes, which were duped by Jack Abramoff, of buying the votes of Democrats.

    I just told you I misinterpreted the information on that one, why must you still use it against me? I'll give the article one more time and if you don't get it by then, then, whatever.

    From Washington Post:

    "Lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an associate famously collected $82 million in lobbying and public relations fees from six Indian tribes and devoted a lot of their time to trying to persuade Republican lawmakers to act on their clients' behalf.

    But Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators."

    And you're accusing ME of being racist? Amazing!

    I can see where this is going and I'm going to stop now. We shouldn't be passing the racist buck back and fourth like a hot potato.

    Poor people and minorities who vote Republican are voting against their own best interests.

    By best interests you mean just enough welfare to make any potential worker happy, and as soon as that person works, they lose the welfare. The system needs serious reform before that statement is even remotely right.

    I can understand your way about helping the poor, but I don't understand why minorities even need special help. Everyone should have equal rights, why should you get extras if you're Black, or Hispanic? That's why it's affirmative racism.

     
  • At 17/1/06 1:01 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    I could repost my articles as well, bolding the important sections. Your article contains incorrect information! A few Democrats may have worked at Abramoff's lobbying firm -- SO WHAT! It was Abramoff (and ONLY Abramoff) who was charged (and pled guilty). I didn't read any article which stated that any other lobbyists from Abramoff's firm were charged, or involved in any way.

    Your Article States:

    campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators

    That information is just flat WRONG. That is the lie that the Republicans are spreading. The conservatively biased news media picked up on the Republican talking points and incorporated them into their stories. Read the articles I linked for the TRUTH. They are all QUITE CLEAR that no (zero) Abramoff money went to Democrats!

    That's what I mean by your supporting Republican corruption. You SAY you're againt it, but then you buy their lies WITHOUT QUESTION. How do you know that it isn't the very senators who took bribes who are spreading this story??

    Cody Said... I can understand your way about helping the poor, but I don't understand why minorities even need special help. Everyone should have equal rights, why should you get extras if you're Black, or Hispanic? That's why it's affirmative racism.

    Again, There is no such thing as "affirmative racism"!! In a perfect world there would be no racism. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. Affirmaive Action seeks to level the playing field, giving minorities some special considerations to counteract the discrimination they face every day. NO, it isn't a perfect solution -- but there really isn't one. It is much better than doing nothing. I support Affirmative Action 100 percent. I have minimal sympathy for white males who cry "reverse discrimination". When compared to black Americans white males really know NOTHING about discrimination.

    Tuesday January 17, 2006

    bush lied, bush spied, bush must step down

     
  • At 17/1/06 2:21 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    They are not guilty.

    Really? Then I guess DeLay isn't guilty either right dk?

     
  • At 17/1/06 2:23 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I could repost my articles as well, bolding the important sections.

    Yes but yours are all conspercicy theories.

     
  • At 17/1/06 3:26 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Really? Then I guess DeLay isn't guilty either right dk?

    Yes really. They aren't even being accused, unlike Tom Delay. Even Cody admitted that point! Again, I urge you to talk to your English teacher concerning your SERIOUS reading comprehension problem! What happens when you're a part of the workforce, and your boss leaves you a memo asking you to do something. Then you completely misinterpret what he wrote and do the opposite of what he asked you to. I think you will then be out of a job.

    DarkSaturos Said... Yes but yours are all conspercicy theories.

    I posted the TRUTH, but I wouldn't expect you to recgonize the truth when you see it. You only accept as "truth" what the Republican party tells you is the truth.

    PS. If you're going to keep using the term "conspiracy theory" why don't you at least SPELL IT RIGHT?! And don't give me this "fast typing" BS! I pointed out this particlar spelling error to you multiple times! Only an idiot keeps making the same spelling error over and over AFTER they are made aware of it.

    There were ZERO "conspiracy theories" referenced in any of my posts -- same as the number of Democrats who accepted bribes from Jack Abramoff!! ZERO!!!

    BTW Tom Delay is guilty as sin. He broke Texas campaign finance laws, he laundered money, he accepted bribes from his GOOD FRIEND Jack Abramoff. If there is any justice in this world this man will receive a LENGTHY prison sentence.

     
  • At 17/1/06 5:36 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    All your sites were Democratically biased. End of story. Making fun of my spelling proves you have no arguement.

     
  • At 17/1/06 6:05 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... All your sites were Democratically biased. End of story.

    All the sites I linked to pointed out the difference between the money accepted by Democrats and Republicans.

    Republicans accepted bribes from Abramoff in return for changing their votes. Democrats accepted LEGAL campaign contributions from Indian tribes who traditionally supported Democrats.

    All the links you provided FALSELY insinuated that both sources were dirty. The link Cody provided repeated the Republican LIE that Abramoff gave money to Republicans and Democrats -- which is FLAT WRONG.

    The Democrats accepted ZERO bribes from Abramoff. They weren't even offered any. END OF STORY.

    Regardless of where my information comes from you will say that my sources are biased! I can't provide a link from a Republican source stating that no Democrats received money from Abramoff -- BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS ARE LYING!!!

    DarkSaturos said... Making fun of my spelling proves you have no arguement.

    How, EXACTLY, does my correcting your spelling prove I have no argument?!

     
  • At 17/1/06 7:07 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Oh so my news sites are wrong and your Democratically biased sites are right. I see.

    dk why don't you leave? You're embarrasing yourself by letting me and Cody run circles around you and contradicting yourself every third comment.

     
  • At 17/1/06 7:28 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Oh so my news sites are wrong and your Democratically biased sites are right. I see.

    Yes, that's right. However I don't think that you do see.

    DarkSaturos said... dk why don't you leave? You're embarrasing yourself by letting me and Cody run circles around you and contradicting yourself every third comment.

    I agree that someone here is embarassing himself. I know it isn't me. Since when does "running circles" around someone involve making baseless accusations and then ignoring the libeled party when they ask you to provide proof?

     
  • At 17/1/06 7:50 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Since when does "running circles" around someone involve making baseless accusations and then ignoring the libeled party when they ask you to provide proof?

    Never, that's why you're not running circles around us.

     
  • At 17/1/06 8:27 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    YOU are the one making baseless accusations against ME. I'M the one asking YOU to provide proof and YOU are the one ignoring ME. Are you as dense as you appear to be or is this an act?

     
  • At 18/1/06 10:26 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I think we should just let the future proove dkfz wrong, because this is going nowhere, but then, even if Democrats DO get in trouble, he'll deny it.

    At this point I don't even care who gets in trouble at the white house, I'm more worried about that scum in Iran making nukes. Will it really matter what the congressmen are doing if a bomb is dropped on the house? Or what if they cut off their oil trade and make our economy plummet? We couldn't do anything about them if they had nukes.

    Priorities, priorities.

     
  • At 19/1/06 5:31 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody O'Connor said... I think we should just let the future proove dkfz wrong, because this is going nowhere, but then, even if Democrats DO get in trouble, he'll deny it.

    So, when no Democrats "get in trouble" you'll post a retraction?

    In any case, there is no need to wait for "the future [to] prove dkfz wrong". ALL the facts are known NOW. Jack Abramoff was a REPUBLICAN lobbyist. Jack Abramoff gave bribe money ONLY to Republicans. NO money (ZERO dollars) was given by Abramoff to Democrats for the purpose of buying votes.

    Cody linked to the following:

    http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_recips.asp

    This is from the SAME WEBSITE that Cody linked to:

    http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_donor.asp

    Donor: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela

    All the names on this list are REPUBLICANS.

     
  • At 22/1/06 12:21 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Not surprisingly, the Abramoff/Republican vote buying Scandal involves not just Republican Senators, but W himself...

    The Pimping of the Presidency. Jack Abramoff and Grover Norquist Billing Clients for Face Time with G.W. Bush
    BY Lou Bubose. Four months after he took the oath of office in 2001, President George W. Bush was the attraction, and the White House the venue, for a fundraiser organized by the alleged perpetrator of the largest billing fraud in the history of corporate lobbying. In May 2001, Jack Abramoff's lobbying client book was worth $4.1 million in annual billing for the Greenberg Traurig law firm. He was a friend of Bush advisor Karl Rove. He was a Bush "Pioneer", delivering at least $100,000 in bundled contributions to the 2000 campaign. He had just concluded his work on the Bush Transition Team as an advisor to the Department of the Interior. He had sent his personal assistant Susan Ralston to the White House to work as Rove’s personal assistant. He was a close friend, advisor, and high-dollar fundraiser for the most powerful man in Congress, Tom DeLay. Abramoff was so closely tied to the Bush Administration that he could, and did, charge two of his clients $25,000 for a White House lunch date and a meeting with the President. From the same two clients he took to the White House in May 2001, Abramoff also obtained $2.5 million in contributions for a non-profit foundation he and his wife operated. [Read More]

     

Post a Comment

<< Home