:tro:

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

Iranian Dissidents Criticize Obama’s Nuclear Diplomacy:

http://freebeacon.com/issues/iranian...ear-diplomacy/

Stop the presses an Iranian dissident is critical of Iranian policy. To borrow a line from a song "The things that pass for knowledge, I can't understand"

of course the dissidents don't want a deal. brokering a deal means a rollback of sanctions-something i'm sure the dissidents hoped would help break the current regime.

Our government is no longer for the people and it should be a concern. The below bill was sponsored by BOTH Gangs so it is not a partisan issue. The whole ****ing process is out of control and they are too arrogant to even try and conceal it anymore. :zz:

http://thehill.com/regulation/235970...-chemical-bill

it's becoming a more common practice.
health lobbyists, banks and financial institutions, koch industries, oil companies.....
take note of the most recent budget bill, with tucked in amendments to remove some regulations on banks regarding trades. and of course the additional language that raised the amount of money that can be 'donated' to a campaign by tenfold.
it's not even a secret anymore, that companies that are supposedly to be regulated are the ones actually writing the regs.
the money has got to stop flowing from large corporations to 'our' politicians.
i don't even know that jack abramoff would be arrested today. congress has been sold to the highest bidders.
where does that leave all of us, who can't afford to hire lobbyists?

Unfortunately those that can "Stop" this are the one's that are profiting from it.

Steely Dan fan?

;)

Me too!

The deal is only one piece of it. The main point is that the White House has basically ignored the issues of human rights and democracy in Iran. Obama does everything he can to overthrow regimes that are our allies such as Egypt and Libya, yet with the regime in Iran (who is our enemy), Obama does the opposite. He tries to help them. That's a great idea to get rid of regimes who are our allies but try to keep regimes in power who are our enemy. Welcome to the Obama school of foreign policy.

I realize that there are a lot of complexities when it comes to foreign policy. Sometimes you may have to throw the enemy a bone. I understand that, but overall I think Obama's foreign policy has been a disaster.

You can criticize Bush for Iraq, but at least in that case we were getting rid of an enemy and going to have it replaced with a friend. At least there was some upside there. In other words, even if invading Iraq was a bad idea, it was the greatest idea in the world compared to trying overthrow the regimes in Libya and Egypt.

BULLSCHIT!...How were they an enemy and a threat to us?..Iraq couldn't even hit Israel with their scud missiles in the first Gulf War..all the reasons that rogue regime -Bush/Cheney and co,-used to invade were bogus:zz:..
except he gassed his own people and who here or anywhere gave a schit:confused:..Dumya should have read his Dad's book on why he didn't pursue Saddam to Baghdad..and invading Iraq wasn't just a bad idea
it was a disaster...still is!

:zz:

This project is worth far more than the measly 25 billion required to build it.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Afric...s/%28page%29/2

That precious resource is what future generations will kill for.

Why else would one of the dynasty families buy land and mineral rights in northern Paraguay?

Iraq was not our enemy? If you say so. At least we had something to gain by getting rid of Saddam and getting a regime in there that was friendly to us. What did we have to gain by helping to oust Mubarrak and Kaddafi, who were our allies? Helping to oust Mubarrak was a disaster. The Muslim Brotherhood took over. We are just lucky that the Egyptian military ousted the Muslim Brotherhood. Libya has turned out to be a complete disaster. How can you criticize Bush over Iraq and not slam Obama over Libya? As I said before, it is bad enough to overthrow an enemy, but why would you want to overthrow an ally?

By the way, with regard to Iraq, everyone seems to have a very short memory. We had every right to invade Iraq. If you remember, part of the agreement to the cease-fire in the Persian Gulf war were that Saddam agreed to a number of conditions. We signed a cease-fire and agreed not to invade Bagdhad as long as Saddam honored the conditions of the cease-fire. The conditions were things like open inspections, honoring the no-fly zone, not killing the Kurds, etc. Sadaam violated practically every part of the agreement. The cease-fire becomes null and void at that point and we have the right to invade. Saddam was the one who started the whole thing with his invasion of Kuwait. Just because we had the right to invade, it doesn't mean it was necessarily the right choice. But all this nonsense about Bush/Cheney being a rogue regime is absurd considering that Saddam violated practically every term of the cease-fire.

Coming from you (the resident brain surgeon), I take that as a compliment.

Ah, reducing to the personal already? Tsk tsk

Our foreign policy has been pretty much pathetic since ww2. And we've been in an almost constant state of war since then as well. To call out Obama while defending bush....well, that's not being consistent. Bush was awful, Obama is awful. Our foreign policy is a shambles.
As for 'good guys' and human rights, etc.....I would direct your attention to our most favored nation in trade.
Foreign policy isn't based on good guys vs bad.

We've been in conflict since the inception excluding 30 or so years in total.

Nothing new under the Sun.

With all due respect sir you thought the solution to deer overpopulation was a Deer relocation program.

You insulted me first. You responded to my comments with the rolled eyes like my comments were crazy. I have no problem if someone disagrees with me. But if you disagree with me, tell me what I was wrong about. I think that is the most civil and constructive way of having a conversation. If someone says something I disagree with, I will say, "I disagree with you. Here are the reasons I disagree with you....." I won't just say, "You are wrong", or "you are an idiot", are "you are crazy", or anything like that. That doesn't add anything to a conversation.

I don't claim to be an expert on deer conservation. But just using common sense I'm sure it wouldn't always be possible to relocate deer. I'm sure it would depend on the size of the flock, the location, etc. However, I'm sure that in some cases it could be done, if it was a relatively small flock. I certainly don't think that every time there are too many deer (or any animal for that matter) that the first and only solution should just be to kill them all. I think that should be the last resort, if there is no other reasonable solution. It seem nowadays that any time there is a problem with overpopulation of any type of animal, they just want to kill them all. That may be the cheapest way but is that all that should matter?

:tro: Nothing like doubling down on the absurd. The "I Don't claim to be an expert" escape clause is tired and old.

Deer are large squirrels. In developed/semi developed areas they do nothing but destroy newly planted trees and landscape not to mention the hazard they present on the roads. Unless there is a wolf population present they have no natural predators other than man. I've seen as many as 2 dozen in my backyard at once because there are no wolves in Southern WI. They are and have been a huge nuisance. They arent cattle and without tranquilizing them they can't be herded up. Herding squirrels and relocating them would be absurd as is the deer. BTW the deer killed by DNR are given to various food pantries so are not wasted.

Yeah right, how did that work out:zz:


I might ask you same thing.

United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War, against post-revolutionary Iran, included several billion dollars' worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.[3][4]

Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline that the "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.

Really, we had the right to invade? over violation of conditions?...was there any overt military actions against us? I missed that one..I said before Dumya should have read his Dad's book..

President George H.W. Bush wrote a memoir entitled "A World Transformed", published in 1998. (It was written with Brent Scowcroft.) The following is an excerpt on why he did not invade Iraq in 1991:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
A concise argument against the invasion. Didn't Junior bother to read his father's book?


And those incalculable human and political costs..Remember the U.S. led coalition?..95% U.S. and 5% others!

Coalition Military Fatalities By Year

Year US UK Other Total

2001 12 0 0 12
2002 49 3 18 70
2003 48 0 10 58
2004 52 1 7 60
2005 99 1 31 131
2006 98 39 54 191
2007 117 42 73 232
2008 155 51 89 295
2009 317 108 96 521
2010 499 103 109 711
2011 418 46 102 566
2012 310 44 48 402
2013 127 9 25 161
2014 55 6 14 75
2015 0 0 1 1
Total 2356 453 677 3486

http://icasualties.org/OEF/index.aspx

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmcqu...-invaded-iraq/

Forget the "I am not expert" part of it. It is irrelevant whether I am an expert. You don't need to be an expert to have an opinion on something. What did I say that you disagree with? You think I am crazy or I'm an idiot for not liking to see hundreds, or in some cases thousands of animals slaughtered every time there is an overpopulation problem in an area? I actually think you're a heartless a-hole if your first choice is to slaughter animals any time there are too many in an area. I understand that in many cases it is the only feasible option. But that shouldn't be the first choice without even considering whether there are feasible alternatives.

Game on! Best case scenario you are a closeted liberal wannabe tree hugger. And by closeted I don't mean it in a sexual way. The "Expert" part is your constant including that in your nonsensical post as it absolves you of the nonsense that follows. My issue is you insulting a poster by calling her a "brain surgeon". How anyone can think that a deer relocation program is even remotely feasible is infukingsane. But I guess if you include the "I'm not an Expert" line in your post you can babble whatever nonsense you so desire without ever feeling wrong when someone schools you.

How did Iraq work out? I'd say it worked out a lot better than Libya.

How is it the fact that we aided Iraq back in the 1980s even relevant? Times change. Back in the 1980s our government believed it was in our best interest to help Iraq in their war against Iran. What does that have to do with our relationship with Iraq 15 years later?

Just because I love animals, that doesn't make me a closet liberal. I'm not a tree-hugger but I do care about the environment. I think there should be fairly strict regulations when it comes to policing industries that are heavy polluters.

With regard to relocating deer, if it's not feasible then it's not feasible. I'm a reasonable person. If I was in charge, I wouldn't insist it be done if all the non-biased experts told me that it just couldn't be done. As I said before, it seems like any time there is an overpopulation problem with any type of animal, the powers that be want to immediately kill them all. And in some of these cases, there are other options. For example, because there were some caring people out there, they were able to save several hundred wild mustangs (I believe it was in Nevada. I think they were relocated to a neighboring state.).

Just to clarify, I didn't say that you were a heartless a-hole. I said that you were one only "if" your first choice is always to kill animals without at least considering alternative options. In other words, if you considered alternative options and decided that none of them were feasible, then I would respect that. I would not respect a viewpoint of automatically wanting to kill animals without considering other options, and having no feeling whatsoever for the animals.

Wait..what?..Did I miss the invasion of Libya?:zz:...How many troops did we send?...are we still there?...what were our losses?....did we destroy half of their villages?...Impeach Obama!

The enemy of my enemy is my friend:tro:..why did dumya make an enemy of our friend?..Saddam was a Sunni and they ruled over the Shia..Iran is 80% Shia..ISIS in Iraq is mostly Sunni's..if Saddam was still in power there would be no ISIS in Iraq:p

We helped with the bombing campaign in Libya. It wasn't a full scale invasion but why would we possibly have wanted to help oust an ally?

Bush made an enemy out of Saddam? Are you drunk? Saddam and the US were on terrible terms ever since the Persian Gulf war. You are correct that there would be no ISIS in Iraq if Saddam was still in power. That much is true.

I agree with you that our government needs to be careful when it comes to using the philosophy that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". When you arm the enemy of your enemy, it can come back to bite you in the butt.

Gee and to think it just took us 2 trillion dollars to get that result. Well at least Cheney and Haliburton got their piece all is cool.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92D0PG20130314

Instability is good for our military.

There are a lot of people that depend on perpetual war and you're a p u s s y if you don't believe their media outlets.

That was definitely why they invaded Iraq, to help Haliburton (a company that Cheney no longer had any affiliation with). I thought you were a relatively bright guy, but if you honestly believe that that was the reason we invaded Iraq, then I will have to reevaluate.

Thanks

Please:zz:...facts are not welcome here by some:p...only if it comes from Faux:D

Dan, did you catch thurs nite Stewart show?...if not check it out, first segment.

:D:tro:

I'll do that.a bit behind on viewing shows. Tony and I are in the midst of home renovations. Knocking down walls, new drywall, windows, doors, electric. Good thing we can do it. The price to pay someone would be astronomical.

Did you even read the article? Apparently you didn't. Here is what it said:

The nonpartisan investigative Government Accountability Office, formerly the General Accounting Office, agreed with the administration’s assessment. It reported in June that the Halliburton subsidiary had been the only company “in a position to provide the services within the required time.” David M. Walker, who as comptroller general is chief of the G.A.O., told a House committee that the no-bid contract was justified “given the war in Iraq and the urgent need for reconstruction efforts.”

On the question of Mr. Cheney’s income from Halliburton, officials of the Bush-Cheney campaign said that before entering office in 2001, Mr. Cheney bought an insurance policy that guaranteed a fixed amount of deferred payments from Halliburton each year for five years so that the payments would not depend on the company’s fortunes. The officials also said he had promised to donate to charity any after-tax profits he made from exercising his stock options. These steps are not unusual for corporate executives who enter government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/na...fact.html?_r=0

So you think it is OK that Haliburton received Billions in contracts pushing its stock price up because Cheney said he was donating it to charity? Your "unbiased" article doesn't address when Cheney left office. You know with the Options that he could now exercise and Sell at a price that Reflected the Billions in Revenue that was steered towards Haliburton. Again I thank you for the compliment on my intelligence. I think you may achieve average intelligence yourself if you can train yourself to think deeper and not simply regurgitate the party line pabulum that you google.