Yeah that was a really good move, take 3 billion that was supposed to go to water and power infrastructure rehabilitation something that that might allow Iraqi civilians to just f-ing survive, and hand it over to Halliburton and Bush's mercenary security buddies, gotta keep that oil flowin'!.

Here's a hint for the brilliant strategists that thought that one up:
Pissing people off by keeping them from water and electricity is going to make them attack our troops and the oil, regardless of how much money is spent in their defese.
Get the water and power situation fixed and folks will have other things to occupy their time, besides blowing up our soldiers and the oil pipelines.

As for replying to any of the rest of your post I'd have to say you summed it up pretty well for me;

Where the hell do you come from anyway subaruguru? you've been on i-club for 14 days posting only on the political forum, and only posting completely bone headed republican drivel .....wait....a... second.......

Salty's back.......and much more rational.


I know who you are!


Welcome back Hella Dumb!

You can't hide behind a different name! just sit down at the keyboard and we all know who you are.

Where's that unsubscribe button....

 

You managed to give some half assed criticism of the Bush plan, which may or may not be valid...I'm not sure what's going on with Iraqi power and water right now. But what you also did was:

1. Not respond to the problems I pointed out with Kerry's lack of a position. I'm assuming you went into talking about who I am because you don't have a good answer to this. Well, I guess I can't expect you to admit you're stumped. Showing it is the next best thing.

2. Not address the "complicated international relations stuff" that I was so hoping you would. I mean, you didn't even give an inadequate one sentence reply to all that about France and Germany and China and Russia. If all this information is out there from Kerry's plans...why didn't you just sum it up for me? Easy, right?

3. Attacked what you think is my identity as a way of responding to presumably everything. Do you have to be republican to see that John Kerry is a crappy politician? Nope, you sure don't. And, who I am or not has zero to do with the issue at hand.

I'll watch for more responses on the substance of the points on Kerry's pathetic foreign policy/Iraq ideas...but you know, I'm not expecting them. At least, not until you work all that "complicated international relations stuff" out with your study buddies

 

Subaruguru has been my bestfriend since middle school but dropped out in our early years of highschool.

 

OK so I stand corrected, its not the return of our least favorite troll, but I have to say I was quite taken by your similar lack of rational thought.

As for coming back in defense of Kerrys position, I won't anymore, because I don't know enough about the back door politics to say whether any of it has any chance, I can only say that despite your inability to percieve any plan, what he laid out there makes a lot more sense to me than anything I've heard out of the Bush/Cheney Camp since they came to power.

And You were right I was wrong about GHWPB, Russia tried to keep us from going to war and China abstained for voting on the SC resolutions, so having them totally behind us might be a bit of a strech, but for my dime, I'd rather see it tried than dismissed out of hand.

The fact remains thet W, Dick Coni Colin and all the gang lied bold-faced, over and over, to the country and the world, about WMD's about Husseins threat to us and the world and they unilaterally ordered our troops to attack a soveriegn nation in violation of every treaty, convention and international law on the books.

Along with shredding the clean air act and disembowling the EPA he has flaunted international arms control agreements and environmental agreements and has completely squandered the deep pool of support and sympathy the world extended to us after 9/11.

This is not even mentioning the historically unprecendented financial crisis we are being plunged into with a national debt skyrocketing to new heights that put Regan's deficits to shame.

I don't care how much of a flaky politician John Kerry is, there is no way in hell he could do any more damage to this country that this criminal administration now in power now has done in the last 3 and a half years.


If you're so insistant that Kerry needs a clear plan, where is the clear plan from your side?

I just don't see how pissing off the rest of the world is ever going to make us any safer, or allow any kind of stability anywhere in the world.

 

...as long as we don't do to Iraq what we did to Chile...we f***ed them up in terms of 'enstating a fair and democratic government'...we gave them a butcher worse than they had...I say we withdraw, save our troops lives, save the Iraqi people the indignity of having another country tell them what's right and wrong, and save our government's money and time...
No, even though I will probably vote for him, I don't like Kerry...I think he's a kissa** *****...America just needs to take a more international view of things, bottom line...




now I'll probably get firestormed from the Dems and the Reps...good for me, I don't believe in either party 'so suck on it....SUCK ON IT' (quote from the best Clinton impersonation I've ever heard from SNL)

 

I'll start with what you didn't get quite right:

"We" didn't do anything to Chile. Chile has a long history of problems with the professional military system that predates US involvment in Chile's affairs. Pinochet was a general. He took over using the army that was loyal to him, and not to the social democrat Allende. Allende committed suicide, Pinochet walks into power without a hitch. Blame Pinochet for what happened in Chile. There are "CIA INVOLVMENT" rumors, but it's literally all unfounded. Pinochet didn't need the US to do what he did; he already had the whole of Chile's army behind him.

Now, on Iraq: pulling out at this point would be a disaster. I don't know of any single credible commentator on the subject who thinks that's a great idea. The country is not stable, there are a lot of factions that are unhappy with each other, and there are countries all around Iraq that want a piece of the pie. A US pullout now could easily lead to a massacre of the Kurds, and then a pan-arab world war for control of Iraq. Not very smart.

I do agree, though, and this counts for a lot, that Kerry is a kissass.

 

YOU got it wrong...
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americ....cia.chile.ap/

we definatly f***ed up Chile...

 

That is such old news, I can't believe anyone still buys the lie that the CIA only "might" have had involvement and its "unproven", thats been a matter of public record for decades before the CIA admitted it in 2000.

 

word

 

Read the article, then think about the difference between intelligence gathering and "f**ing up someone's country". The CIA paid some informants, and also tried to use someone who ended up being shot. That one failed attempt is most definitely CIA interference, so you are right about that. That's not what toppled Chile's government, though. Here's what the article says:

"The kidnapping attempt failed, and Gen. Rene Schneider was shot. He died two days later, the same day the Chilean congress confirmed Allende as president."

How does that constitute the CIA "f**ing up Chile"?

I was referring specifically to Pinochet's coup that resulted in Allende's suicide. That's when the human rights abuses took off in Chile, in 1973. Pinochet was in charge of the army then, and there were no CIA funded troops or officers there calling the shots for him. Here's what the article says about that:

"We were aware of coup plotting in 1973, but we did not instigate it"

So, there you have it...the CIA gathered information on Chile (I consider it not worth mentioning that the CIA gathers information in some particular place; they've probably even got resources in Chad.) But it was Pinochet who conducted a military coup.

Close, but no CIA imported cuban cigar.

 

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/chile/
http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book62a.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CI...e_CIAHits.html

Yes, I've read them and many more sources (I wrote a paper on it for one of my GE classes @ UCLA).
And like psoper said, it's pretty funny you think it's just a myth or rumor...the US didn't do it ALL, but without the US involvment it wouldn't have happened.

*Note the first web address... www.CIA.GOV ...you CANNOT argue with that!

 

Oh, I don't know, the way he argues, I think he might try....


he can just say "its a load of crap"

 

Yeah, I did several papers on the military regimes across South America for my Latin American politics courses at Georgetown. Read the CIA link you posted on the top, that's the best one on your list. Then, point me to the part where the CIA becomes responsible for enabling Pinochet to take power. If you can do that, I'll gladly concede this one.

Oh, what the heck, I'll post it for you (This is from the first link on your list of resources, which you apparently just googled but did not read):

"Awareness of Coup Plotting in 1973.* Although CIA did not instigate the coup that ended Allende’s government on 11*September 1973, it was aware of coup-plotting by the military, had ongoing intelligence collection relationships with some plotters, and—because CIA did not discourage the takeover and had sought to instigate a coup in 1970—probably appeared to condone it.* There was no way that anyone, including CIA, could have known that Allende would refuse the putchists’ offer of safe passage out of the country and that instead—with La*Moneda Palace under bombardment from tanks and airplanes and in flames—would take his own life."

"did not instigate the coup".

Or do you have information that this is also a CIA lie?

 

Did you ignore the years of propaganda the CIA threw in there?!?! You don't think that counts as 'instigating'?!?! What the hell planet are you from man?

Same source:
"...CIA sought to instigate a coup to prevent Allende from taking office after he won a plurality in the 4 September election and before..."
"...CIA provided weapons to one of the groups..."
I guess giving them guns isn't 'instigating' either

 

"While Allende was in office, the 40 Committee approved the redirection of “Track I” operations that...funneled millions of dollars to strengthen opposition political parties. CIA also provided assistance to militant right-wing groups to undermine the President and create a tense environment." _CIA source again


THAT's what I call instigation.