Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
The confusion is that I'm referring to the one most people cite as being "the same" and that's the Heritage Foundation plan from the same time.

I agree with you that the Chafee one is much closer to the ACA than the one I thought you were talking about, but some people also fundamentally reject the Chafee plan as not being representative of anything "Republican" for a number of reasons but I don't give a shit about party politics (and especially GOP party politics) so let's just not even get into the philosophical question of "what is 'Republican'?".

Even then, there are key dissimilarities from the Chafee bill and the ACA, but I do understand making surface comparisons on a number of levels (intentionally using your source here). And here's a good article on the two.

In short, my bad for misunderstanding which bill you were referring to.

I probably should have been more clear as to which bill I was referencing.

I would say that the Chafee bill and the ACA are very similar though definitely not the same. I just find it funny that someone like Orrin Hatch calls the ACA unconstitutional because of the individual mandate when he was a co-sponsor of the Chafee bill back in 1993 that contained an individual mandate.
 
Last edited:

Circa

Conspire to keep It real
Messages
8,000
Reaction score
818
To the contrary, my bike is far more comfortable than that!

Why do high schools in California feel that they must forbid their students from wearing American flag colors? I am not aware of any high school in South Bend, Granger, Mishawaka, etc. that has a similar policy.

Completely unrelated to immigration, right?

Not sure on this in today's Cali, feel free to correct me. I was in Sacramento, Monterey area in early 90's and Red and Blue (Crips and Bloods); was a color I was told not to wear. I guess this has progressed into what the flag stands for? No. It's much deeper in the sense of survival for those involved.. Kids follow and do the erratic

"A 15 year old kid will kill for reps" <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hku9teLJsoM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Troll Harder NDGrad
 
Last edited:

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,944
Reaction score
11,224
The fall being banned on specific days has nothing to do with gangs... Just sayin
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,976
So, I thought about this quite a bit and I know I'm going to catch a rash of crap but Obama is pulling some brilliant foreign policy moves and if the deals with Iran (a country that at its core is much less radical than many think and much less radical than either Pakinstan or Saudi Arabia) and Cuba go through he is going to be looked upon very favorably by history. His administrations nuanced approach to foreign policy has been something to behold.

He's pulling some Nixon to China level moves. Good job Barack.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,544
Reaction score
28,990
So, I thought about this quite a bit and I know I'm going to catch a rash of crap but Obama is pulling some brilliant foreign policy moves and if the deals with Iran (a country that at its core is much less radical than many think and much less radical than either Pakinstan or Saudi Arabia) and Cuba go through he is going to be looked upon very favorably by history. His administrations nuanced approach to foreign policy has been something to behold.

He's pulling some Nixon to China level moves. Good job Barack.

I agree with your premise... he's making/made some great foreign policy moves. And I think history will look at recent actions (especially those with Cuba) in a very positive light. But...
-Can you explain what you mean by "much less radical than either Pakistan or Saudi Arabia"?
-Do you not think you're being far too generous with your overall grading given some previous foreign policy fuckups of his two terms?
 

yankeehater

Well-known member
Messages
2,197
Reaction score
774
So, I thought about this quite a bit and I know I'm going to catch a rash of crap but Obama is pulling some brilliant foreign policy moves and if the deals with Iran (a country that at its core is much less radical than many think and much less radical than either Pakinstan or Saudi Arabia) and Cuba go through he is going to be looked upon very favorably by history. His administrations nuanced approach to foreign policy has been something to behold.

He's pulling some Nixon to China level moves. Good job Barack.

WOW!!!

Not sure where you are getting your info, but many feel he will go down as the worst foreign policy president in U.S. history.

I hope you are right about Iran being less radical (highly doubtful) because Obama opened the door and now Russia will be selling them missiles that can reach California where you and I live.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
So, I thought about this quite a bit and I know I'm going to catch a rash of crap but Obama is pulling some brilliant foreign policy moves and if the deals with Iran (a country that at its core is much less radical than many think and much less radical than either Pakinstan or Saudi Arabia) and Cuba go through he is going to be looked upon very favorably by history. His administrations nuanced approach to foreign policy has been something to behold.

He's pulling some Nixon to China level moves. Good job Barack.

I don't share your feelings, but I am cautiously optimistic. I think Obama's second term has been vastly better than his first.

If you have an hour, they talk at length about the Iran deal:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dBROU01xoTQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
WOW!!!

Not sure where you are getting your info, but many feel he will go down as the worst foreign policy president in U.S. history.

He's not even the worst foreign policy president this century.

I hope you are right about Iran being less radical (highly doubtful) because Obama opened the door and now Russia will be selling them missiles that can reach California where you and I live.

...isn't Russia lifting their own ban and selling them anti-aircraft missile systems? Not exactly ICBMs.
 

Redbar

Well-known member
Messages
3,531
Reaction score
806
WOW!!!

Not sure where you are getting your info, but many feel he will go down as the worst foreign policy president in U.S. history.

I hope you are right about Iran being less radical (highly doubtful) because Obama opened the door and now Russia will be selling them missiles that can reach California where you and I live.

Iran is no where near as radical as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Shia Muslims have proven to be no where near as radical as the Sunni's and unlike the other countries in the region Iran has a thriving middle class. The leaders talk a big game at times but even the ayatollah knows that he can't go to far because there is a large segment of the population that enjoys western culture and is educated and not at all into jihad. Pakistan has tribal regions that even the military is wary of and the Saudi's record of double dealing speaks for itself. The only reasons to mess with Iran is because a.) Israel wants us to, and b.) neo-cons want us to.
 

NDgradstudent

Banned
Messages
2,414
Reaction score
165
Not sure on this in today's Cali, feel free to correct me. I was in Sacramento, Monterey area in early 90's and Red and Blue (Crips and Bloods); was a color I was told not to wear. I guess this has progressed into what the flag stands for? No. It's much deeper in the sense of survival for those involved.. Kids follow and do the erratic

[...]

Troll Harder NDGrad

I do not understand all of what you are saying. If you are denying the authenticity of my claim, I'm happy to cite the sources again. This has nothing to do with gangs, just with the ludicrous demands of highly sensitive foreigners. I am not saying that the federal courts are wrong, mind you: just that when American high schools feel that they must prohibit students from wearing American flag symbols in order to keep the peace something calamitous has happened to our country.

Nobody has denied that unlimited mass immigration is the cause of this. There are obviously some people here who don't want to acknowledge what is staring them in the face, but at some point the evidence becomes overwhelming.
 

yankeehater

Well-known member
Messages
2,197
Reaction score
774
He's not even the worst foreign policy president this century.



...isn't Russia lifting their own ban and selling them anti-aircraft missile systems? Not exactly ICBMs.

Do you honestly feel Putin will only sell the S-300's to Iran? If you look at their press release it states "certain goods or products."
 

yankeehater

Well-known member
Messages
2,197
Reaction score
774
Anyone that claims we are safer with a nuclear Iran who is allowed to buy missiles is kidding themselves.

Israel will react to this situation and then what does the US do? This is only the beginning.
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,976
I agree with your premise... he's making/made some great foreign policy moves. And I think history will look at recent actions (especially those with Cuba) in a very positive light. But...
-Can you explain what you mean by "much less radical than either Pakistan or Saudi Arabia"?
-Do you not think you're being far too generous with your overall grading given some previous foreign policy fuckups of his two terms?

Yeah, so here is why I think Iran is less radical than Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (much of it is mentioned above by Redbar). First, most of what Iran has done has been a direct response to two events. The U.S. installing the Shah and the war that was initiatied by Iraq (which the US supported whole heartedly) where hundreds of thousands of Iranians were killed many by chemical weapons that were deployed by Iraq with the blessing of the US in direct violation of international law. Now that being the case Iran has taken a "never again" type position and despite all the heated rhetoric is primarily focused on its own self preservation. Let's face it no country in the Middle East is dumb enough to think they could go to war with Israel without being wiped off the map. Next, Iran does have a fairly stable democratic process in place. It's not what we in the West would find as the ideal however, when compared to many of the U.S. backed Monarchies in the region it is light years beyond those in terms of allowing for change over time through a relatively stable political process. I realize that Iran supports crazy ass proxies in other countries but then again one need only look at US foreign policy to realize that that's basically how the game is played. Finally, 50% of the country is under age 35 and they are highly "westernized". That being the case I have a hard time seeing the hardline Islamist trend continuing there for much longer.

So how do I know there are lots of Iranians who aren't "true believers"? Well my sister in law was born and raised there, most of her family still lives there and she travels back and forth from time to time. What I have come away with is that they are first and foremost "Persian" and extremely proud of the intellectual and cultural heritage that that implies.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on the other hand are hotbeds not only for extremist rhetoric but have also produced the most radicalized Islamists prior to the rise of Isis and tons of people who have engaged in terrorist acts against India and the US. Pakistan in fact teeters on being a failed state with a large lawless region where Islamists run wild in the North and has nuclear weapons. That's the most disturbing situation in that region in my opinion. As to Saudi Arabia, it seems pretty clear cut that a monarchy founded on Wahabi philosophies and that has produced Osama Bin Laden and all of the 9-11 hijackers is much more radical at its core than Iran, which has done little more that engage in some relatively minor power plays to insure it's own long term survival within the region.

So to the foreign policy f ups I'm not sure what you're talking about but the fact that this Administration has finally sacked up when it comes to Israel deserves a round of applause as well.
 
Last edited:

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,976
I don't share your feelings, but I am cautiously optimistic. I think Obama's second term has been vastly better than his first.

If you have an hour, they talk at length about the Iran deal:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dBROU01xoTQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks. I'll give it a listen on the drive to work.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
Happy April 15th everybody!


162520_600.jpg
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,616
Reaction score
2,713
Shouldn't this be election day too? Why is tax day almost as far from election day as possible on the calendar?

Everyone - don't forget to look at the TOTAL TAXES due when you send your form in, not just whether you owe more or get some of your money back. Also compute the effective tax rate, taxes owed divided by AGI. Puts some perspective on things.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Yeah, so here is why I think Iran is less radical than Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (much of it is mentioned above by Redbar). First, most of what Iran has done has been a direct response to two events. The U.S. installing the Shah and the war that was initiatied by Iraq (which the US supported whole heartedly) where hundreds of thousands of Iranians were killed many by chemical weapons that were deployed by Iraq with the blessing of the US in direct violation of international law. Now that being the case Iran has taken a "never again" type position and despite all the heated rhetoric is primarily focused on its own self preservation. Let's face it no country in the Middle East is dumb enough to think they could go to war with Israel without being wiped off the map. Next, Iran does have a fairly stable democratic process in place. It's not what we in the West would find as the ideal however, when compared to many of the U.S. backed Monarchies in the region it is light years beyond those in terms of allowing for change over time through a relatively stable political process. I realize that Iran supports crazy ass proxies in other countries but then again one need only look at US foreign policy to realize that that's basically how the game is played. Finally, 50% of the country is under age 35 and they are highly "westernized". That being the case I have a hard time seeing the hardline Islamist trend continuing there for much longer.

So how do I know there are lots of Iranians who aren't "true believers"? Well my sister in law was born and raised there, most of her family still lives there and she travels back and forth from time to time. What I have come away with is that they are first and foremost "Persian" and extremely proud of the intellectual and cultural heritage that that implies.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on the other hand are hotbeds not only for extremist rhetoric but have also produced the most radicalized Islamists prior to the rise of Isis and tons of people who have engaged in terrorist acts against India and the US. Pakistan in fact teeters on being a failed state with a large lawless region where Islamists run wild in the North and has nuclear weapons. That's the most disturbing situation in that region in my opinion. As to Saudi Arabia, it seems pretty clear cut that a monarchy founded on Wahabi philosophies and that has produced Osama Bin Laden and all of the 9-11 hijackers is much more radical at its core than Iran, which has done little more that engage in some relatively minor power plays to insure it's own long term survival within the region.

So to the foreign policy f ups I'm not sure what you're talking about but the fact that this Administration has finally sacked up when it comes to Israel deserves a round of applause as well.

didn't really need to read much beyond the bolded...are you fucking serious right now? I can see your point about Iran having some grievances, and that radicalization of people isn't really an Iranian thing...PER SE...ie Iranians seem not to radicalize their own into doing stupid shit on a regular basis. pretty easy to dismiss the reasoned points when you say ridiculous shit about the US telling Iraq it was OK to use chemical weapons...and spare me the bullshit about black hats giving the nod...blah, blah, blah. NO ONE in their official capacity representing the United States ever gave such a nod explicitly or implicitly....
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,976
didn't really need to read much beyond the bolded...are you fucking serious right now? I can see your point about Iran having some grievances, and that radicalization of people isn't really an Iranian thing...PER SE...ie Iranians seem not to radicalize their own into doing stupid shit on a regular basis. pretty easy to dismiss the reasoned points when you say ridiculous shit about the US telling Iraq it was OK to use chemical weapons...and spare me the bullshit about black hats giving the nod...blah, blah, blah. NO ONE in their official capacity representing the United States ever gave such a nod explicitly or implicitly....

Yeah, so what you're saying is that the Reagan Administration had it's head completely up its ass when it came to Saddam. Give me a break. You gotta do what you gotta do, wink wink, nudge nudge assurances go on all the time when it comes to US Foreign policy. Frankly, after all the crazy crap the US has done and the fact that it helped Iraq build it's chemical and biological stockpiles I'm pretty surprised that your so offended by that statement. To wit, what did the US do to punish Saddam immediately after the fact when he deployed said weapons during the Iran/Iraq war? Nothing, that's what.

Here's some stuff from Wikipedia, I'm sure it will offend you as well....

Chemical and biological exports[edit]

Iraq purchased 8 strains of anthrax from the United States in 1985, according to British biological weapons expert David Kelly.[27] The Iraqi military settled on the American Type Culture Collection strain 14578 as the exclusive strain for use as a biological weapon, according to Charles Duelfer.[28]

On February 9, 1994, Senator Riegle delivered a report -commonly known at the Riegle Report- in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[29]

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."[30]

Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that authored the aforementioned Riegle Report, said:

U.N. inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ... The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control sent Iraq 14 separate agents "with biological warfare significance," according to Riegle's investigators.[31]

In 1980, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency filed a report stating that Iraq had been actively acquiring chemical weapons capacities for several years, which later proved to be accurate.[28] In November 1980, two months into the Iran–Iraq War, the first reported use of chemical weapons took place when Tehran radio reported a poison gas attack on Susangerd by Iraqi forces.[29] The United Nations reported many similar attacks occurred the following year, leading Iran to develop and deploy a mustard gas capability. By 1984, Iraq was using poison gas with great effectiveness against Iranian "human wave" attacks.[verification needed] Chemical weapons were used extensively against Iran during the Iran–Iraq War.[30][31] On January 14, 1991, the Defense Intelligence Agency said an Iraqi agent described, in medically accurate terms, military smallpox casualties he said he saw in 1985 or 1986. Two weeks later, the Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center reported that eight of 69 Iraqi prisoners of war whose blood was tested showed a current immunity to smallpox, which had not occurred naturally in Iraq since 1971; the same prisoners had also been inoculated for anthrax. The assumption being that Iraq used both smallpox and anthrax during this war[32] All of this occurring while Iraq was a party to the Geneva Protocol on September 8, 1931, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on October 29, 1969, signed the Biological Weapons Convention in 1972, but did not ratify until June 11, 1991. Iraq has not signed to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The Washington Post reported that in 1984 the CIA secretly started providing intelligence to the Iraqi army during the Iran-Iraq War. This included information to target chemical weapons strikes. The same year it was confirmed beyond doubt by European doctors and UN expert missions that Iraq was employing chemical weapons against the Iranians.[33] Most of these occurred during the Iran–Iraq War, but WMDs were used at least once to crush the popular uprisings against Kurds in 1991.[20] Chemical weapons were used extensively, with more than 100,000 Iranian soldiers as victims of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons during the eight-year war with Iraq,[34] Iran today is the world's second-most afflicted country by weapons of mass destruction, only after Japan. The official estimate does not include the civilian population contaminated in bordering towns or the children and relatives of veterans, many of whom have developed blood, lung and skin complications, according to the Organization for Veterans. Nerve gas agents killed about 20,000 Iranian soldiers immediately, according to official reports. Of the 90,000 survivors, some 5,000 seek medical treatment regularly and about 1,000 are still hospitalized with severe, chronic conditions.[citation needed] Many others were hit by mustard gas. Despite the removal of Saddam Hussein and his administration by American forces, there is deep resentment and anger in Iran that it was Western nations that helped Iraq develop and direct its chemical weapons arsenal in the first place and that the world did nothing to punish Iraq for its use of chemical weapons throughout the war.[citation needed] For example, the United States and the UK blocked condemnation of Iraq's known chemical weapons attacks at the UN Security Council. No resolution was passed during the war that specifically criticized Iraq's use of chemical weapons, despite the wishes of the majority to condemn this use. On March 21, 1986 the United Nation Security Council recognized that "chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian forces"; this statement was opposed by the United States, the sole country to vote against it in the Security Council (the UK abstained).[35]
 
Last edited:

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
Yeah, so what you're saying is that the Reagan Administration had it's head completely up its ass when it came to Saddam. Give me a break. You gotta do what you gotta do, wink wink, nudge nudge assurances go on all the time when it comes to US Foreign policy. Frankly, after all the crazy crap the US has done and the fact that it helped Iraq build it's chemical and biological stockpiles I'm pretty surprised that your so offended by that statement. To wit, what did the US do to punish Saddam immediately after the fact when he deployed said weapons during the Iran/Iraq war? Nothing, that's what.

Here's some stuff from Wikipedia, I'm sure it will offend you as well....

Chemical and biological exports[edit]

Iraq purchased 8 strains of anthrax from the United States in 1985, according to British biological weapons expert David Kelly.[27] The Iraqi military settled on the American Type Culture Collection strain 14578 as the exclusive strain for use as a biological weapon, according to Charles Duelfer.[28]

On February 9, 1994, Senator Riegle delivered a report -commonly known at the Riegle Report- in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[29]

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."[30]

Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that authored the aforementioned Riegle Report, said:

U.N. inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ... The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control sent Iraq 14 separate agents "with biological warfare significance," according to Riegle's investigators.[31]

In 1980, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency filed a report stating that Iraq had been actively acquiring chemical weapons capacities for several years, which later proved to be accurate.[28] In November 1980, two months into the Iran–Iraq War, the first reported use of chemical weapons took place when Tehran radio reported a poison gas attack on Susangerd by Iraqi forces.[29] The United Nations reported many similar attacks occurred the following year, leading Iran to develop and deploy a mustard gas capability. By 1984, Iraq was using poison gas with great effectiveness against Iranian "human wave" attacks.[verification needed] Chemical weapons were used extensively against Iran during the Iran–Iraq War.[30][31] On January 14, 1991, the Defense Intelligence Agency said an Iraqi agent described, in medically accurate terms, military smallpox casualties he said he saw in 1985 or 1986. Two weeks later, the Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center reported that eight of 69 Iraqi prisoners of war whose blood was tested showed a current immunity to smallpox, which had not occurred naturally in Iraq since 1971; the same prisoners had also been inoculated for anthrax. The assumption being that Iraq used both smallpox and anthrax during this war[32] All of this occurring while Iraq was a party to the Geneva Protocol on September 8, 1931, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on October 29, 1969, signed the Biological Weapons Convention in 1972, but did not ratify until June 11, 1991. Iraq has not signed to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The Washington Post reported that in 1984 the CIA secretly started providing intelligence to the Iraqi army during the Iran-Iraq War. This included information to target chemical weapons strikes. The same year it was confirmed beyond doubt by European doctors and UN expert missions that Iraq was employing chemical weapons against the Iranians.[33] Most of these occurred during the Iran–Iraq War, but WMDs were used at least once to crush the popular uprisings against Kurds in 1991.[20] Chemical weapons were used extensively, with more than 100,000 Iranian soldiers as victims of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons during the eight-year war with Iraq,[34] Iran today is the world's second-most afflicted country by weapons of mass destruction, only after Japan. The official estimate does not include the civilian population contaminated in bordering towns or the children and relatives of veterans, many of whom have developed blood, lung and skin complications, according to the Organization for Veterans. Nerve gas agents killed about 20,000 Iranian soldiers immediately, according to official reports. Of the 90,000 survivors, some 5,000 seek medical treatment regularly and about 1,000 are still hospitalized with severe, chronic conditions.[citation needed] Many others were hit by mustard gas. Despite the removal of Saddam Hussein and his administration by American forces, there is deep resentment and anger in Iran that it was Western nations that helped Iraq develop and direct its chemical weapons arsenal in the first place and that the world did nothing to punish Iraq for its use of chemical weapons throughout the war.[citation needed] For example, the United States and the UK blocked condemnation of Iraq's known chemical weapons attacks at the UN Security Council. No resolution was passed during the war that specifically criticized Iraq's use of chemical weapons, despite the wishes of the majority to condemn this use. On March 21, 1986 the United Nation Security Council recognized that "chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian forces"; this statement was opposed by the United States, the sole country to vote against it in the Security Council (the UK abstained).[35]

Great documentation of what was going on behind the scenes to punish the Iranians for taking hostages during Carter's administration. Reagan wasn't going to let a little chemical warfare get in the way of demonstrating where the United States stood. Just stand back and let the Iraqis use the chemicals we provided to them. We have never gotten over the fact that the Iranians overthrew the dictator (The Shah of Iran) that we backed. The Iranians learned their lesson well. They have learned to get respect internationally they had to be able to defend themselves. What better way to defend yourself than to have access to nuclear weapons? They have been watching how we treat Pakistan and North Korea.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,544
Reaction score
28,990
Great documentation of what was going on behind the scenes to punish the Iranians for taking hostages during Carter's administration. Reagan wasn't going to let a little chemical warfare get in the way of demonstrating where the United States stood. Just stand back and let the Iraqis use the chemicals we provided to them. We have never gotten over the fact that the Iranians overthrew the dictator (The Shah of Iran) that we backed. The Iranians learned their lesson well. They have learned to get respect internationally they had to be able to defend themselves. What better way to defend yourself than to have access to nuclear weapons? They have been watching how we treat Pakistan and North Korea.

Weird concluding comparison. Pakistan and North Korea are two very different animals, and we treat them very differently. With Pakistan, we've given them hundreds of millions in assistance towards securing/modernizing their arsenal, and the country is a listed ally.

North Korea, on the other hand, has crippling sanctions.

Nukes are a great way to get taken seriously, but they're not by themselves effective in protecting your country or helping it prosper. There is no substitution for pragmatic, reasonable, cooperative foreign policy when it comes to benefiting your country... nukes or no nukes.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Yeah, so what you're saying is that the Reagan Administration had it's head completely up its ass when it came to Saddam. Give me a break. You gotta do what you gotta do, wink wink, nudge nudge assurances go on all the time when it comes to US Foreign policy. Frankly, after all the crazy crap the US has done and the fact that it helped Iraq build it's chemical and biological stockpiles I'm pretty surprised that your so offended by that statement. To wit, what did the US do to punish Saddam immediately after the fact when he deployed said weapons during the Iran/Iraq war? Nothing, that's what.

Here's some stuff from Wikipedia, I'm sure it will offend you as well....

Chemical and biological exports[edit]

Iraq purchased 8 strains of anthrax from the United States in 1985, according to British biological weapons expert David Kelly.[27] The Iraqi military settled on the American Type Culture Collection strain 14578 as the exclusive strain for use as a biological weapon, according to Charles Duelfer.[28]

On February 9, 1994, Senator Riegle delivered a report -commonly known at the Riegle Report- in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[29]

The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."[30]

Donald Riegle, Chairman of the Senate committee that authored the aforementioned Riegle Report, said:

U.N. inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ... The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control sent Iraq 14 separate agents "with biological warfare significance," according to Riegle's investigators.[31]

In 1980, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency filed a report stating that Iraq had been actively acquiring chemical weapons capacities for several years, which later proved to be accurate.[28] In November 1980, two months into the Iran–Iraq War, the first reported use of chemical weapons took place when Tehran radio reported a poison gas attack on Susangerd by Iraqi forces.[29] The United Nations reported many similar attacks occurred the following year, leading Iran to develop and deploy a mustard gas capability. By 1984, Iraq was using poison gas with great effectiveness against Iranian "human wave" attacks.[verification needed] Chemical weapons were used extensively against Iran during the Iran–Iraq War.[30][31] On January 14, 1991, the Defense Intelligence Agency said an Iraqi agent described, in medically accurate terms, military smallpox casualties he said he saw in 1985 or 1986. Two weeks later, the Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center reported that eight of 69 Iraqi prisoners of war whose blood was tested showed a current immunity to smallpox, which had not occurred naturally in Iraq since 1971; the same prisoners had also been inoculated for anthrax. The assumption being that Iraq used both smallpox and anthrax during this war[32] All of this occurring while Iraq was a party to the Geneva Protocol on September 8, 1931, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on October 29, 1969, signed the Biological Weapons Convention in 1972, but did not ratify until June 11, 1991. Iraq has not signed to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The Washington Post reported that in 1984 the CIA secretly started providing intelligence to the Iraqi army during the Iran-Iraq War. This included information to target chemical weapons strikes. The same year it was confirmed beyond doubt by European doctors and UN expert missions that Iraq was employing chemical weapons against the Iranians.[33] Most of these occurred during the Iran–Iraq War, but WMDs were used at least once to crush the popular uprisings against Kurds in 1991.[20] Chemical weapons were used extensively, with more than 100,000 Iranian soldiers as victims of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons during the eight-year war with Iraq,[34] Iran today is the world's second-most afflicted country by weapons of mass destruction, only after Japan. The official estimate does not include the civilian population contaminated in bordering towns or the children and relatives of veterans, many of whom have developed blood, lung and skin complications, according to the Organization for Veterans. Nerve gas agents killed about 20,000 Iranian soldiers immediately, according to official reports. Of the 90,000 survivors, some 5,000 seek medical treatment regularly and about 1,000 are still hospitalized with severe, chronic conditions.[citation needed] Many others were hit by mustard gas. Despite the removal of Saddam Hussein and his administration by American forces, there is deep resentment and anger in Iran that it was Western nations that helped Iraq develop and direct its chemical weapons arsenal in the first place and that the world did nothing to punish Iraq for its use of chemical weapons throughout the war.[citation needed] For example, the United States and the UK blocked condemnation of Iraq's known chemical weapons attacks at the UN Security Council. No resolution was passed during the war that specifically criticized Iraq's use of chemical weapons, despite the wishes of the majority to condemn this use. On March 21, 1986 the United Nation Security Council recognized that "chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian forces"; this statement was opposed by the United States, the sole country to vote against it in the Security Council (the UK abstained).[35]

You need to spend some time with Commerce's decisions. I side with DoD on this entire matter (ie no one should give anything to Iraq), nonetheless, commerce's take was that everything sold was readily available in the international market place....so why should we not sell to Iraq? (STUPID...I agree)

The point is, no one directed or intimated that they should be used. This is a case where, I think, some genuine confusion between departments and poor decision making caused harm...but there is simply no way on God's green earth anyone said, yea, go ahead and "use 'em", nor did they think they ever would. I believe people in our government were genuinely shocked when use came to light...and probably weighed on how Iraq was dealt with thereafter.

This Nation fails EVERY time it's leadership fails to listen to, and allow the DoD to define what should be for sale in the middle east...for anyone.
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
Is he wrong?

Yes. Raise the payroll tax cap, not the eligibility age.

Scrapping the Social Security payroll tax cap | TheHill

Many people don’t know that any income above $117,000 per year is not taxed by Social Security (this limit on the amount of earnings subject to the tax is adjusted annually to keep up with inflation). That means that someone who makes twice the cap this year – $234,000 – pays the tax on only half of his or her wages. And those lucky enough to make at least $1.2 million per year are taxed by Social Security on less than one-tenth of their income.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,544
Reaction score
28,990
Why not just get rid of social security and replace it with a program that is just a straight social safety net for the elderly who made less than $X in career earnings and were therefor incapable of saving for themselves.
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
Why not just get rid of social security and replace it with a program that is just a straight social safety net for the elderly who made less than $X in career earnings and were therefor incapable of saving for themselves.

Don't want the elderly voters to hear you?
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Why not just get rid of social security and replace it with a program that is just a straight social safety net for the elderly who made less than $X in career earnings and were therefor incapable of saving for themselves.

What happens to all the contributions that have been made to that point? Going to be a whole lot of pissed off people when it ends. Who is going to pay for these elderly folks if nobody is contributing?
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
Why not just get rid of social security and replace it with a program that is just a straight social safety net for the elderly who made less than $X in career earnings and were therefor incapable of saving for themselves.

While I am not against your idea, the truth is that most people are incapable of saving for retirement, some that have unexpected expenses that drain them towards the end, and some that are incapable of not spending (just look at all of the former pro athletes who are bankrupt) all of their money. Yes you want to give the people who made less then $x over their lifetime some money, but the truth is that Americans suck at saving and it would lead to a significant portion of people with little to no money in retirement which would be very harmful to the U.S. I am not anti your idea I just don't think that it would play out well in real life.
 
Top