Trent

From what I've read (besides the conspiracy nut sounding accounts), Glaspie seemed to have no credible reason to think that they'd invade. When they did, it was a surprise... and it also threatened Saudi Arabia. You sure are clinging to me stating that Saddam changed his mind about us. At the lowest level, you can't even be honest enough that he did change his mind... regardless of the reason. I also never did state WHY he changed his mind. It's just you and Bill that want to make sure the US is blamed here... even though you'll never be able to prove anything. Oh, hello again!

This morning on the news... CNN and FOX there was mention of one of the kids being a self-professed satanist. So there. Oh, hello again!

HAHAHA, what a cheap attempt to box in a response! Please tell me you're joking. Everything I've read has said that the US took no position on Iraqi-Kuwaiti politics and that was said to Saddam. There are plenty of sources that state that he knew it wasn't approval and did it anyway. Even Tariq Aziz said that... YOU google THAT. Is it YOUR position that Glaspie DID give the US's approval for Saddam to invade Kuwait? Again... a quick search without the "believe anything if it makes the US look bad" glasses on again. But sometimes I forget that you have exclusive access to "THE TRUTH" source for all events worldwide. Correct! It IS in their interest to have deals with countries either covertly or overtly to make sure they get what they need. It isn't just an unstable middle east that bothers them, it's having legitimate governments in place that won't exchange oil for AK-47's and nuclear secrets. Of course it is. War will disrupt their shady little plans... just like it did to France and Germany in Iraq. Oh, hello again!

So, you're saying that he didn't change his feelings towards us? Or wait, you agree with me that his feelings towards us DID change, but you wanted to make sure to blame the US for it? I'd suggest you do more research. Without the "believe anything if it makes the US look bad" glasses on, of course. So, you're assuming that it is in China and Russia's best interest to have a peaceful and US friendly Iran? Really. I guess you also think that France and Germany didn't want the US to invade Iraq either time because they're pacifists and cared about the little children and it wasn't because of their contracts with the government or Iraq. Some of you people are so focused on your US-centric conspiracy theories that you can't even see past our own country. Open your eyes. Oh, hello again!

Iran's bed is already full with the Russians and Chinese in it. Oh, hello again!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie It would certainly seem that Saddams feelings towards the US changed, wouldn't it? Are you just trying to point out that we did have relations with Iraq because it was felt Iran was more dangerous? What's your point? Oh wait... he thought the US gave him permission to invade Kuwait so you're saying that WE changed then he changed or that he didn't change but we did or that he was a good guy and got screwed over... or.... what are you saying? On a side note, some of you might want to notice that first section in the Wikipedia entry about US support for Saddam. Something shiny. Oh, hello again!

Boing! Hard on. Unfortunately, lessons from the last thread require her story to be told under oath before anyone can beleive it. However... her story sounds like there's a bit of exageration in there in my opinion.... but it DOES sound like she was given an opportunity to deliver the petition and refused it... instead choosing to make a scene. I have to ask why all the peace loving supporters and media were there if this wasn't designed as a stunt. Even if the truth is in the middle here... it looks like she's crying "victim" again (about the "abuse" she received), and she still looks like she was out for a story... not a real delivery of a petition. Oh, hello again!

Well, they changed towards US for sure anyway... Oh, hello again!

What can I tell ya... at one time Saddam wasn't considered a terrorist, neither was Osama, neither was McVeigh. Should a picture of McVeigh and his old elementary school girlfriend be used to show that she was a bad person? Before WW2's build up... they weren't the bad guys either. Things change don't they? Most people on either side see China will be a problem down the road... but just a decade ago... they became our best friends. Russia was an ally in WW2, then things got ugly with us in the 50's. The list can go on... do I need to keep going? I still think you have a hard on for me. It's not my fault you're being a floozy by following more than one of us around! Oh, hello again!

Wow, you've got quite the hard-on for me lately. Flattering. Would you prefer that our diplomats give people the finger when meeting instead? I wonder how many peace accords would get done if people stopped shaking their enemies hands and started telling them to fuck off. That picture argument is the lamest. But, hey... by all means... if it makes you feel like you're scoring points, go ahead. Oh, hello again!

Close. You're ALMOST reaching comprehension here. Replace "more" with "a lot" in your post and you might have it. But, hey... SOMETHING SHINY! Nice one! Oh, hello again!

*sigh* Even though you've done what amounts to "But Clinton got a blowjob!" here... I guess we have to play this game. Show me where some recent (flexible) "right wing protests" have gotten out of control or have been as ridiculous as those on the left. Then, if you find any, show me how there's been equal or more of them on the right. THEN realize that what you might consider the extreme right wing is not actually embraced by the the conservatives and throw out all the Nazi and Klan rallies. Then take a look at the left and see how they actually DO seem to embrace their most extreme members. Or, stick your head in the sand and ignore it. It'll probably just go away. Oh, hello again!

You can always tell which governments are in bed with others when you see stuff like this. Kinda like France and Germany and Iraq. Oh, hello again!

But you really have to... I don't think she deserves a bullet, nor have I stated my opinion on her tresspassing. I am ALSO not questioning her right to free speech. What I AM taking issue with is her apparent dishonest approach to making a story for herself. Allegedly (for those who think quotes must be under oath, not you), she was given the opportunity to come into the US mission to talk to the people there, but refused and chose instead to lay on the stoop blocking access. She doesn't seem to want to get anything done really... except get attention. The headline "SHEEHAN GOES INTO US MISSION TO TALK" doesn't really seem like it'd make the news. And the anarchy kiddies can shout rant and rave all they want, when they start breaking shit and attacking people who don't agree with them... they should have their asses beat. Simple as that. It just seems that many of the mass "leftie" protests end up in some sort of irrational behavior that prevents people like myself from really listening or taking them seriously. Don't beleive me? Check out the videos on www.protestwarrior.com. Oh, hello again!

I'll admit that some extreme religious freaks, whom you will, no doubt, call right wingers solely for their stance on abortion. However, there is no questioning that most conservatives do not condone that behavior. It does appear that many of the left condone the actions of the anarchy kiddies, the attention for the sake of attention getters, and the wild-eyed ranters and ravers. Will you argue that the left hasn't made a pretty big shift to the extreme? That doesn't seem to be true for the right... after all they DO seem to be more in touch with the values of America... so it can't really be considered extreme. If you want to continue one-upping... we'll get into the Weather Underground, ELF, and hell... we could go all the way up to the leftie heroes like Castro and Chavez... if you want. Oh, hello again!

Your whole sidetrack about paid protestors being real or not is a "something shiny". Almost equivalent you correcting spelling or making a comparison to Hitler... I've read enough news reports over the years from both sides of this debate to get a pretty good idea that it is happening. If you want to get into a battle about paid protesting, start a new thread... then we can both go find articles to support our sides. And we'll both end up still disagreeing. But that's not what we were talking about, was it... but thanks for pointing this shiny out in the beginning. No, your original reply was along the lines of "... but but but the right has its fair share of wackjobs!" It didn't have anything to do with me taking that quote as gospel. In fact, I distinctly used the phrase, "pretty good indicator" and not "it is a FACT that, " because of the quote. Sadly enough... your first comment, which assumed something incorrectly, was your least "shiny" comment in this argument. Any "shininess" that I've found in my posts in direct response to your own. So there. You started it. Distractor-man! Oh, hello again!

I dunno... that's why they're mysterious. Go read some of the links. There's at least as much "proof" in there as it takes you to believe that Bush is purposely killing innocent babies in Iraq. So... what are you doing to defend your position besides trying to change the subject... AGAIN. Point it out. Or just don't say it. Oh, hello again!

Since it took you 2 posts to respond... I'll consolidate. You're correct, it should be required that all reports in media be backed by judicial oath. You get it started and I'm right behind ya. I suppose the "truth" that you and the others here have was delivered to you under oath. My mistake. Here's a clue... it isn't the media that make Cyndi look bad... it's her actions! Many people would disagree with you and your "right leaning" press hypothesis. You sure? The administration doesn't take a bashing in the press? Sounds like you only read "conservative" press to me. Try looking around a bit and you'll see how wrong you are here. For future reference... when you constantly use derogatory names for the administration... it kinda makes it obvious that responding to you will be futile anyway. Oh, hello again!

Quite right. My apologies. Instead of sticking with the discussion, you want to turn the conversation to an apples to oranges comparison about "followers". Here's your answer, just to humor you... while Pat Robertson (not someone I usually agree with BTW) has his OWN followers that may outnumber the Cyndi-worshippers... Cyndi seems to have more attention from the US as a whole through her self-promoting protests and attention schemes. Like I said, Pat Robertson, most of the time, is preaching to his choir... Cyndi is not. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=paid+protestors Actually, IT IS what we were discussing since it was my first entry into this forum and you responded to me. Perhaps YOU are off subject... but pointing at shiny things seems to be a typical debate tactic here. It's interesting that you take a quote from an emotionally wrecked, anti-everything, extreme leftie as gospel when it agrees with your position. Oh, hello again!

I've seen more of Cyndi on the news than I have of Pat Robertson. Why is that? And it isn't JUST about Cyndi... look at the protests in NY during the RNC, Seattle, and just about anywhere the left can pay to get enough of their protestors in one place. Is that more reasonable than having a commentary on a tv show or radio, or selling tickets to an arena where you talk only to your followers? Really? Here, I'll quote this again... for all of you... Is this the kind of rationale you support in your "heroes" from the left? Think about it. Oh, hello again!

So name-calling in your book is equal to rioting, chaining yourself to fences, laying on doorsteps, and other unproductive tactics? The left does TONS of name calling, and it doesn't even take a radical leftie to get more vile than the 2 insults you've listed. You can't see that though... like I said, I guess we just can't have this conversation... Oh, hello again!

I'll take it you understood my point about how a comment about 1 party does not imply the opposite of the other party. Good. We won't have to worry about that again. I'll give you Pat Robertson... but even then, you don't see him laying on stoops and rioting at "peace" marches. That domain is almost exclusively owned by the left. Admit it. It seems more left leaning people agree with their extremists than right wing people. Why is that? Oh, hello again!

Hahahaha, so you picked on tv and radio opinion show hosts? Do you see them rioting in the streets at "peace" protests? Do you see them acting like fools laying on doorsteps just to get the cameras on them and refusing to talk to the people they're protesting? Really, if you equate their behavior to this woman's... we can't have this discussion. It's stunning that you can't see the fact that the leftie protests and protestors get wildly childish and out of hand while you don't really see too much of that from the righties... even most of the loonies. Oh, hello again!

I've had to explain this to people before, so don't feel too bad. Because I say something about 1 person, side, position, etc... it DOES NOT IMPLY the opposite of what I've said is true for the "other" side. But I know you just wanted to post something. But now that you mention it... how many rightie wackjobs do you see acting as foolishly as the leftie wackjobs? Oh, hello again!

This is all you need to read right here... this woman is a good indicator of the looney lefties that are more hellbent on getting attention for themselves than rationally discussing an issue. Can anyone really wonder why many of us don't take these jackoffs seriously? Oh, hello again!