DescentBB

CUDA wrote:

Close enough for Republican warmongering, so don't go putting lipstick on that pig. 

ya and close enough that the warmongering Democrats overwhelming voted for it too. Just a little revisionist lipstick on your part too huh TC?

Right, because Bush/Cheney spun "their version" of the truth to the Democrats since they "wanted" to go to war and they needed Democratic votes. But wait, their version was just a "fabrication". That's twisting the truth to get want you want in my book. Bet if Obama had done this very thing and then we found out about it a few years later, you, woody and Will would be all over it like flies on a turd.

I know this audio was supplied by the Ukrainians sigma, but this is the conversation between a rebel commander and a Russian intelligence agent. They quickly figured out what they shot down and it wasn't a military plane. They even griped as to why it was flying over a war zone, despite the fact that other civilian commercial aircraft had been flying over Ukraine daily. They screwed up.

[youtube]BbyZYgSXdyw[/youtube]

Ya right and there wasnt a single democrat on any of the committees that reviewed that evidence before it was presented. Grow up stop being a blind psrtisan hack. Both side saw the evidence. Both sides voted on ghe resolution. Both sides are guilty. Only intentional ignorance would say anything else.

Still doesn't matter. Bush and Cheney wanted to invade Iraq, even though Saddam had NOTHING TO DO WITH 911 AND DIDN'T HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS NOR THE CAPABILITY TO MAKE THEM, and they fabricated the evidence to fit their desire for war by relying on an unreliable informant named Curveball. That same evidence that was fed to all the committees on a silver platter. Either Colin Powell was duped when he gave his U.N. speech, or he knowingly lied and made himself look like an idiot. You choose.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/02/17 ... -war-lies/

You know what one of my favorite songs is? Not Ready To Make Nice by the Dixie Chicks. Why you ask? It's all because of the nationalist bullcrap this country went through under Bush and how if anybody dared criticize the president for his little Iraq War he had planned, they were vilified as un-patriotic and anti-American. Poor Natalie Maines made this comment on a British tour right before the war-based-on-fabricted-lies started. The U.S. and the rampant patriotic neurosis that pervaded after 911, plus the rantings of the right wing pundits in the media, pretty much ruined the Dixie Chicks' career for years.

Natalie Maines wrote:Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”

Don't forget the lapel flag pin nonsense. If someone in power wasn't wearing that damned flag pin, they were not with the president (Bush) or America. Damn, even Obama has to wear one.

http://www.salon.com/2007/10/12/flag_pins/

Ignorance is bliss huh TC

they never said he had them, but dont let that little fact interupt your little fantasy

Don't let that blathering of Bush revisionist history get in the way of your constant Obama bashing, not that Obama's helping his case.

tunnelcat wrote:Don't let that blathering of Bush revisionist history get in the way of your constant Obama bashing, not that Obama's helping his case.

It would be advantageous if you paid attention to the thread before you interjected. Never once in this topic did I mention Obama.and this has nothing to do with Obama. I was talking about the lie that Sigma is portraying that the Bush administration used the fact that there was "irrefutable evidence" that Sadam HAD nukes as a premise to go to war. That is false and a lie.
But you didnt pay attention. And in your zeal to demonize Bush, you turned it into another I hate Bush/Cheney post

TC have you ever read the list of comments all the democrats gave about a need to go after Saddam BEFORE Bush even got into office? Then compare them to the comments they made a few years later just after 9/11.
Practically a cut and paste copy of their assesment of the risk they claimed Saddam was pre-Bush era.

Sure he wanted to go in there but he wasn't selling anything new. He was joining their chorus and leading the way because the country was singing along loud and clear.

So take that notion that Bush fooled them all and rethink it. If you want to be honest anyway....

sigma wrote:

CUDA wrote:If you knew ANYTHING, you would know that all those facts were reported in the western media. We knew about it. Our press tends to look for reasons to take down our politicians. Unlike "Russia today" who's journalists are quiting left and right because of the lies the Russian government forces them to spew. And the lies you continually parrot.

In this case, all the more puzzling why the U.S., Canada, France, Australia, the EU started to apply economic sanctions against Russia, based on unproven and defunct Russian guilt in killing innocent people in Ukraine. Russia continues to be only tens of thousands of refugees from Ukraine. ....

Sigma, an honest and logical person would look at something so puzzling and be compelled by their intellectual curiosity consider the possibility that it is only puzzling because they have an incorrect perception. At which point their eyes would then be open for the first time.

Occams razor applies here for you. Lose the assumption that those things are unproven for the time it takes you to consider what you know and what you have been told by those who benefit most from telling you. See things in the light.

Will Robinson wrote:TC have you ever read the list of comments all the democrats gave about a need to go after Saddam BEFORE Bush even got into office? Then compare them to the comments they made a few years later just after 9/11.
Practically a cut and paste copy of their assesment of the risk they claimed Saddam was pre-Bush era.

Sure he wanted to go in there but he wasn't selling anything new. He was joining their chorus and leading the way because the country was singing along loud and clear.

So take that notion that Bush fooled them all and rethink it. If you want to be honest anyway....

utter nonsense. Almost EVERY Dem I know is very much against that World Policeman role. They didn't like Clinton getting into the Balkans, even, so I'd love for you to produce these comments you cite.

More links:

US outlines case against Russia on downed plane:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 0-15-15-18



RMAF dispatched two C-130s to Ukraine:

http://alert5.com/2014/07/20/rmaf-dispa ... o-ukraine/



Don't Think Russian Rebels Can Learn How to Fire an Anti-Air Missile? Try This
Simulator:





Rebels take full control of plane crash bodies:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ukraine- ... ite-bodies



European Monitors Blocked by Gunmen From MH17 Crash Site Try Again:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukrain ... in-n160086



MH17 crash scene 'severely compromised':

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... /12906189/

Increasing evidence of Russian involvement in Malaysia Airlines shoot-down:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Po ... shoot-down



Video Shows Malaysia Airlines MH17's Black Box at Crash Scene:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukrain ... ne-n160491

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:TC have you ever read the list of comments all the democrats gave about a need to go after Saddam BEFORE Bush even got into office? Then compare them to the comments they made a few years later just after 9/11.
Practically a cut and paste copy of their assesment of the risk they claimed Saddam was pre-Bush era.

Sure he wanted to go in there but he wasn't selling anything new. He was joining their chorus and leading the way because the country was singing along loud and clear.

So take that notion that Bush fooled them all and rethink it. If you want to be honest anyway....

utter nonsense. Almost EVERY Dem I know is very much against that World Policeman role. They didn't like Clinton getting into the Balkans, even, so I'd love for you to produce these comments you cite.

Well perhaps, slick, you should search out those comments too!
If you did you would see I'm telling the truth having based this assesment on their actual public comments from standing in front of the podium in their respective houses of Congress or in front of their favorite audience the TV camera.

Take that list and call them up and ask them WTF?!?
Because apparently they have fooled you and it makes you seem like a pompous asshat to come rushing into the conversation with, yet again, another slick proclamation that is, yet again, incorrect.

Ukraine says military operation in 'active phase', cannot comment on Donetsk:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/ ... H920140721



Russia's Military Tells A Very Different Story About What Happened To MH17:

http://www.businessinsider.com/russias- ... h17-2014-7



"All flights, including Malaysian B777, were being escorted by Ukrainian Su-27
Flanker jets over Eastern Ukraine":

http://theaviationist.com/2014/07/21/su ... rted-mh17/



Was Snatched at the MH17 'Morgue':

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... orgue.html#



Ukraine says pro-Russian rebels tampered with airliner recorders:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/ ... G120140721



Dutch Investigator Admits They Don't Know Where The Bodies Of MH17 Victims Are
Going:

http://www.businessinsider.com/dutch-in ... ing-2014-7



Netherlands opens war crimes investigation into airliner downing:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/ ... 5620140721

anyone remember what went down when WE shot a commercial airliner down in the Eighties?

the Iranians flew a passenger liner into an active war zone. in a direct Vector line towards a US cruiser, the ship took it as a hostile, and after getting no response from warnings they subsequently shot it down. the US apologized and paid restitution to the Iranians

good synopsis, CUDA. Now, what if what happened here was the same sort of tragic mistaken ID?

and, CUDA, while you note they flew into an 'active war zone', where does the US come into that? We weren't at war in the region during the Reagan regime, right?

callmeslick wrote:good synopsis, CUDA. Now, what if what happened here was the same sort of tragic mistaken ID?

I’m not sure what kind of point you are trying to make here slick, it’s pretty much a given that this was probably a mistake.

It’s what happens afterwards where the two events diverge.

So what is your point?

callmeslick wrote:and, CUDA, while you note they flew into an 'active war zone', where does the US come into that?

slightly different. The Malaysia air flight was a steady 33k feet.

the iranian airflight had just taken off and was at a lower altitude on a direct flight path towards the ship. It was taken as an agressive posture and AFTER having attempted contact with no response it was shot down. There was no attempted contact with MH17

We weren't at war in the region during the Reagan regime, right?

you mean the Reagan ADMINISTRATION?

No it happened with Bush the elder. Que TC

my point was that these things happen in hair-trigger conflict zones. I agree with whoever made the observation that it's what happens afterward that counts, but it seems that in ALL such incidents, there is a sort of flow of denials, finger-pointing and then a point where the responsible party owns up to it. Maybe, that will happen here, maybe not, but I find it odd that some in the political class seem to want aggressive response by the US, despite the fact that we only had one passenger on board, and the US has made similar errors, even in a situation where we weren't technically involved in active combat.

callmeslick wrote:my point was that these things happen in hair-trigger conflict zones. I agree with whoever made the observation that it's what happens afterward that counts, but it seems that in ALL such incidents, there is a sort of flow of denials, finger-pointing and then a point where the responsible party owns up to it. Maybe, that will happen here, maybe not, but I find it odd that some in the political class seem to want aggressive response by the US, despite the fact that we only had one passenger on board, and the US has made similar errors, even in a situation where we weren't technically involved in active combat.

What is "aggressive response by the US"? I understand that you do not want to admit that last more than 50 years, the United States is the most aggressive country in the world. That kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people for the sake of their economic and political interests or just for military exercises under invented pretexts. And another conflict in Ukraine a clear confirmation. You drowned in the blood of millions of people. It's on your conscience. If you have more meaningful view of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, than the opinion of Steven Seagal, you can assume that the United States performs indescribably epic mission to destroy the Russians (though this Russian Ukrainian and they consider their homeland Ukraine) in Ukraine, with the help of the puppet Fascist regime in Ukraine, the United States established in Ukraine today.

you are wrong about much of the above, Sigma. Actually, we've been rather hands-off in Ukraine, beyond economic support for development of energy and other industries, so far. I suspect that will be the extent of it, too, unless Russia out and out invades Ukraine proper. You see, the current administration was elected, in some significant part, on the promise that it would reverse the aggressive attitude around the world, and stop trying to interfere in every situation that doesn't agree with our philosophy. Even before this, your view of what the US does in the region and the world doesn't match reality, as evidenced by the press and public responses from EVERY OTHER NATION but yours.

callmeslick wrote:you are wrong about much of the above, Sigma. Actually, we've been rather hands-off in Ukraine, beyond economic support for development of energy and other industries, so far. I suspect that will be the extent of it, too, unless Russia out and out invades Ukraine proper. You see, the current administration was elected, in some significant part, on the promise that it would reverse the aggressive attitude around the world, and stop trying to interfere in every situation that doesn't agree with our philosophy. Even before this, your view of what the US does in the region and the world doesn't match reality, as evidenced by the press and public responses from EVERY OTHER NATION but yours.

I do not need more to give examples that the American press has at least as much as any independent opinion. OSCE came to inspect the crash site the Malaysian Boeing, when soldiers and militia offered them go on foot to the wreckage of the plane, they immediately got scared and sat down in the car and left.
P.S. And by the way, when an American teenager goes to school with a gun to shoot his classmates, who do not agree with his personal opinion, it clearly demonstrates the psychology of American and U.S. foreign policy as well.

sigma wrote:

callmeslick wrote:you are wrong about much of the above, Sigma. Actually, we've been rather hands-off in Ukraine, beyond economic support for development of energy and other industries, so far. I suspect that will be the extent of it, too, unless Russia out and out invades Ukraine proper. You see, the current administration was elected, in some significant part, on the promise that it would reverse the aggressive attitude around the world, and stop trying to interfere in every situation that doesn't agree with our philosophy. Even before this, your view of what the US does in the region and the world doesn't match reality, as evidenced by the press and public responses from EVERY OTHER NATION but yours.

I do not need more to give examples that the American press has at least as much as any independent opinion. OSCE came to inspect the crash site the Malaysian Boeing, when soldiers and militia offered them go on foot to the wreckage of the plane, they immediately got scared and sat down in the car and left.

bull★■◆●. They were threatened with being taking hostage, according to the people involved.

P.S. And by the way, when an American teenager goes to school with a gun to shoot his classmates, who do not agree with his personal opinion, it clearly demonstrates the psychology of American and U.S. foreign policy as well.

and when Putin has a rival poisoned with nuclear by-products in Britain, that says what, exactly?

callmeslick wrote:and when Putin has a rival poisoned with nuclear by-products in Britain, that says what, exactly?

he doesn't know because it wasn't reported in the Government run news.

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:and when Putin has a rival poisoned with nuclear by-products in Britain, that says what, exactly?

he doesn't know because it wasn't reported in the Government run news.

and the fact that the rest of the entire world knows about it, from autopsy results, video surveillance and other facts, will no doubt be irrelevant to him.

callmeslick wrote: ****. They were threatened with being taking hostage, according to the people involved.

P.S. And by the way, when an American teenager goes to school with a gun to shoot his classmates, who do not agree with his personal opinion, it clearly demonstrates the psychology of American and U.S. foreign policy as well.

and when Putin has a rival poisoned with nuclear by-products in Britain, that says what, exactly?

You understand what you are saying? OSCE failed to arrive at the crash site of the liner, if there would be the danger of capture them hostage.

This man was a traitor. And when a person is conscious of betrayal for money, he needs to hide in a very deep hole to avoid revenge homeland.

nothing I can say could make the last post look any crazier. Nothing.

sigma wrote:

callmeslick wrote: ****. They were threatened with being taking hostage, according to the people involved.

P.S. And by the way, when an American teenager goes to school with a gun to shoot his classmates, who do not agree with his personal opinion, it clearly demonstrates the psychology of American and U.S. foreign policy as well.

and when Putin has a rival poisoned with nuclear by-products in Britain, that says what, exactly?

You understand what you are saying? OSCE failed to arrive at the crash site of the liner, if there would be the danger of capture them hostage.

This man was a traitor. And when a person is conscious of betrayal for money, he needs to hide in a very deep hole to avoid revenge homeland.

Revenge is for mafiosa, rule of law for govts.

woodchip wrote:Revenge is for mafiosa, rule of law for govts.

so we view it, but at this point, I've learned this much about Russia: Rule of Law just isn't an ideal that they hold dear.

So it's OK if we come into Russia and kill Edward Snowden then Huh??

Hell with that, maybe we should go after the big boy himself. I mean if Glorious Leader Vlad deems it acceptable to poison political rivals and invade other countries, that seems justification to forcibly remove him, right? He's little more than a petty third-world tyrant.

Top Gun wrote:Hell with that, maybe we should go after the big boy himself. I mean if Glorious Leader Vlad deems it acceptable to poison political rivals and invade other countries, that seems justification to forcibly remove him, right? He's little more than a petty third-world tyrant.

that argument was considered valid for Saddam.

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Don't let that blathering of Bush revisionist history get in the way of your constant Obama bashing, not that Obama's helping his case.

It would be advantageous if you paid attention to the thread before you interjected. Never once in this topic did I mention Obama.and this has nothing to do with Obama. I was talking about the lie that Sigma is portraying that the Bush administration used the fact that there was "irrefutable evidence" that Sadam HAD nukes as a premise to go to war. That is false and a lie.
But you didnt pay attention. And in your zeal to demonize Bush, you turned it into another I hate Bush/Cheney post

I did pay attention. sigma's ONLY fault was saying "irrefutable evidence". That's a hair split and you know it. We went to war on FAR LESS. Shame on us. Bush ain't giving up polishing his legacy either.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/ ... -bush-wmd/

Besides, The pot's calling the kettle black CUDA. I rant about Bush as much as you rant about Obama, and we're both right in each of our assessments of their presidential job performances. At least I've come to realize Obama's a f*ck up. I've even made a fool of myself for trying to halfheartedly defend Obama just because of some crazy of the hate filled Republican rhetoric that constantly floats around as criticism. But you won't admit Bush was a ROYAL f*ck up at all. A previous president who WAS responsible for opening the Pandora's Box of ultra presidential power that Obama's currently using and abusing right now.

Britain to analyze Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 black box:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/ ... =sec&or=tn



How Technology Is Unraveling the Clues of Flight MH17:

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/20 ... d-topstory



Train with MH17 bodies on final journey reaches Ukraine base:

http://news.msn.com/world/train-with-mh ... raine-base



Malaysia quietly worked back channels to secure bodies, black boxes:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/ ... YP20140722



Here's The Insane Russian Theory That MH17 And MH370 Are The Same Plane:

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-russ ... ive-2014-7



Australian P.M. Abbott: MH17 evidence tampered with on 'industrial scale':

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ed-with-o/



Ukrainian military retakes control of Donetsk Airport:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/ ... =sec&or=tn



Ukraine war crimes trials a step closer after Red Cross assessment:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/ ... V920140722




Here's the last time Russia shot down a passenger plane:

http://theweek.com/article/index/264955 ... nger-plane



Why The Russians Are Panicking Over Flight 17:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/21/why ... flight-17/



There's an American EF-111 Raven in the graphic shown by Russia to prove a
Ukrainian Su-25 flew close to the MH17:

http://theaviationist.com/2014/07/21/ef ... a-graphic/




Amid sanctions, France in warship sale to Russia:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/amid-san ... ale-russia

tunnelcat wrote: sigma's ONLY fault was saying "irrefutable evidence". That's a hair split and you know it.

it wasnt a fault on Sigma's part it was intentional. he knew EXACTLY what he was saying

Besides, The pot's calling the kettle black CUDA. I rant about Bush as much as you rant about Obama, and we're both right in each of our assessments of their presidential job performances. At least I've come to realize Obama's a f*ck up. I've even made a fool of myself for trying to halfheartedly defend Obama just because of some crazy of the hate filled Republican rhetoric that constantly floats around as criticism. But you won't admit Bush was a ROYAL f*ck up at all. A previous president who WAS responsible for opening the Pandora's Box of ultra presidential power that Obama's currently using and abusing right now.

ACTUALLY teddy Roosevelt opened that Pandora's box he wrote over 1000 executive orders, bush only did 200, while Obama is fast approaching his numbers. but it's more the scope of what Obama's orders.

and FYI I didn't agree with everything bush did. I just stopped living in the past

for the sake of accuracy, Obama has half as many exec orders as the nearest President in last 34 years. And, one of them was only a one-term President. He has the fewest, and CUDA, just because you don't like what he is addressing through such orders doesn't make them less than perfectly legal. As you note, rightly, this goes back a ways, even before Roosevelt, I think, although Teddy essentially governed via Presidential fiat at times.

Except for the one's that arent legal

Yea…the court just ruled that some of his recess appointees were illegal.

Justice Hugo Black, wrote the majority opinion invalidating the seizures.  Black explained that an executive order (1) “must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself” and (2) an executive order is on dubious ground if it’s “incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress.”

This is a supreme court ruling during the Truman administration,
This ruling also says that several of Obama's orders chiefly in regards to immigration and the healthcare law are illegal because they do not meet those standards.

your law degree is from where, CUDA? I'm not at all sure that Obama has made so much as one exec order that approaches several of Bush's. The healthcare and immigration stuff, as well as the firearms orders, ALL stem from the basis in legislation passed by Congress.