http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351332,00.html
Anyone else here seen Iron Man? the similarities between Stark Industries and GE here is disturbing.
- Mars
Billo is just pissed that MSNBC makes fun of him all the time.
Were you this pissed off about Iran Contra?
Did you call for Reagan's impeachment back then for selling $30 million worth of missiles to Iran?
The Bush administration could just void all the existing contracts and prevent any further trade.
Why haven't they?
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 05-11-2008 at 03:57 PM.
Of course I disagree with Iran Contra, but not being alive at the time, I really didn't have a say. Everyone makes mistakes, but this is a mistake that GE seems to be trying to cover up.
That's a question I'd like to know too, Chump. Bush should be active in this.
- Mars
It's not a secret and Bush is fine with it.
Corps have no obligation to support any country.
The most powerful corps are completely supra-national anyway and beyond reach of any national laws. And the laws that do apply are cir vented, broken, ignored, and not enforced.
GE, the oilcos, the MIC, etc will all do WHATEVER it takes, whatever they can hide, and get away with, to make more money. That's what the management, the board, and stockholders want. That's why corps exist, to make money.
Last edited by boutons_; 05-12-2008 at 05:52 PM.
I was. "I don't recall" being the mantra of any high-ranking Reagan administration official when asked to testify. The "I don't recall" bit was used repeatedly by Bush's father, the then vice-president, and former head of the CIA, when asked about covert operations to fund the death squads dragging people out of huts in el Salvador and shooting them in the back of head because they were suspected of being communists with money from arms sales to Iran. The reason the administration went this route is because congress, concerned about the horrific nature of what the death squads were doing (including raping and killing nuns, oh by the way), forbid the Reagan administration from providing funds directly to the government responsible for these death squads.
But hey, they were "fighting communism", so everything was okay, right? Right?
Pfft. 20 years later, the "communists" got themselves elected anyways, partly due to the blowback from these death squads on the part of people who remembered what went on.
Sadly, this is just another instance where a lack of ethics and "realpolitic" not only don't work, they actually actively hurt our ultimate aims.
Sounds a bit like Iraq don't it?
I have long argued for really putting a bit more emphasis on ethics of our "partners" when looking at our foreign policy, because things like this have convinced me that realpolitics has failed time and time again.
wasn't it for the hostages?
So Reagan negotiated with terrorists to pay ransom for hostages?
I will bet most didn't know that Canada dealt with Germany, copper if I remember
correctly during WWII. Also IBM kept track of Jews during WWII. How bout that.
Yeah, and he showed no strenght during the beirut attacks. There war on terror wasn't the priority then, it was the cold war. The Iranian Terrorsit, weren't planning on commiting atrocities over here, they just wanted us to gtfo and were busy worrying about Iraq.
The Iranians wanted missiles to combat iraq for hostages. Reagan said ok! We'll just give the iraqis more missiles to combat iran and have a stalemate. Reagan's strategy, while not ethical was pretty smart.
Ok, thanks.
Irish negotiated with the Germans in both wars. We must never elect Irish people to office.
-Chumpadump!
so you conceded that Reagan's Iran contra deal wasn't so bad?
Let me further make it plain to the assassins in Beirut and their accomplices, wherever they may be, that America will never make concessions to terrorists -- to do so would only invite more terrorism -- nor will we ask nor pressure any other government to do so. Once we head down that path there would be no end to it, no end to the suffering of innocent people, no end to the bloody ransom all civilized nations must pay.
- Reagan, a few months before making concessions to terrorists
Indeed.
Yeah, the funny thing was they just took two more hostages when they released two.
Kudos for keeping your penis fetish in check for a couple of posts before that last one though. It's easy to tell when you are getting angry.
Dumb is what dumb is. You forgot the cake. Now you can be in
complete conformity with the MSM. You are such a twerp!
it was 53 total hostages that were released when reagan took office. so i guess if they took two that still sucks, yet Iran got face ed by iraq for a whole decade, so Reagan wins.
Nice try. I just bolded penis so that you could respond faster. It's so easy to bate korean fluffboys that way.
So negotiating with terrorists is acceptable to you. Glad you admitted it. Something to remember.
So you must be pissed that Obama is going to negotiote with Iran?
Not really. I wasn't overly pissed about Iran Contra either except for the diversion of funds.
So you were more obssesed with Reagan, than you were pissed at Iran Contra.
Neither. Just a fun tidbit to dust off these days when Iran is on minds of many.
So you admit that you can't be anything else but an asshat and be informative at the same time?
Last edited by Ignignokt; 05-12-2008 at 04:38 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
