Al Gore, friend of our enemy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by hillclimber, Dec 2, 2005.

  1. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    Gore should at least issue a statement.
     
  3. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's why the US has continued on the technological front to treat the Russians as a "threat" force.

    Gore does not believe in American superiority of ideals. He is a liberal through and through laying far more than our share of the world's problems at our doorstep.

    Effectively, he's a traitor. God forbid he should ever become president.
     
  4. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    I guess you think that Gore must should have known in 1995 that we would be in Iraq 8 years later, with the possibility of going into Iran in the near future. :rolleyes:
     
  5. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    The news storys first of all claims that a "secret" deal called the 'Gore-Chernomyrdin protocol' helped make this happen.

    These meetings were not secret, they have been written about for a while now.

    If you research the 'Gore-Chernomyrdin protocol' you will find that is dealt with a lot of other things other than defensive, but it also helped rathered than hurt when it came to Russia dealing with Iran.

    Before the Gore-Chernomyrdin protocol there were no dates or terms for Russia to stop selling to Iran, with the Gore-Chernomyrdin protocol the end date was the end of 1999.

    Putin was later to reverse Russia's promise to cease arms sales, so although Russia had a deal, they didn't honor it.

    I don't see how this is Al Gore's fault. At least under his deal, that Moscow has agreed to, would have stopped arms sales to Iran after 1999.

    Russia didn't live up to their word, so it's their fault, not Al Gore's.

    Jamie
     
  6. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    Reagan made a deal to sell arms to Iran in exchange for delaying the release of the hostages.
     
  7. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    Spreading this kind of garbage is not Christ like. Jimmy Carters hostages were released because the Irani's knew America was about to install a real President, Ronald Reagan, and they'd better get their karma sorted out.
     
  8. ASLANSPAL

    ASLANSPAL
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Spreading this kind of garbage is not Christ like. Jimmy Carters hostages were released because the Irani's knew America was about to install a real President, Ronald Reagan, and they'd better get their karma sorted out. </font>[/QUOTE][​IMG]

    Hill I think their might be a 12 step program in your neighborhood for toxic kool aid imbibers.

    ;) amazing stuff your drinking thar
     
  9. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's just a bad as someone who points fingers at Al Gore for absolutely no good reason huh?

    Jamie
     
  10. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    [​IMG]
    It is certainly true that they did indeed get weapons....

    Yes, and as I recall, after that "real President" came to office, the Iranians were able to secure weapons with the help of the despicable Oliver North......
     
  11. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    Khomeini hated Carter so much he would not countenance handing over the hostages to Carter. It had nothing to do with being afraid of Reagan.

    Anyway, the Russians abrogated the Gore-Chernomyrdin protocol in November 2000, meaning the protocol has nothing to do with the new arms sales. Sounds good, though.
     
  12. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    Spreading this kind of garbage is not Christ like. Jimmy Carters hostages were released because the Irani's knew America was about to install a real President, Ronald Reagan, and they'd better get their karma sorted out. </font>[/QUOTE]Anything you don't want to accept is "not Christ-like." I'll dig up some proof. But I assume you don't think the slur on Vice President Gore is "not Christ-like" do you?
     
  13. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    "October Surprise"

    Upon the death of the shah in July (which neutralized one demand) and the Iraqi invasion of Iran in September (necessitating weapons acquisition), Iran became more amenable to reopening negotiations for the hostages' release.

    In the late stages of the presidential race with Ronald Reagan, Carter, given those new parameters, might have been able to bargain with the Iranians, which might have clinched the election for him. The 11th-hour heroics were dubbed an "October Surprise"* by the Reagan camp — something they did not want to see happen.

    Allegations surfaced that William Casey, director of the Reagan campaign, and some CIA operatives, secretly met with Iranian officials in Europe to arrange for the hostages' release, but not until after the election. If true, some observers aver, dealing with a hostile foreign government to achieve a domestic administration's defeat would have been grounds for charges of treason.

    Reagan won the election, partly because of the failure of the Carter administration to bring the hostages home. Within minutes of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released. Under Reagan, the Iran-Contra Affair completes this story.

    http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2021.html
     
  14. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    resources

    contact

    search

    subscribe

    September/October 1991

    WHO WILL UNWRAP THE OCTOBER SURPRISE?

    http://archives.cjr.org/year/91/5/october_surprise.asp

    When the story does appear, the key questions not only go unanswered,they go unasked. Questions like why did the Iranaians suddenly break off negotiations with Carter in the fall of 1980, just when they appeared closer than ever to releasing the hostages? And when they eventually did strike a deal with the Carter administration (which promised the release of Iranian assets frozen in U.S. banks in exchange for the return of the hostages), why did the Iranians drop their demand for military spare parts, which had appeared so important to them a few months earlier? And why were planes loaded with American military equipment flying from Israel to Iran just after Reagan's inauguration in early 1981 -- a time when no American hostages were being held in Iran or Lebanon? Is it possible that the Reagan administration was arming Iran in return for a perfectly timed release of the hostages -- only minutes after Reagan's inauguration?
     
  15. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's just a bad as someone who points fingers at Al Gore for absolutely no good reason huh?

    Jamie
    </font>[/QUOTE]Algore needs fingers pointed at him anytime he makes a speech. He and Howard Dean, act like maniacs, with no regard for truth.
     
  16. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    These new left Democrats learned from President Clinton, that lying was perfectly OK as a means to an end. And there is virtually no down side to it.
     
  17. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    And your regard for truth? There are many news articles about arms deals and Reagan and Iran.

    If you regarded the truth, then you might believe the news article and the statement you made at the beginning of this thread, but after showing &lt;easy search on Google&gt; that is wasn't any of Al Gore doings, you disregard that and still believe in it?

    That to me seems like someone who doesn't want the truth, that seems like someone that just wants to stir the pot.

    Jamie
    Truth wasn't the reason you started this thread.
     
  18. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    And your regard for truth? There are many news articles about arms deals and Reagan and Iran.

    If you regarded the truth, then you might believe the news article and the statement you made at the beginning of this thread, but after showing &lt;easy search on Google&gt; that is wasn't any of Al Gore doings, you disregard that and still believe in it?

    That to me seems like someone who doesn't want the truth, that seems like someone that just wants to stir the pot.

    Jamie
    Truth wasn't the reason you started this thread.
    </font>[/QUOTE]You are right JamieinNH, I posted it because of anger over the political ramifications which would have resulted if any prominent Republican would have completed this deal. So, in that sense, I did post it in the interest of truth. The underlying truth is that there is a huge double standard in America, in the reporting of conservative Christians and secular Democrats.
     
  19. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    You see though, that doesn't make sense. Republicans and Democrats alike make deals that we as Christians shouldn't like. Their Politicians! I honestly believe some day they will change the definition of Politician to: Anyone who can lie, cheat and steal without getting caught 90% of the time.

    This definition, my definition, applies to BOTH parties. AS a Christian, I am appauded&lt;sp&gt; at BOTH parties.

    You see, it's this point of all I wish we could agree on. It's NOT Democrats vers Christians.

    There are Christian Democrats, and Christian Republicans.

    There are SO called Christian Democrats and SO called Christian Republicans, the difference being they claim to be a Christian, but their actions don't show it.

    So, AS Christians, we HAVE to look at each person, NOT the party they represent. It's not either/or - or - Black/White.

    I have voted for Democrats and Republicans. It's who will do the best job according to my standards, that is how I vote. Not straight across the board with one party of the other.

    So, if nothing else, I hope we can both agree on this point. I believe that is everyone on this board would agree on this very point, there would be less bickering&lt;sp&gt; about Politics and more talk about Christianity.

    Just my thoughts..

    Jamie
     
  20. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you compare the platforms the parties stand on you'll see the democrats supporting abortion in all it's forms, furtherance of the racial divide for votes, making the constitution a living document, government run health care, historical revisionism, control over citizen gun ownership, big government, usurpation of constitutionally protected land ownership, tying up mining rights, and generally refusing the people right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

    The republicans are opposed to all these except, lately, big government. for the most part

    If you have watched the political machinations unfold over the last 40 years, the divide between good and evil, right and wrong, etc., have blurred to near fuzz, for any non-believer and many believers.

    Just my thoughts also
    hill
     

Share This Page

Loading...