Picos Gemeos

*** should have deleted the comment after sending it to me.

:)

(deleted comment)

Posted by

are you part of the mystery?

(deleted comment)

Posted by

I'm not sure anyone wants to know the truth anymore.

;)

Posted by

medusa.livejournal.com

That should be ******* and not ***!!!!

Posted by

I was trying to throw off the scent of any suspicious perusers...

Posted by

medusa.livejournal.com

Argh! I suck!!

Posted by

Technically it was Reagan's Puppet-master Bush Sr. that put Saddam in power. Ronald Reagen made precious few actual decisions as President. I know for a fact that the whole king-making of Saddam Hussein, in order to attack Iran, was a 100% Bush project. So there you go...

...btw, why do you think Sr., in 1991, stopped after liberating Kuwait? Because he was the one who put the man in power and all of his advisers told him that if you take down Saddam you would have some kind of fundamentalist gov't that would be more difficult for the US to handle fill the power vacuum. I guess it just goes to show that Jr. is actually far more stupid than his dad!

Posted by

I didn't know Bush Sr.'s tentacles reached so far! Still, Reagan was in power (even if he was a puppet) and he must also be held accountable.

Posted by

To fully understand the events that led up to the election of Reagan you must look at the entire period of time between the election of JFK and 1980.

Simplified version (long one available on request):

From that moment in time onwards the country had been slowly moving to the left as evidenced by the whole hippy movement. By the time the late 70s rolled around there was a significant amount of the population that were enjoying freedoms never before experienced in the US. You must remember that this was the heady days of Studio 54 and its like.

The Republican party was desperate to change things back. They were appalled by the fact that even regular suburban families were now having things like "key parties". They wanted a candidate that to project an image that would attract a certain type of person Bush Sr. didn't have the image they were going for... but a certain actor that had already been governor of California did. Did it matter that most people believed that the man was a complete fool? Not really. Did it matter that even back then there was a suspicion that he had Alzheimer's? Umm... who cares, let's just get him in.

Honestly there was only one policy that was truly Ronald Reagan's and that was the escalation of the Nuclear arms race in order to end the "cold war" between the US and the USSR. That was the only thing that was Reagan. The rest, including trickle down economics, relaxing of anti-trust laws, relaxing of regulations of corporations, conspiracy to undermine left wing governments, quashing of revolution (like in Nicaragua), and the policy in the middle east was all the Republican brain-trust (oxymoron) headed by Bush Sr.

What effectually happened was that the US had it's first 3 term President since FDR. Unfortunately, unlike FDR, this was a president working against the people and for the corporate interests. The world took a decided right turn to hell in 1980 and when you see the crap you are living in today you can thank the Bushes and their backers in the Republican party. The world was a much, much freer and happier place in 1980...

Posted by

Strangely coincides with the appearance of AIDS...

Does that mean we should be wary of Arnie?

(deleted comment)

Posted by

I read recently about the Republicans decision to change that amendment... it was an article linked to Arnie's possible future.

Posted by

Ooops... you should have replied to the second one!!! I accidentally hit post comment before I had finished my whole comment, so I quickly deleted it and finished up my thoughts.

Now this thread is very messy! There is nothing that irks me more than a messy thread :P hahaha

Posted by

go delete the comment then!

:)

Posted by

huh? Which comment? I can't delete your comments on this thread... only my "ooops" comment.

Anyway, I guess you didn't like what I had to say about AIDS since you never responded to that comment. Is that the one you want me to delete? Even if I did I couldn't reinstate the accidental one that was deleted on this thread.

Does any of this make sense?

Posted by

What Aids comment???

You know, Yahoo is screwing up today... i've been getting comments really late. That one hasn't arrived for me yet.

Posted by

Go to your Journal and look right below this comment!

|
|
|
|
|
|
V

Posted by

Luckily enough Arnie would need a constitutional amendment to become President. So it is very unlikely. But yes, it was the same theory. republican governors from California are very attractive to the republican party because California is generally a democratic state. An actor even more so, because it is an easy sell.

The whole AIDS thing has been hotly debated. No doubt that the appearance of the virus had more to do with the curtailing of sexual promiscuity than anything the republicans ever did. There is a circle that believes that it was in fact them who allowed for the virus to be introduced into the public. I have never seen any evidence to suggest this is true. It is purely conjecture. That said I could imagine these "people" doing something like that. It is not inconsistent with their other abhorrent behavior, but if it is such a deep and truly evil conspiracy then I personally am at a loss for words (and to know me, is to know that that is a rarity).

Until evidence is presented in front of my face to prove such a thing I will remain skeptical. The truth remains that many right wingers in the US were overjoyed at the appearance of the virus. It is suspicious that the group who first contracted it was reviled by the republican party. To simply say that it spread throughout a certain community first because there is far more blood being exchanged in anal sex is naive at best. There are just as many instances of hetero anal intercourse as homosexual...

...but to take this to its logical conclusion is to be face to face with evil in its purest form.... I rather not believe that just yet...

Posted by

myendeavorca.livejournal.com

I once met a former CIA agent that confessed to me that yes, AIDS was a manufactured virus, yes it was a conspiracy, yes it was made to kill blacks and gays, and yes "they" have had the perfect antidote for it all along.

I didn't know him well, but I don't think he was lying. I'm good at reading people.

Posted by

if that's true... then I want to get out of this planet.

Posted by

rhandolph.livejournal.com

If thats so then why not use the antidote now? If you used it as a vote winner it would be a real positive issue in your campaign right now, if Bush gave America a cure it would be good for him.. so I don't believe it unless the virus has mutated beyond that antidote.

Posted by

There's a great tv documentary show on the BBC, called Horizon, and they did a show on the nature of the AIDS virus. Essentially, it's the strongest "thing" in nature! The level in which it mutates and grows has never been seen on this planet before.

Posted by

magenta-luxx.livejournal.com

Ye I’m a CIA agent too! And I also love going around telling government secrets to people I barely know.

(actually if I really was.... I would.)

Posted by

I went to high school in Hong Kong and one of my friends was American. Her mother was the head of security of the American Embassy there and she didn't even tell things to her husband. They took their secrecy very seriously... and she wasn't even in the CIA.

Posted by

myendeavorca.livejournal.com

who else COULD u tell?!

Posted by

Well, I don't believe in any evil conspiracies when it comes to Aids. I've read a few articles and seen a documentary about the appearance of the virus. They can already trace it's beginning and how it spread in San Francisco, and from there around the world.

But it's true that they loved it's appearance, which makes their whole Christian stance even more abbhorant.

Posted by

adrasteah.livejournal.com

Exactly which Christian stance are you referring to?

Because some right wing nutters have that stance, does not make it the Christian stance.

Posted by

I was referring to the evangelical christians which (i think) he mentioned? It's true that not all christians feel that way - particularly catholics. Unfortunately, the ones that do feel that way, tend to hog the media so much more viciously to pass along their views.

Posted by

Sorry for barging in uninvited - terrible manners, I know, but some basic chronology here is urgently needed.

Saddam's Ba'ath Party seized power in a coup in 1963, Saddam himself took over in 1968, and until the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, Iran and the USA had been allies. So it can't possibly be true to say that Saddam was put in power "in order to attack Iran".

Posted by

But wasn't the whole deal in the 80s to strengthen Saddam's hold on his power, to supply him with the weapons so he could "technically" keep Iran in check (but, meanwhile, America sold weapons too to Iran?)

Was there any reaction from America when Saddam's Ba'ath Party seized power?

Posted by

I found this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/walden/sad_about2.shtml) on a BBC site, which says the CIA were involved in the original coup in 1963 because the previous regime was pro-Soviet.

What you said about the 80s is essentially true, although the people who sold Iraq the most weapons were the Russians & the French (a total of $41 billion, against $5m by the US, according to page 22 of this (http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/mbmeXiraq122898.pdf) report for the Center for Strategic & International Studies).

Posted by

PS I now realise my original chronology was wrong - mea culpa - and it was in 1968 that the Ba'athists returned to power, but not until 1979 that Saddam assumed total control.

Posted by

no worries... :)

Posted by

You know, I've been wanting to read a good book that details the history of Iraq's connection to America. You wouldn't happen to know any?

:)

Posted by

The only book I've read at all on the subject of Iraq is Regime Change by Christopher Hitchens, but like everything written about Iraq recently it's very one-sided; it's a series of essays arguing the case for the war. Oh, I also read Allies by William Shawcross, which was mostly dull apart from some interesting stuff about Saddam's personal closeness to Jacques Chirac. But other than that I am pig-ignorant.

Posted by

I think a couple of books came out when the war was 1 month old... but, like you said, they seemed to be mostly one-sided. Perhaps it's just like everything else in history - we have to be slightly removed in years before we can look back objectively.

Posted by

idioticpoet.livejournal.com

Ssssshhhhhh. You're not supposed to reveal commonly known (and readily available) bits of historical info. You wouldn't want to rob the plebes of their time for watching survivor and other reality tv shows.

Posted by