Quantum Kush 38% THC?

Pass it Around

Well-Known Member
Damn, I'm lucky as of now to have had good neighbors. From previous experience, bad neighbors really suck. You have to document, document and document some more. Plus you have to keep your nose clean.... but goes without saying what kind of board this is. Anyone with bad neighbors, you have my sympathy. They suck but there is a way to deal with it appropriately and correctly.
I let the city handle my neighbors. They have a bear box and keep their trash in it all through the week. The only problem we have here is that the bear box is broken and they don't seem to fix it. So now we have garbage everywhere down the street all over our yard and what not. This has been happening for almost a year and finally the city is fining them. I never once picked up the phone but I kind of wish I did as it really makes the neighborhood trashy. They are also fuckin nosy.
 

TonightYou

Well-Known Member
Worse I have had to deal with is noise, and really it's rare. I know my neighbors upstairs so I don't feel bad if her son had his damn video games connected to a sub woofer having to whack the ceiling if it's too late.
 

Amos Otis

Well-Known Member
Tell me that's not an actual scenario that you were in?

My move? There would likely be a physical altercation.
Because diplomacy had failed, and you'd determined his threat was imminent and real, and you saw no one else taking action to keep your family safe - am I right?

In your 5 choices of how to deal w/ ISIS, I think opinions would likely reflect the person's ability to personalize the danger. Personally, I'll go with the Blue Oyster Cult line - it is, after all, a death match.

As to the scenario, until I landed on the Ponderosa here, I'd never lived anywhere where there wasn't at least one POS causing problems in the neighborhood. The longer you wait to deal with it, the more you empower them to influence your life.
 

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
The U S provided chemical weapons? Sorry, you'll have to cite some proof on that claim.
Really? Because I thought it was common knowledge. It should be common knowledge.

Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons'
By WILLIAM LOWTHER, Daily Mail

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons, it was revealed last night.

As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran.

The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.

They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.

The extraordinary details have come to light because thousands of State Department documents dealing with the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have just been declassified and released under the Freedom of Information Act.

At the very least, it is highly embarrassing for 70-year-old Mr Rumsfeld, who is the most powerful and vocal of all the hawks surrounding President Bush.

He bitterly condemns Saddam as a ruthless and brutal monster and frequently backs up his words by citing the use of the very weapons which it now appears he helped to supply.

The question is: Why has he never said anything about his role in the negotiations?

'Donald Rumsfeld has some explaining to do,' a senior Pentagon official said last night, while Congressional sources said that a Senate Committee was considering opening hearings to investigate exactly what happened.

The documents could hardly have been released at a worse time for Mr Rumsfeld, who is building up troops in the Gulf in preparation for a war with Iraq that is generally expected to start in about a month.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html#ixzz3AzgO2CzN
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Investigation
Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran
The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.

The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned.

In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.

U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.

"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy.

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

In contrast to today's wrenching debate over whether the United States should intervene to stop alleged chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government, the United States applied a cold calculus three decades ago to Hussein's widespread use of chemical weapons against his enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.
 

Amos Otis

Well-Known Member
Really? Because I thought it was common knowledge. It should be common knowledge.
UFOs are common knowledge among those who buy and read those sort of publications.

"Rumsfeld wrote in his memoir Known and Unknown that his meeting with Hussein "has been the subject of gossip, rumors, and crackpot conspiracy theories for more than a quarter of a century."

I didn't see where the 2nd article came from, and have never heard of the Daily Mail. Perhaps I should have asked you cite credible sources.
 

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
Foreign Policy isn't credible?

Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline,that the "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war

This is a well established part of history. Perhaps you should educate yourself about the specifics of situations before forming strong opinions on them, especially when your opinion is one that results in people ending up dead.
 

Amos Otis

Well-Known Member
Perhaps you should educate yourself about the specifics of situations before forming strong opinions on them, especially when your opinion is one that results in people ending up dead.

I didn't say you were wrong - I asked you to cite proof of your claim, and you ultimately did, so why the drama?

Also, my opinion has never resulted in "people ending up dead", though you can be assured, I'd love to have that power.
 

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
I didn't say you were wrong - I asked you to cite proof of your claim, and you ultimately did, so why the drama?

Also, my opinion has never resulted in "people ending up dead", though you can be assured, I'd love to have that power.
You're defending the Iraq war aren't you? What drama? Sorry if calling you on your position is drama. I don't mince words or pussy foot around.
 

Amos Otis

Well-Known Member
You're defending the Iraq war aren't you?
No. I was asked if I supported the Iraq War, and I said it depended on if the stated reason - WMDs - was valid or not. Here's the quote:

"I think the correctness for invading Iraq has to be viewed by whether the reason given - WMDs - was manufactured or legit. ."

Pretty clear, no?
 

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
No. I was asked if I supported the Iraq War, and I said it depended on if the stated reason - WMDs - was valid or not. Here's the quote:

"I think the correctness for invading Iraq has to be viewed by whether the reason given - WMDs - was manufactured or legit. ."

Pretty clear, no?
Well, either way you appear to support a hawkish policy. The US stirs up so much of the shit that goes on - deliberately providing terrorist extremists with arms and funds to do what they do. Bombing innocent people so these same organizations can get recruits - so they can further justify more bombing after said groups do something shocking. It's a disgusting vicious circle and it's policy.
 

Pass it Around

Well-Known Member
Well, either way you appear to support a hawkish policy. The US stirs up so much of the shit that goes on - deliberately providing terrorist extremists with arms and funds to do what they do. Bombing innocent people so these same organizations can get recruits - so they can further justify more bombing after said groups do something shocking. It's a disgusting vicious circle and it's policy.


holy shit son, they have some points... anyone a biology major?
 

Amos Otis

Well-Known Member
Well, either way you appear to support a hawkish policy. The US stirs up so much of the shit that goes on - deliberately providing terrorist extremists with arms and funds to do what they do. Bombing innocent people so these same organizations can get recruits - so they can further justify more bombing after said groups do something shocking. It's a disgusting vicious circle and it's policy.
If you've followed the discussion closesly as I think you have, you'll recall that my 'desired' position all along has been Patrick J Buchanan's. No foreign entanglements. As stOw noted, even the small size, comparitively, of today's military, along with it's technology and weaponry, could assure us an impenetrable border and air space, with the naval forces guarding the shores. Unfortunately, it didn't happen, and will never happen.

My view on the rest, essentially is - as I've also posted in this thread - that there is a real and imminent threat against humanity, and they've stated that their ultimate aim is taking down the 'free' world'- specifically, the U.S. It's in progress. So.....seriously. Isn't it time to move past finger pointing? If, as you seem to think, that past actions and policies have brought this on ourself, then would you suggest that we simply accept our fate and roll over?

While citizens - the one's who follow world events - and Congress waste day after day in going after each other, jihadists could care less, and win another day's advancement to their goal. Their aim to kill is all-inclusive.

If you'd like me to say that I believe that a large portion of people that are in and run our gov't are the ultimate reason for the fall of this country, I'll agree with you all day long and twice on Sundays.
 

TonightYou

Well-Known Member
Pat Buchanan is an interesting character. I find I do think stance on being anti-war being a positive attribute.

Buchanan's ideology is essentially conservative Republican. He may no longer be a Republican (reformist) but by all accounts is one based on his own writings and stances. Issues I take up with him are:
Anti abortion- for all the lip service on anti big government, he sees no problem infringing personal autonomy.
Immigration - against it. Too deep to get into but immigration is the foundation of this country and when done responsibly is a net positive for a nation.
Fiscal policy - sadly is the failed and debunked trickle down economics.
Against evolution- sorry pick up a text book and learn, faith and evolution are not incompatible. I find it to be a defense mechanism to the perceived threat of attack on core beliefs. Evolution is brilliantly fitting of the scientific model. If someone could disprove it, they'd win a Nobel prize and new science would come forth.
Religious prayer in school - sorry what point of separation of church and state is lost on him?

But I will say as I love this quote of his and find it very fitting:

"Every true nation is the creation of a unique people. Americans are a people apart from all others, with far more in common than political beliefs"

I truly believe he summed that up nicely as much as I disagree with most of his positions. And Amos, don't take this as an attack, it's not meant to be. Just simply pointing out why I take issue with many of his positions.
 

natro.hydro

Well-Known Member
TY, the above reasons you list are a lot of the reason I voted for obama in 2012. Romney being a staunch mormon and that having a direct impact on his decision making scared the shit out of me

Im very pro-choice, that doesnt mean I want everyone out getting abortions, thats just not responsible. But give the whole what if jesus was aborted line a break, WHAT IF HITLER WAS ABORTED?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Rollitup mobile app
 

TonightYou

Well-Known Member
TY, the above reasons you list are a lot of the reason I voted for obama in 2012. Romney being a staunch mormon and that having a direct impact on his decision making scared the shit out of me

Im very pro-choice, that doesnt mean I want everyone out getting abortions, thats just not responsible. But give the whole what if jesus was aborted line a break, WHAT IF HITLER WAS ABORTED?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Rollitup mobile app
See I never understood why anti choice folks can't grasp that just because people support the right to abortion, doesn't mean we want abortions all day everyday like it's a picnic. It's almost like they haven't met someone who's had one, hint they probably do and just don't know it based on statistics. In addition, abortions would be lowered if proper see education was taught in schools as well as providing programs that help people who are resource strapped to raise a child. The newest numbers say raising a child to 18 will cost, without college, a quarter of a million dollars. No easy feat when you are poor and single. At the end of the day though, it's not your body, you should have no rights over another's
 
Top