BS: Proof that Bush lied

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 12:35 AM

"Osama used to work for Uncle Sam"

That's bass akwards. The US. under the Mr Peanut administration helped the Afghans defeat the Soviets [commies that LH roots for] that were trying to take over the country.

"As part of a Cold War strategy, in 1979 the United States government under President Jimmy Carter and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski began to covertly fund and train anti-government Mujahideen forces through the Pakistani secret service agency known as Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), who were derived from discontented Muslims in the country that opposed the official atheism of the Marxist regime. In order to bolster the local Communist forces, the Soviet Unionâ€"citing the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness that had been signed between the two countries â€"intervened on December 24, 1979. According to media and official government sources, between 110,000 to 150,000 Soviet troops, assisted by another 100,000 or so pro-communist Afghan troops, were present in Afghanistan. The Soviet occupation resulted in a mass exodus of over 5 million Afghans that moved into refugee camps in neighboring Pakistan, Iran and other countries. More than 3 million settled in Pakistan, over a million in Iran and many others in different countries of the world. Faced with mounting international pressure and the loss of over 15,000 Soviet soldiers as a result of Mujahideen opposition forces trained by the United States, Pakistan, and other foreign governments, the Soviets withdrew ten years later, in 1989."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 02:41 AM

Dickey -

The Mujahideen in Afghanistan were trained by the U.S. and financed by Osama. It was the Mujahideen who drove the Soviets from Afghanistan in 1989.

Are you saying it is Uncle Sam who works for Osama?

I hope not but anything is possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 08:51 AM

The inverse of "Osama used to work for Uncle Sam"
is "Uncle Sam used to work for Osama"

How did you interpret my statement into
"it is Uncle Sam who works for Osama"?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 08:58 AM

WTF?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 09:39 AM

RE: the ongoing BuShite mendacity campaign now focusing on Iran-

How's that old saying go again? Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice......

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 09:51 AM

Flawed as it was, the Russian backed regime was a far better one than any that have succeeded it. Women in particular had far more freedom and influence, and drug production was much lower.

USA intervention helped create a monster that virtually destroyed Afghanistan and has gone on to bring about the current nightmare that faces us.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 05:53 PM

Dickey - Please explain what you mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey - PM
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 12:35 AM

"Osama used to work for Uncle Sam"

That's bass akwards.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 09:23 PM

Teribus--

Gee, I was holding back, waiting for you to reply to Capt. Ginger's queries. Looks like it may be a while.



So I suppose I may as well respond to your posting to me.

Well, it appears I've struck a nerve. As the Pope would say, I'm so sorry you were offended.

I'm especially sorry for having said "You never expect to have your leaders justify their positions. They know more than you. And you know your place."

Thank you for your reply: "It depends on the leader and on the situation". Perhaps you can explain why the Iraq war doesn't make the cut of issues on which you expect your leaders to justify their positions. If you don't expect them to do so in a matter of life and death, exactly when do you expect them to do so? Inquiring minds want to know.

I think I'm starting to understand your view. It's only in a matter of life and death that you know your place--you know your leaders don't want or expect any second-guessing from you---after all you're a mere citizen. So, obligingly, you decline to do any research to try to divine if your leaders are correct. Or do you perhaps accept what you read in the Sun--that's good enough for you?

In this regard, I, like Capt. Ginger, was hoping for your answer on the "45 minutes from doom" idea. But we'll just keep waiting.



So, the words used to describe the threat by Saddam were "current and serious". Wow, I'm impressed. Not only that, I'm IMPRESSED (just to make it easier for you to identify with).

1) "current" but not "imminent". That makes it all better. But the attack by Bush, supported by Blair, turned out to be "imminent". Wonder how that happened.

2) Clinton did it. Sorry, this is a rather tired excuse. Can't you try a little harder? Your fans expect better. Uh, who was it who invaded Iraq with "shock and awe"? Clinton?

3) "Going on the information at the time". And why do you suppose "the information at the time" supported the invasion? Could it be that Bush made it blazingly clear that he only wanted evidence that supported his planned invasion? Nah, not a chance.



And it sure is puzzling that many people, including many Mudcatters, with far fewer sources of information than Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, were able to tell clearly that the case for war had not been made.

But somehow you were not able to see that the case had not been made. Another mystery. Wonder if we'll ever know why.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 10:44 PM

The person that claimed "Osama used to work for Uncle Sam" has it backwards.

Uncle Sam (Carter Administration) assisted OBL and the Mujahideen repell the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 12:29 AM

Dickey -

Yes, I would agree that Uncle Sam, Osama and the Mujahideen expelled the anti clerical Russians from Afghanistan.

The U.S. thought they were using Osama but in fact, Osama was using the U.S.

The U.S. continues to play into the hands of Osama. He couldn't get rid of Saddam to make way for the clerics so he devised a plan to get the U.S. to do it for him. Now Iran is poised to take over where the U.S. leaves off. Osama is laughing.

Thats one way of looking at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: 282RA
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 12:44 AM

Bush is still convincing himself that his lies are fact. Now he is saying that he is certain that Iran is arming Iraq. How likely is this to be true? Very unlikely.

The explosives were looted from ammo dumps just days after the invasion while American soldiers watched helplessly. Barrels of powerful explosives had been loaded onto pickups and stolen. As for the knowledge of how to build armor-piercing bombs, you can find that info anywhere. Hell, I designed my own bombs after reading the Anarchist's Cookbook when I was still in my teens. I never built them, I just wanted to see what I could design on my own. And if I could get hold of that kind of information at 15, certainly Islamic guerilla cells can get info on armor-piercing IEDs anywhere. I don't see that they would be dependent on Iran for this info. I really doubt they're that stupid and unresourceful.

Bush is trying to create a new enemy over there to deflect the heat he's feeling but he's really merely putting the finishing touches on the grave he began digging for himself starting in March of 2003.

Iran is certainly not arming the Sunnis whom they hate. They passionately loathed Saddam. So Iran is arming the Shiites. And if I ran is responsible for most the deaths of Americans in Iraq then the worst enemy Americans have there are the Shia. Now, didn't Bush put intentionally put the Shia in power? Doesn't that mean he should never have invaded Iraq? Doesn't it mean Both Sunni and Shiite are killing Americans and that we therefore better get the fuck outta there?

But if it's still true that the majority of American deaths come at the hands of the Sunnis, then Iran's contribution is not significant and Bush's threat assessment not credible. Nobody's falling for it either. He's not believable.

But why would the Shia want to kill us when we put them in power? That's really the toughest question to answer if it is true that Iran is arming and abetting the Shiite insurgents. Apparently Bush doesn't understand he can't win anything this way.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 01:19 AM

The radical Sunnis hate the Shiites and the radical Shiites hate the Sunnis but they both hate the U.S. even more.

Thats why the U.S. has no business there.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 08:39 AM

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Now just which old culture came up with that one?

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 09:28 AM

"He couldn't get rid of Saddam"

How did UBL try to get rid of Saddam?

If anybody used the US to get rid of Saddam, it was Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 10:10 AM

"If anybody used the US to get rid of Saddam, it was Iran."

Dead right Dickey.

Uncle Sam worked for the Mullahs.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 02:19 PM

How about "Uncle Sam and Osama Bin Laden were colleagues"; and of course the same was true for Uncle Sam and Uncle Saddam before and during the war upon Iran. Though maybe "blood brothers" might be a better term for the relationship.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 05:37 PM

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: kendall
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 09:46 PM

Ok, so the original question has not been answered. No smoking gun, just some evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 10:56 PM

But Kendall, you know that's how propaganda works. Insinuation, selective information, juxtaposition. Not likely there'd be obvious lies. And in propaganda, lies aren't necessary to achieve your desired result.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 04:18 AM

McGrath of Harlow, your post of 16 Feb 07 - 02:19 PM. Have you got any facts at all that back up this preposterous statement:

"...and of course the same was true for Uncle Sam and Uncle Saddam before and during the war upon Iran. Though maybe "blood brothers" might be a better term for the relationship."

Perhaps you can provide a list of those who held the post of US Ambassador to Iraq in the years 1967 to 1985 (By the bye Kevin, Saddam came to power in Iraq in 1979).

Face it Kevin, what you are producing is just another example of a popular left-wing, anti-war, anti-Bush myth/lie/misrepresentation.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Cod Fiddler
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 06:36 AM

"God" told Bush to invade Iraq. If the WMDs existed "God" would have told him where to find them. Ergo, they don't exist.

"God" has "told" so many despots and lunatics what to do throughout history, causing so much misery. Not least al-Qaeda today. Doesn't this make Bush as extreme as them?

Religion is a great thing, but in the wrong hands it's a disaster. People will always exploit it and interpret it to suit their agenda. Wouldn't we all be better off without it?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 07:22 AM

If you answer 'yes' - then you have confirmed that you are a heretic and must be destroyed 'for your own good' - something which has been espoused by fundamentalists of both Islam and Christianity...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 07:25 AM

God preserve me from Religious Fanatics....

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: kendall
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 07:37 AM

If I could do away with one thing, it would be organized religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 08:13 AM

Propaganda is a useful tool for organizations like ANSWER, an offshoot of the communist WWP and PSL. RD is particularly suceptable to this sort of brainwashing.

These socialist organizations tout freedom and human rights when in truth socialisim leads to less freedom and human rights.

They defend dictators like Saddam and Milosevic.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Cod Fiddler
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 08:17 AM

I'm glad some of you agree. May I recommend "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. It has probbly been banned in some states of the USA, but it really is enlightning. A great book that blows fundamentalists of all types away.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 10:19 AM

NYT Review of the God Delusion Banned nowhere.

"...What Dawkins brings to this approach is a couple of fresh arguments — no mean achievement, considering how thoroughly these issues have been debated over the centuries — and a great deal of passion. The book fairly crackles with brio. Yet reading it can feel a little like watching a Michael Moore movie. There is lots of good, hard-hitting stuff about the imbecilities of religious fanatics and frauds of all stripes, but the tone is smug and the logic occasionally sloppy. Dawkins fans accustomed to his elegant prose might be surprised to come across such vulgarisms as "sucking up to God" and "Nur Nurny Nur Nur" (here the author, in a dubious polemical ploy, is imagining his theological adversary as a snotty playground brat). It's all in good fun when Dawkins mocks a buffoon like Pat Robertson and fundamentalist pastors like the one who created "Hell Houses" to frighten sin-prone children at Halloween. But it is less edifying when he questions the sincerity of serious thinkers who disagree with him, like the late Stephen Jay Gould, or insinuates that recipients of the million-dollar-plus Templeton Prize, awarded for work reconciling science and spirituality, are intellectually dishonest (and presumably venal to boot). In a particularly low blow, he accuses Richard Swinburne, a philosopher of religion and science at Oxford, of attempting to "justify the Holocaust," when Swinburne was struggling to square such monumental evils with the existence of a loving God. Perhaps all is fair in consciousness-raising. But Dawkins's avowed hostility can make for scattershot reasoning as well as for rhetorical excess. Moreover, in training his Darwinian guns on religion, he risks destroying a larger target than he intends..."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Cod Fiddler
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 11:24 AM

I agree with that too. The tone is smug and sloppy and it is certainly not a particularly philosohpical work. However, "there is lots of good, hard-hitting stuff about the imbecilities of religious fanatics and frauds of all stripes", which is just what we need.

His sloppy tone is directed entirely at the sloppy insults levelled at him by people who have been the snotty playground brat for decades. Its about time they are put in their place.

Here is a typical "spoiled playground brat" ranting at the creators of the magnifcent Flying Spaghetti Monster:

"You Atheists are so arrogant. Don't you ever consider that you're wrong about this whole 'There's no god and 90% of the world's population are just dumber than us.' thing, and admit you havn't even considered christianity to be what it is, the truth? Don't you realize why everyone hates you? Beecuase you're ignorant+arrogant, not a nice combo.Oh well….you'll have your time to pay. Unfortunately it lasts an eternity and consists of a lake of fire, a guy in red with a pitchfork, and a few pineapples (Don't act like you don't know what they are for).

As for me, i'll be chillin with Jesus. Have fun for the rest of your godless, pointless lives…cuz that's the last bit of joy you'll ever have."

How do you get through to someone like this? Philosphy doesn't work. Can't blame him for being smug when dealing with such loonies. Shouldn't people question their beliefs? Religious indoctrination is no better than Socialist, Nazi or any other sort of indoctrination.

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about Bush? Where's a sniper when you need one? Sadly, Bush wouldn't be seen anywhere near a Book Depository...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 01:17 PM

I'm agree Kendall! Let's orginize! HeHeHe

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 01:22 PM

And now we have the same phenomenon, from the other side. Like Bushites tar anybody who disagrees with them with the brush of lack of patriotism, the critics of fundamentalism seem to delight in lumping all religious people in with a few crackpots of the Falwell stripe.

Doesn't anybody believe in shades of gray around here?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 02:23 PM

True enough there wasn't any US embassy in Baghdad from 67 to 84. But that didn't mean there wasn't any contact more, especially with the war of aggression waged by Iraq against its neighbour in 1980.

I wrote about involvement "before and during the war upon Iran" - and "before" was incorrect, so far as government contact was concerned. Though I do have some doubts about whether Saddam would have risked this attack without some assurances about how the USA would view it.

However during most of the war American support for the aggressors was very significant indeed. It was very clear that an Iranian victory would not be accepted by America as an outcome to the war.

The eventual ceasefire happened in the wake of the episode where USS Vincennes shot down a civilian Iranian airliner, killing all 290 people abroad, which must have helped to get that message across to the Iranian leaders. (And I'm not assuming this was a deliberate act of policy aimed at achieving this effect - but it must have looked like that from Tehran, whatever the actual explanation might have been.)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 02:49 PM

RD certainly does not believe in shades of gray when he accuses Bush of running a propaganda campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 03:22 PM

Dickey - You seem to think that anyone who believes in fundamental human rights is a Commie, a Socialist or a Left Wing radical.   

Does this mean that you think human rights should only apply to a select few or do you apply it only certain groups of people?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 04:01 PM

In Bush's case it is because so many of the shades of gray fall near the black end of the spectrum, Dickey. Distinctions grow difficult when swamped by a morass of mindless identifications, garrulous rhetoric full of wild generalities and a disregard for the provenance of information and its quality.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 09:15 PM

"Doesn't anybody believe in shades of gray around here? "

"Fundalmentalists", by definition, can't...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,ETR
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 09:34 PM

dianavan writ:"Dickey - You seem to think that anyone who believes in fundamental human rights is a Commie, a Socialist or a Left Wing radical.   

Does this mean that you think human rights should only apply to a select few or do you apply it only certain groups of people?"

Trying hard to type while laughing- when did Commies, Socialists, or Left Wing radicals ever give more than lip service to human rights?

10 million dead Russian peasants would like to know the answer to that one.
Ditto at least a million Cambodians
Ditto a rather numerous number of dead Chinese
Ditto a starved million of N. Koreans
Not to mention the nation of Burma/ Myanmar.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 09:49 PM

You should read a good book by a very successful career capitalist: "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins

In it you will find much that will surprise you.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 12:44 AM

Dianavan:

I don't know how you draw that conclusion. You claim you support human rights but you support Iran, Hezbollah etc. who do not suppport human rights, only terorisim.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Sorcha
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 12:55 AM

I'm so glad I'm not involved in this conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 01:42 AM

LH: Have you read Perkins' books on time travel, headshrinkers, shapeshifting and Shamanisim?

Psychonavigation: Techniques for Travel Beyond Time.

Shapeshifting: Shamanic Techniques for Global and Personal Transformation.

The Spirit of the Shuar (headshrinkers and not the medical type)

And here is the real apex of them all:
The World Is As You Dream It: "shamanistic techniques from the Amazon and Andes."

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 02:12 AM

Dickey - I do not support Iran or Hezbollah any more than I support the U.S.A.

I support the people of the Middle East and their right to control their resources.   

The govt. of the U.S. has no right to impoverish the people of the Middle East by waging war and stealing their resources. If the people of the Middle East think that Hezbollah, etc. can protect them from the aggression of the United States and Israel, I do not blame them.   

For the people of the Middle East they have only two choices - Fight or flight. What would you do?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 07:46 AM

"For the people of the Middle East they have only two choices - Fight or flight. What would you do? "

So, YOU admit that Israel is justified in fighting the terrorists that have the declared intention of its destruction? Like Hamas?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 09:05 AM

"For the people of the Middle East they have only two choices - Fight or flight. What would you do? "

'So, YOU admit that Lebannon, West Bank, etc is justified in fighting the terrorists that have the declared intention of its destruction? Like Israel?'

Hey, this is a Music Forum, remember?

"Here we go round the Mulberry Bush,
the Mulberry Bush,
the Mulberry Bush,
Here we go round the Mulberry Bush,
Mudcat Mass Debating again!"

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 11:44 AM

Inky pinky ponky
Daddy had a donkey
Donkey died,
Daddy cried,
Inky pinky ponky.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 01:53 PM

>>"For the people of the Middle East they have only two choices - Fight or flight. What would you do? "

So, YOU admit that Israel is justified in fighting the terrorists that have the declared intention of its destruction? Like Hamas?<<

I can't spoke for her but for me, yes, I admit it freely. Israel has that right. When has that ever been under dispute? What I'm saying is that the United States has no business aiding them. Isreal can act as brutally and childishly as they want to but the U.S. has no right to aid them in it. If they cannot survive on their own, they don't deerve to. Survival of the fittest.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 03:11 PM

Fundamentalists, true, don't see shades of gray. But the problem is that not all religious people are fundamentalists---yet around here the assumption frequently is that they are. Hence the rather intemperate characterizations of "organized religion" often seen here.

And, Dickey, the fact is that Bush did carry out a propaganda campaign between summer 2002 and March 2003. There is no doubt about that--and you have provided absolutely no clear evidence against it--despite wasting a lot of time trying to do so.   TIA, Captain Ginger, and I (among others) have provided many clear examples of that campaign.    In that, there are no shades of gray.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 06:56 PM

"Bush did carry out a propaganda campaign between summer 2002 and March 2003"

Once someone has done that, and been exposed, they are trusted less.

Mr Mulberry (George!) cried 'Wolf!' over Iraq - why would I believe him (and all his past vocal supporters!) about Iran - or anywhere else?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 09:25 AM

Dianavan,

Do YOU agree with

" GUEST,282RA - PM
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 01:53 PM

>>"For the people of the Middle East they have only two choices - Fight or flight. What would you do? "

So, YOU admit that Israel is justified in fighting the terrorists that have the declared intention of its destruction? Like Hamas?<<

I can't spoke for her but for me, yes, I admit it freely. Israel has that right. When has that ever been under dispute? What I'm saying is that the United States has no business aiding them. Isreal can act as brutally and childishly as they want to but the U.S. has no right to aid them in it. If they cannot survive on their own, they don't deerve to. Survival of the fittest. "?



282RA,

So you would also object to Iran helping the Palestinians? Or is that a different case?

How about the Syrians helping Hezbollah?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 09:31 AM

"If they cannot survive on their own, they don't deerve to. Survival of the fittest. "?



And how about Iran helping Iraq? Wouldn't this apply to the Iraqi insurgents?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:03 PM

>>282RA,

So you would also object to Iran helping the Palestinians? Or is that a different case?

How about the Syrians helping Hezbollah?<<

I have no problem with that whatsoever but I would have HUGE problems with the U.S. helping them.